are we in a simulation?

The argument that many-worlds theory implies that we are 'almost certainly' in a computer simulation has been put forward by many people, and there are many similarly themed arguments used to suggest that many-worlds theory is 'obviously not true'; most of these arguments contain well h

Re: are we in a simulation?

Title: Re: are we in a simulation? I agree, by definition no one can cap many-worlds theory with a “god” somewhere up the ladder without some new extra-dimensional (space*time) theory (unless, does level IV allow this?) A pseudo-many-worlds multiverse can however have a “god” if it is of the

Re: are we in a simulation?

We exist in an infinite number of simulations. Any arbitrary number of simulations  less than infinity would require a reason. We are led to this conclusion by assuming a TOE which by definition has no a-priori reason. (This is the philosophical rationale for postulating the plenitude) Discre

Re: are we in a simulation?

    George Levy wrote: >Everytime a "measurement" is made, the set of worlds spanned >by this consciousness is defined more narrowly, but the >number in the set remains infinite.  In addition, each >simulation in the set need not belong to the same "level.">We're faced with the strange poss

Re: are we in a simulation?

John Collins wrote:     George Levy wrote: >Everytime a "measurement" is made, the set of worlds spanned >by this consciousness is defined more narrowly, but the >number in the set remains infinite.  In addition, each >simulation in the set need not belong to t

Re: are we in a simulation?

George Levy writes: > > > Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to ignore that, aren't I? I guess you had some neat graphics in your message that made all that HTML necessary, along with requiring two copies of the text. Unfortunately for me, I didn't see the special effects, since I am using a text-based

Re: Are we in a simulation

My corollaries to: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 1. Any sufficiently detailed and correct reality simulation is indistinguishable from reality. 2. Any artificial consciousness which communicates in all circumstances within the range of communication beh

Re: are we in a simulation?

Sorry about the graphics... There were'nt any except some italics I think. I'll send this one in plain text.. tell me how it goes. Hal Finney wrote: George Levy writes: Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to ignore that, aren't I? I guess you had some neat graphics in your mess

Re: are we in a simulation?

Dear Friends,       Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.) and computational "power" requirements factor into the idea of simulated worlds?   Kindest regards,   Stephen  

Re: are we in a simulation?

Stephen Paul King wrote: >Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.) >and computational "power" requirements factor into the idea >of simulated worlds?    Yes, I think that's a point I was trying to get accross in my previous post under this heading: That although in a cert

Re: are we in a simulation?

Hi Stephen, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Friends, Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.) and computational "power" requirements factor into the idea of simulated worlds? It may. Also important is the issue that Tegmark raised in the Scientific American artic

Re: are we in a simulation?

Dear George, Interleaving. - Original Message - From: "George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Everything List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:58 PM Subject: Re: are we in a simulation? > Hi Stephen, > > > &

Re: are we in a simulation?

HI Stephen Stephen Paul King wrote: Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.) and computational "power" requirements factor into the idea of simulated worlds? It may. Also important is the issue that Tegmark raised in the Scientific American article about the orderin

Re: are we in a simulation?

Dear George, Interleaving, - Original Message - From: "George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Everything List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:21 PM Subject: Re: are we in a simulation? > HI Stephen > > Stephen Paul King w

Re: are we in a simulation?

Stephen Paul King wrote: [SPK] Oh, ok. I have my own version of the anthropic principle: The content of a first person "reality" of an observer is the minimum that is necessary and sufficient for the existence of that observer. I am trying to include observer selection ideas in my defin

Re: are we in a simulation?

Dear Eric, - Original Message - From: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 3:02 AM Subject: Re: are we in a simulation? > Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > > >[SPK] &

Re: are we in a simulation?

Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear George, Interleaving, - Original Message - From: "George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Everything List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:21 PM Subject: Re: are we in a simulation? HI Stephe