Nice try, Brent
John
On 2/24/07, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> > This has been a long discussion between Jason and Mark. How do I get
> > into it is
> > by Mark's remark:
> > "I don't think I go anywhere as far as John M. in this but then maybe
> that
> > is just because I fear to let go of my sceptical reductionist walking
> > stick. "
> > --Stop half-way: when the guy received $10,000 in the bank in 100s and
> > counted
> > them ....37,38,39, - then stopped and said: well. so far it was a match,
> > let me believe that the rest is also OK.
> > We are much earlier into the completion of what we know about our
> > existence.
> > Then again you both wrote about simulations (even: emulations) horribile
> > dictu:
> > " The key point is that a wilful entity or conspiracy seeks to emulate
> > all or part of another wilful entity's world to the extent that the
> > latter can't tell the difference when the change is made."
> > Untold: "restricted to details known" Nobody can simulate or look for
> > unknown details. Of course "the latter" can't tell whether 'simulated'
> > if looking only at the portion that matches. (I am not clear about
> > "wilful entity".)
> > The fallacy of the simulational business is more than that: you (get?)
> > simulate(d?) HERE and NOW and continue HERE under these conditions,
> > while THERE the simulacron lives under THOSE conditions and in no time
> > flat becomes different from you original. That the world of THERE is
> > also simulated? Just add: and lives exactly the life of THIS one? then
> > the whole thing is a hoax, a mirror image, no alternate.
> > *
> > Jason: " A reversible computation is one that has a 1 to 1 mapping
> > between input
> > and output. " Going up in the $100 bills to #45, the map may change.
> > Don't tell me please such "Brunoistic" examples like 1+1 = 2, go out
> > into the 'life' of a universe (or of ourselves).
> > How can you reverse the infinite variations of a life-computation? You
> > have got to restrict it into a limited model and work on that. Like:
> > reductionist physics (QM?) .
> > It seems to me like a return to Carnot, disregarding Prigogine, who
> > improved the case to some (moderate) extent from the classical
> > reversible even isotherm thermodynmx,
> > from which I used to form the joke (as junior in college) that it shows
> > how processes would [theoretically] proceed, wouldn't they proceed as
> > they do proceed.
> > We can reverse a closed model content, all clearly known in it. Not
> life.
> > Just count into the simulations and reversals the constantly
> > (nonlinearly!) changing world not allowing any 'fixing' of
> > circumstances/processes. No static daydreams.
> > *
> > Jason: "Quantum mechanics makes the universe seem random and
> > uncomputable to
> > those inside it, but according to the many-worlds interpretation the
> > universe evolves deterministically. " - right on. I just wonder why all
> > those many worlds are 'emulated' after this one feeble universe we
> > pretend to observe. In my 'narrative' I allowed 'universes' of
> > unrestricted variety of course 'nobody' can ever continue in a totally
> > different 'universe' a life from here. With e.g. a different logic.
> > *
> > "Are you saying that a perfectly efficient computer could not be built
> > or that the physics of this universe are not computable? "
> > You mean: with unrestricted, filled memory banks working on the
> > limitless variations nature CAN provide? A perfectly efficient computer
> > could then compute this universe as well. Maybe not these binary embryos
> > we are proudly using today. Indeed: you ask about the physics of this
> > universe, is it the reductionist science we are fed with in college?
> > That may be computed. Discounting the randomness and indeterminism shown
> > for members of this quantum universe of ours.
> >
> > Sorry for the length and my unorthodoxy.
> >
> > John M
>
> You seem to have two themes: (1) The universe is more complex than current
> physics makes it out and may not be computable, and in comparison, (2) Our
> ability to comprehend things is quite limited. But these two together imply
> that is quite possible that we live in a simulation. If the simulation is
> being performed in a universe like ours, one with very complex physics, then
> the physics of that universe could provide a simulation that was beyond our
> ability to discern as a simulation - because of our limited
> comprehension. The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate
> the whole complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and
> understand.
>
> Brent Meeker
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 10:07:03 PST