Re: are we in a simulation?

From: Stephen Paul King <>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:54:57 -0400

Dear George,


----- Original Message -----
From: "George Levy" <>
To: "Everything List" <>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: are we in a simulation?

> Hi Stephen,
> Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > Does computational complexity (such as NP-Completeness, etc.)
> > and computational "power" requirements factor into the idea of
> > simulated worlds?
> >
> >
> It may. Also important is the issue that Tegmark raised in the
> Scientific American article about the ordering of an infinite set. The
> probability of the occurence of an element of any subset (say the even
> numbers) can be altered depending on how the element of the set (say the
> natural numbers) are ordered.


    Is this related to what D. Deutsch mentions regarding the "measure on
the ensemble" in his paper "It From Qubit"? It might also be related to the
Burali-Forti paradox?

>From :

"The Burali-Forti paradox deals with the "greatest ordinal"--which is
obtained by assuming the set of ordinals is well-ordered [and, of course,
that it is a set!]--which must be a member of the set of ordinals and
simultaneously greater than any ordinal in the set."

> So if we assume that the multiworlds are an infinite set, to compute the
> probability of any event we need to know how the multiwords are ordered.
> I conjecture that the ordering should be anthropy related.


    Do you mean "entropy"?

> Let's consider a double slit diffraction experiment. The multiworlds are
> ordered according to the output diffraction pattern. Since the phases
> add up to produce this pattern, it seems that the process is linear,
> (thus simplifying computation) so computational complexity and
> computational power do seem to be of relevance.
> George.


    I am still struggling with my intuitions regarding how to think of the
liner superposition of QM states as "multiple worlds". For one thing,
nowhere does there seem to be a place to embed the notion of an observer
other than the notion of the observable itself, but we don't have a formal
(or even informal!) way of defining the idea of a relation between and
"observer" and observables. Do you have any ideas?

Kindest regards,

Received on Thu Jun 12 2003 - 23:56:16 PDT

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