Re: are we in a simulation?

From: George Levy <>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:04:47 -0700

Sorry about the graphics... There were'nt any except some italics I
think. I'll send this one in plain text.. tell me how it goes.

Hal Finney wrote:

>George Levy writes:
>><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to ignore that, aren't I? I guess you had
>some neat graphics in your message ....
>>Discreteness may be important in our world for the development of
>>consciousness, but it is certainly not necessary across worlds. I
>>believe therefore that the differences between the simulations is
>>infinitesimal - not discrete - and therefore that the number of
>>simulations is infinite like the continuum.
>The last part doesn't follow. It could be that the number of simulations
>is infinite like the rational numbers, which would still allow for the
>differences between simulations to be infinitesimal. In that case the
>number of simulations is countably infinite rather than uncountable.
>Personally I am uncomfortable with the infinity of the continuum, it
>seems to be a much more troublesome concept than is generally recognized.
>I would not want to invoke it unless absolutely necessary.
>I think the rest of your argument works just as well with a countable
>infinity as an uncountable one.

I only invoked the uncountable infinite because I think there is NO
ANTHROPIC REASON for using the countable infinite. Again, it's the same
philosophical argument that justifies the plenitude: if an existing
instance is arbitrary (not justified), then all instances are necessary.

This principle applied here goes as follows: If there was an anthropic
reason requiring discretness between worlds, then those other worlds
would have to be causally linked with ours. This would then be one
arbitrary instance of a cluster of linked worlds, which we would imply
that many other clusters would also exist. Hence we are led to the
uncountable infinite.

> We're faced with the strange possibility that the consciousness spans
> an infinite number of simulations distributed over widely different
> levels. Each individual simulation implementation becomes
> infinitesimal and unimportant in comparison with the the whole
> infinite set of implementations that the consciousness covers. A
> particular simulation that stops operating (for example because the
> plug is pulled) will hardly affect or be missed by the consciousness
> as a whole. In fact I rather think of the "simulations" as static
> states in the plenitude, and consciousness as a locus in the plenitude
> linking these states in a causally and logically significant manner.
> We live in the plenitude, not in any particular simulation. Each
> point in the conscious locus perceives the world that gives it meaning.

Richard Miller wrote

> Of all the attempts to link consciousness with physics, this paradigm
> makes the most sense to me. Additionally, it offers the only model of
> consciousness that can be described mathematically (well,
> topologically)---and it even makes sense if you happen to be a
> neodissociationist psychologist. I'd like to know if George can
> supply some references for this model or if he came up with it on his
> own.

I came up with this model myself some time ago as I tried to write a
book which has been sitting on my shelf for years, but I think others in
this list share this same point of view or may have invented this model
independently. We have been talking about this topic for years.

Neodissociationist psychologist... phieww, I had trouble typing this
one. A really scary term :-)

Received on Tue Jun 10 2003 - 16:05:26 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST