Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

From: Russell Standish <lists.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:46:06 +1100

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones
> outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, without
> benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that
> non-computational talking white rabbits can also just exist? That is, why
> should computations have a privileged ontological status in the everything?
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>

That's not an assumption I make. The only thing given "priveleged
ontological status" are the descriptions (or infinite length strings -
binary or in your choice of alphabet). These are not the
outputs of any computational process, although they can be considered
as generated dynamically by a UD if you wish (although not necessary).

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	 
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         hpcoder.domain.name.hidden
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Mar 19 2007 - 06:46:23 PDT