On 2/26/07, John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> *From:* Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
> *To:* everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
> (Brent wrote):
> "....The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole
> complicated universe, only the part we can investigate and understand."
> -----(End of his post below)
>
> ---WE???WHO????---
>
> "We" as Einstein or Feinstein, or John Doe?
> or even Mbamba Kruit from the forests of New Guinea?
> Does every one of us simulate(!) (into?) his personalized universe with
> understandability levels PERSONALLY adjusted?
> (and why simulate?)
> John
>
> The discussions so far seem to assume that as inhabitants of a possibly
simulated world we have some reliable knowledge of what a "real" world would
look like, so that we can gather scientific data and thereby determine
whether it is a sham. But it's unlikely that we are going to run into a
Microsoft logo or bump their heads against a huge planetarium screen. How do
we know that the limits of the simulation we might be in are not represented
by the speed of light or the granularity of matter/energy, both limits on
how much we can possibly observe? Maybe in the "real" world the speed of
light is much larger or infinite, or matter/energy is continuous or more
finely granular. How would we know?
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Mon Feb 26 2007 - 05:58:12 PST