Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:39:43 +0100

Le 06-mars-07, à 07:44, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit :

> 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.

I don't think so. Worlds or world-views emerge globally from UD* (UD's

> 2.Because that machine is a TM, a history has to be countable,
> regardless of compression or expansion of time to allow infinite
> power.

Not really. An history can be revised infinitely often so that our
first person historical point of view could be infinite and even

> 3.So we're referring to some state of our universe as a countable one.

Like many, especially in the recent posts, forget the points of view

> 4.A universal state is not countable.

Probably false from a 3 person view. Probably true from 1 person view.

> 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.

With comp, this arguably follows indeed.


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 20 2007 - 07:41:02 PDT

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