On Nov 6, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 09:57:17AM -0500, Bob Hearn wrote:
>> However, one can easily imagine a perceptual 2D world existing for
>> conscious entities. Even if there is no self-consistent 2D physics
>> leading to atoms, planets, etc., one can computationally simulate
>> Flatland (a la Abbott) or a Planiverse (a la Dewdney) in a 3D
>> universe, with no requirement for a consistent micro-physics. (In
>> fact the Planiverse is my simulation domain for my AI work.)
>
> Assuming computationalism, I would argue that conscious observers
> experiencing 2D environment are possible, but perhaps unlikely. Why?
> Because 2D networks are highly constrained, and so it is difficult to
> evolve complex structures in 2D. 3D and higher is not so constrained,
> so evolution is possible.
I wasn't clear... I wasn't suggesting a simulation at the atomic-
equivalent level, on the assumption that such might not be
consistently possible. Instead I was suggesting designing or evolving
intelligent creatures in a computer, in a 3D world, but creatures
whose perceptual environment is a 2D world, simulated at some gross
physical level. Conceivably even a human brain, suitably modified,
could exist in such a perceptual environment, without realizing it
was "really" a 3D entity.
Bob
---------------------------------------------
Robert A. Hearn
rah.domain.name.hidden
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/
Received on Sun Nov 06 2005 - 05:07:35 PST