Re: How To Live In A Simulation

Date: Sun Mar 18 2001 - 12:10:41 MST

In a message dated 3/18/01 8:24:09 AM, writes:

> >Why 10^27 supercomputers to sim me?
>No need at all. No need to simulate a quark in your brain until you stick
>head inside a particle accelerator. For that matter, no need to simulate
>a neuron
>until somebody cuts your scull open and looks at the tissue inside with
>a microscope.
>On the other hand, if infinite (not just very large) computation is possible
>in some
>other universe then there is no reason to economize and you might as well
>simulate everything just for the hell of it. After all, 10^27 is no closer
>to being
>infinite than the number 1 is.

The problem is that we can make predictions that apply outside particle
accelerators - for example, that radioactive isotopes of potassium will
decay at certain rates. And they do. Everywhere we look these rules
are being followed; as I've pointed out, it's an enormous amount of
redaction to correct the estimates when people study old data. (such
as light from stars reflected off nebulae, etc.)

To know in advance all possible consequences of a simplification to the
rules and know that will produce no contradictions implies a knowledge
of the future incompatible with a sim. That's a story, not a sim.

Infinite computation raises all kinds of thorny theological issues.
Something with infinite computation can't think, for example, it's
already thought of everything. Besides, infinite computation is
about a magic as such things get. If that's what's required for
simming, you won't ever see our descendants sim us and so we
are unique in this universe. No need to worry about pleasing the

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:41 MDT