Apart from all this philosophy (non-ending as it seems), Table 1. of the paper referred to at the start of this thread gives several consequences of a simulation that offer to explain what's behind current physical observations such as the upper speed limit of light, relativistic and quantum effects etc. Without worrying about whether we are a simulation of a sinmulation of a simulation etc, it would be interesting to work out all the qualitative/quantitative (?) implications of the idea and see if observations strongly or weakly support it. If the only thing we can do with the idea is discuss phiosophy then the idea is useless.
Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matt Mahoney wrote: > --- "John G. Rose" wrote: > >> In a sim world there are many variables that can overcome other motivators >> so a change in the rate of gene proliferation would be difficult to predict. >> The agents that correctly believe that it is a simulation could say OK this >> is all fake, I'm going for pure pleasure with total disregard for anything >> else. But still too many variables to predict. In humanity there have been >> times in the past where societies have given credence to simulation through >> religious beliefs and weighted more heavily on a disregard for other groups >> existence. A society would say that this is all fake, we all gotta die >> sometime anyway so we are going to take as much as we can from other tribes >> and decimate them for sport. Not saying this was always the reason for >> intertribal warfare but sometimes it was. >> > > The reason we have war is because the warlike tribes annihilated the peaceful > ones. Evolution favors a brain structure where young males are predisposed to > group loyalty (gangs or armies), and take an interest in competition and > weapons technology (e.g. the difference in the types of video games played by > boys and girls). It has nothing to do with belief in simulation. Cultures > that believed the world was simulated probably killed themselves, not others. > That is why we believe the world is real. > Simulation is a new word. In this context, let's use an old word. Maya. Have the Buddhist countries and societies gone away? And let's use an old word for "reality". Heaven. Have the Christian countries and societies gone away? Perhaps you need to rethink your suppositions. > >> But the problem is in the question of what really is a simulation? For the >> agents constrained, it doesn't matter they still have to live in it - feel >> pain, fight for food, get along with other agents... Moving an agent from >> one simulation to the next though, that gives it some sort of extra >> properties... >> > > It is unlikely that any knowledge you now have would be useful in another > simulation. Knowledge is only useful if it helps propagate your DNA. > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- > 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/?&; > > ----- 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/?&; ----- 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/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=85267781-e99d20
