> Certainly that's required to justify this insanely computationally wasteful
> universe we live in as a simulation. I would class infinite calculations as
How do you know it's computationally wasteful? How do you know there's stuff
there when you're not looking?
Remind me, where did your imprinting of "expensive "come from? From your
past life? Which you were living, where? *Do* you think that's air you're
I'm ready to believe in a simulated universe, in a digital physics sense (while
we were speaking computationally wasteful, this is about as insane as it gets).
However, a TOE is just a description. It says nothing about the implementation
layer. The implementation layer is purely transcendental, unknowable. It is only
accessible, if it is meant to be accessible, which requires achitect's intent.
Occam sez: I will cut you. We're not a simulation.
> magic physics. I can't disprove it any more than I can disprove an abstract
> Deity concept but it's got about the same level of evidence.
Assuming we're a simulation without evidence is ridiculous, but if we're
being patently ridiculous, let's at least do it in style. No need to impose
ad hoc constraints.
> Yeah, some people on this thread were proposing future SI's would sim us.
I don't think they would be able to afford to (if they still bow to Darwin),
even if some of them were motivated, for whatever perverse reasons. Assuming
that our universe is their universe, of course. Hey say, that's a lot of
assumptions. Whizz, there goes that razor.
> Not by us, certainly. The argument that we should consider ourselves
> simulations since there will be umpteen futures sims doesn't hold water
> if ditching heisenburg is required. And, of course, Heisenburg appears
I don't think the argument does hold water, but not for the reasons
> very much unditched in our universe.
What direct sensoric evidence do you have right now that the Heisenberg
inequality is for real?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:41 MDT