Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

From: Brent Meeker <>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:54:55 -0800

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
> Thank you for welcoming me Mark,
> I agree with you about the problem with the concept of entropy, but not
> all your points. Actually I like this hypothesis, and as Bruno put it we
> might be able to describe the Why question about physical laws, which is
> very interesting.
> 4) There exist a universal dovetailer (consequence of Church thesis,
> but we could drop Church thesis and define comp in term of turing
> machine instead).
> 5) Never underestimate the dumbness of the universal dovetailer: not
> only it generates all computational histories, but it generates them
> all infinitely often, + all variations, + all "real" oracles (and those
> oracles are uncountable).
> Let me know where's my mistake:
> 1.We are referring to one (actually an infinitely long sub-sequence of
> that) history of such universal dovetailer, as some state of our world.
> 2.Because that machine is a TM, a history has to be countable,
> regardless of compression or expansion of time to allow infinite power.
> 3.So we're referring to some state of our universe as a countable one.
> 4.A universal state is not countable.
> Every time a bit is sampled, the Multiverse branches
> with the observed bit being 0 or 1 depending on your branch. If you
> were to continue for an infinite amount of time, each observer will
> have observed a real number. However after any finite amount of time,
> all the observers have are rational approximations to real numbers.
> But we're talking about uncountability of information necessary to
> represent instantaneous state of a universe, not about the
> uncountability of possible universes. (Maybe I didn't get your point)
> What you are saying just proves that we have uncountable number of
> universes.

All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable information.

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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Tue Mar 06 2007 - 01:55:33 PST

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