Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 2/25/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think we have been through this before actually. > Thanks for being patient, sometimes I just like to argue :0 Can you point to any aspect of the world which can't be simulated no matter > how powerful the computer? > > MP: For us mortals, thi

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mark Peaty wrote: > Brent: ' > the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole complicated universe, > only the part we can investigate and understand' > > MP: as I argued in my response to Stathis, the 'part we can investigate > and understand' can be ever expanding and the exactitude of our

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Brent: ' the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and understand' MP: as I argued in my response to Stathis, the 'part we can investigate and understand' can be ever expanding and the exactitude of our understanding can in time rea

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/25/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: > > > Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or > tangential. > > Several posts back you spoke of positivis

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/25/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [SP, in response to Tom Caylor]: > > Sorry if I have misunderstood, and if I have been unclear or tangential. > > Several posts back you spoke of positivism being deficient because "a > > closed system which is supposedly totally explainable wil

Re: The Meaning of Life

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/24/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute

On 2/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in > accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined > by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences > of Destiny, it may be suffic

Re: The Meaning of Life

On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually > > > don't believe in it either. The probl

Re: Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in > accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined > by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences > of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory

Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evi

Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory remarks to demonstrate how impor

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

John Mikes wrote: > This has been a long discussion between Jason and Mark. How do I get > into it is > by Mark's remark: > "I don't think I go anywhere as far as John M. in this but then maybe that > is just because I fear to let go of my sceptical reductionist walking > stick. " > --Stop half-

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

This has been a long discussion between Jason and Mark. How do I get into it is by Mark's remark: "I don't think I go anywhere as far as John M. in this but then maybe that is just because I fear to let go of my sceptical reductionist walking stick. " --Stop half-way: when the guy received $10,000

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mark Peaty wrote: > This is yet another delayed response; the story of my life really ... > > Jason: "By physically reversible I don't mean we as humans can undo > anything > that happens, rather physical interactions are time-invertible. If you > were shown a recording of any physical interact

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

I think we have been through this before actually. Can you point to any aspect of the world which can't be simulated no matter how powerful the computer? MP: For us mortals, this universe is in many respects infinite. If 'someone' IS running it within a 'computer' then they have to be running

Re: The Meaning of Life

Thank you, guys, for 2 parts in this post I cherrish most. (I was questioning the endless back-and-forth of these 'bickercussions', but from time to time there is a part that justifies the frustration of reading so much) * I leave the part from Stathis' text which I want to copy to another list

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Mark Peaty wrote: > >This is yet another delayed response; the story of my life really ... > >Jason: "By physically reversible I don't mean we as humans can undo >anything >that happens, rather physical interactions are time-invertible. If you >were shown a recording of any physical interaction

Re: The Meaning of Life

I suppose it depends on what is covered by the term "metaphysics". Theists sometimes profess absolute certainty in the face of absolute lack of evidence, and are proud of it. I wouldn't lump this in together with the interpretation of quantum mechanics (I'm sure you wouldn't either, but I thought I

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 2/24/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason: "Quantum mechanics makes the universe seem random and uncomputable to > > those inside it, but according to the many-worlds interpretation the > universe evolves deterministically. It is only the observers within > the quantum mechanical un

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

This is yet another delayed response; the story of my life really ... Jason: "By physically reversible I don't mean we as humans can undo anything that happens, rather physical interactions are time-invertible. If you were shown a recording of any physical interaction on a small scale, an elasti