Hi Norman,
I agree that you can assume that one multiverse exists and that that implies
that everything describable exists. But If physical existence is not the
same as mathematical existence then there is nothing we can do to verify
this. So, this like postulating that a powerless God exists.
Saibal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Samish" <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 09:33 PM
Subject: Re: subjective reality
> Hi Saibal,
> While my simple mind believes that "mathematical existence = physical
> existence," I do not assume that "we owe our existence to the mere
existence
> of the algorithm, not a machine that executes it."
> To me, the reason that mathematical existence means physical existence
> is that "in infinite space and time, everything that can exist must
exist."
> If it's describable mathematically, then it "can" exist, somewhere in the
> multiverse - therefore it "must" exist. Tegmark claims, for example, that
> in his Level I multiverse, there is "an identical copy of (me) about
> 10^10^29 meters away." (arXiv:astro-ph/0302131 v1 7 Feb 2003)
>
> Norman
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Saibal Mitra" <smitra.domain.name.hidden>
> To: <kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden>; <marchal.domain.name.hidden.ac.be>
> Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 7:10 AM
> Subject: Re: subjective reality
>
>
> Hi Godfrey,
>
> It is not clear to me why one would impose constraints such as locality
etc.
> here. Ignoring the exact details of what Bruno (and others) are doing, it
> all all boils down to this:
>
> Does there exists an algorithm that when run on some computer would
generate
> an observer who would subjectively perceive his virtual world to be
similar
> to the world we live in (which is well described by the standard model and
> GR).
>
> The quantum fields are represented in some way by the states of the
> transistors of the computer. The way the computer evolves from one state
to
> the next, of course, doesn't violate ''our laws of physics''. It may be
the
> case that the way the transistors are manipulated by the computer when
> interpreted in terms of the quantum fields in the ''virtual world'' would
> violate the laws of physics of that world. But this is irrelevant, because
> the observer cannot violate the laws of physics in his world. Also, if you
> believe that ''mathematical existence= physical existence'', then you
assume
> that we owe our existence to the mere existence of the algorithm, not a
> machine that executes it.
>
>
> Saibal
>
-------------------------------------------------
Defeat Spammers by launching DDoS attacks on Spam-Websites:
http://www.hillscapital.com/antispam/
Received on Mon Sep 05 2005 - 18:15:37 PDT