Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like > being > > the one person in a million who has to win t

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like being > > the one person in a million who has to win the lottery, it is more like > > waking up to find that money has miraculously appeared in you

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is > > infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is > > zero or al

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is > > infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is > > zero or almost zero if you consider the Plenitude as God's big lucky > > dip, you have to be some

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 3/16/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and > other small > > numbers but no integers greater that sa

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Torgny Tholerus wrote: > >When it concerns mathematics, I have developped a set of integers that I >myself call "unnatural numbers". An unnatural number U is an integer >that is bigger than every natural number N. And the inverse of an >unnatural number (1/U) is more close to zero than any real

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

On 3/16/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small > > numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. almost all > > of them. A theory that just says "all integers exist" d

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

John M skrev: I looked at your paper, interesting. One question: what do you mean by "exist" (Notably: "does NOT exist)?   We think about it (no matter in how vague terms and weak understanding), we talk about it, our mind has a place in our thinking for that term, -

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Brent Meeker skrev: > Torgny Tholerus wrote: > >> I have written some more about infinity, in the paper attached (3 >> pages), called Infinity Does Not Exist. >> > Well it doesn't exist under the assumption that it doesn't exist. I actually > agree with you that it doesn't exist - though

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Stathis Papaioannou skrev: > Suppose the universe were infinite, as per Tegmark Level 1, Tegmarks argument does not require that the universe is infinite. It only requires that the universe is *very* big. So the universe can still be finite. If the universe is *enough* big it will contain ma