O'Regan, Emlyn <Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au> Wrote:
>If bits of our universe are not simulated when we are not looking at them,
>then how is consistency maintained?
Make a few educated guesses about what's important and what's not, a butterfly in another galaxy is probably not. Most of the time this would work but when it doesn't and a observer encounters a paradox or obtains proof that things are not as they seem to be just stop the simulation, back it up a little and change things around until he's satisfied, then continue. No need to rush, feel free to take as much time as you want, the observer will never know the difference.
>If the universe is deterministic, then the heuristic must come up with the
>one and only possible state
Not so. Event A may always produce event B but event C,D, E and F may produce event B too. Even in a deterministic universe if you observe event B there is no way to know what event preceded it. History is a mystery and that gives the simulation maker lots of wiggle room.
>On a different tack: What is the motivation of this simulation?
Perhaps the universe is a video game. The next time I stick a metal fork into a toaster to get the bread out without unplugging it I won't blame myself, I'll blame the bastard who moved my joystick.
John K Clark firstname.lastname@example.org