Saying that X or Y "could" be evidence of a simulation is silly. Why would X be more likely to be evidence of a simulation than ~X? Seeing as how anyone who could design anything so sophisticated could easily pick either for most Xs, and since we know nothing about their motivations, we're rather stuck, with no evidence for either side. I think that at this point we can simply use Occam's Razor and drop the whole "simulation hypothesis", since it produces no testable predictions that are different from the "real hypothesis" and includes an extra term.
- Tom --- John Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And BTW I agree that we cannot prove or disprove > that the universe is a > > simulation. > > Proving that it is not a simulation might not be > possible as the simulation > detection ability could move out of reach of our > science and technology > event horizon (though maybe within reach of our > paranormal horizon). > Proving that it is a simulation, why not? It > depends on the quality of the > simulation. Perhaps it has already been indicated > mathematically (tachyons > perhaps?) Sometimes I think the simulation is using > light as the "bus" or > fabric. Getting around this bus could be getting > outside of the > simulation... > > John > > > > > > ----- > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: > http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983 > ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983
