In a message dated 3/18/01 10:20:08 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>That is unclear -- is quantum mechanics the bottom or string theory
>the bottom? What is all the "dark energy" that is now all in vogue
>in the most recent papers?
We haven't reached the bottom yet. The fact that the universe is
mostly made of something whose composition we can't explain
(dark matter) demonstrates that quite will.
>Curt, you have said this several times in several different ways
>in several letters and I've commented on it once or twice, as has
>Eugene and I believe a few others. Get this: THE SIMULATION DOES
>NOT HAVE TO BE A COMPLETE UNIVERSE. The simulation can be on
>any scale from a single brain to that of the universe.
If they sim "just" a brain, they also must sim the input to that brain.
It's that *input* which displays such extraordinary consistency, depth,
breadth, and complexity. As hard as we look, that input shows the
full complexity of a universe behind it. So the input requires a
universe sim, or something equivalent.
>According to Gwen Jacobs at a recent NSF meeting on terrascale computing,
>it would require 1 month of Petaflops computing power to simulate 1
>second of brain time (now I don't believe for correct -- I think it is
>much worse (i.e. computing requirements are greater) if you are doing
>and atomic or quantum scale simulation, but thats another discussion)..
But it is being simulated on a quantum scale! You can't explain interactions
with radiation (including light) otherwise.
>The net of this (based on the very questionable assumption from Gwen
>Jacobs) is that you get a factor of a trillion greater efficiency
>by migrating your uploads from atomic simulations (much slower
>than us) to human mind equivalents (much faster than us).
Makes sense to me. That's why I say if we were sims, we'd be human
mind sims, not quantum ones.
>You don't have to sim the entire universe. You only have to sim
>the I/O and mental functions of the number of non-zombies
>you want to put in it!
True, but that I/O is the bitch.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:41 MDT