Re: Belief, faith, truth

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:59:11 +0100

Norman,

As far as I understand you, we agree (on this a t least). The
explanation on the list that I was alluding toward, is here, so you
could perhaps verify:

http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list.domain.name.hidden/msg05272.html

Bruno


Le 05-févr.-06, à 00:51, Norman Samish a écrit :

> Bruno,
>  
> Thanks for your response.  I don't understand why you say my argument
> is not valid.  Granted, much of what you write is unintelligible to me
> because you are expert in fields of which I know little. 
> Nevertheless, a cat can look at a king.  Here is what we've said so
> far:
>  
> (Norman ONE) My conjecture is that a perfect simulation by a
> limited-resource AI would not be possible.  If this is correct, then
> self-aware simulations that are perpetually unaware that they are
> simulations would not be possible.
>
> (Bruno ONE) This could be a reasonable conjecture. I have explain on
> the list that if we are a simulation then indeed after a finite time
> we could  have strong evidence that this is the case, for example by
> discoveries of discrepancies between the "comp-physics" and the
> "observed physics".
>
> (Norman TWO)  Humans have not made the discovery that they are
> simulations, therefore the most PROBABLE (emphasis added) situation is
> that we are not simulations.
>
> (Bruno TWO) This argument is not valid. The reason is that if we could
> be "correct" simulation (if that exists), then that would remain
> essentially undecidable.   (Then I could argue the premise is false.
> Violation of bell's inequalities could be taken as an argument that we
> are in a simulation (indeed in the infinity of simulation already
> "present" in the "mathematical running" of a universal dovetailer, or
> arithmetical truth.)
>  
> (Norman THREE)  I don't understand the part of "Bruno TWO" in
> parentheses - I'm not asking you to explain it to me.  Are you saying
> that a perfect simulation would not necessarily discover it was a
> simulation?  If so, I agree.  This is supported in "Bruno ONE" where
> you said it was reasonable that if we are a simulation we would, in
> finite time, discover that this is the case.  Therefore it seems to me
> that my statement in "Norman TWO" is correct - note my inclusion of
> the word "probable."  Do you agree?  Or am I missing your point?
>  
> Norman
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Mon Feb 06 2006 - 10:19:32 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST