Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

From: John M <>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:39:10 -0500

Bruno - thanks.

Stathis did not address my "why simulation at all" main question, you did by an "IF" followed by "then" and another 'if' (already assumed) and it goes on and on.
At the end we are in a virtual reality what could bring Hollywood a $billion and the teens would kill all the aliens in the video-games.

It is not far from the Gedankenexperiment to shortcut something we do not understand by fantasy and keep it repeating so many times that people get used to it. That happened with the EPR, the Big Bang, (oops: indeed the expanding universe), etc. leading to 'complementarities' in which I really do not know: is our mental faculty not wide enough to comprehend it, or we just misunderstand some readings on our instruments. When people "get used" to the 'if'-s: comes the statement of a physicist on another list: "I can live with paradoxes".

I feel sometimes somebody somehow somewhere should recall a 'reasonable' (original?) question.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Bruno Marchal
  Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 6:22 AM
  Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

  Le 26-févr.-07, à 11:57, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :

    On 2/26/07, John M <> wrote:

        From: Brent Meeker
        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" 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?)

        JohnThe 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

  Of course we cannot *know*. But if we assume the comp Hypothesis, then we *can* "know" (relatively to the comp hyp).
  Indeed, if comp is true, then we "belong" to all simulations of us possible at once. All the simulations are generated by the DU. And the physical appearances are (first person) sum on all relative computations. And if "I" is different from "Universe/God", then comp predicts "Universe/God", as it can appear to me or us, is NOT Turing emulable. QM confirms this fact, but it is an open problem if comp generates to too much white rabbit or not. If QM is the only comp-physics possible, then indeed first and third person white rabbits would disappear.
  Remember just this: if I am turing emulable then the observable universe cannot be. This follows from UDA.
  Cf my previews explanation:


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Feb 26 2007 - 11:42:41 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:13 PST