From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 16 2001 - 22:42:09 MST
In a message dated 3/16/01 9:30:50 PM, jonkc@worldnet.att.net writes:
><CurtAdams@aol.com> Wrote:
>
> > The point I make is that the resources involved in either full
simulation
> > or constant redaction are staggeringly enormous and unlikely in this
> > universe.
>
>But the calculations are not being done here, massive perhaps even infinite
>calculations might be much easier to do in another very different universe.
Certainly that's required to justify this insanely computationally wasteful
universe we live in as a simulation. I would class infinite calculations as
magic physics. I can't disprove it any more than I can disprove an abstract
Deity concept but it's got about the same level of evidence.
> >I don't think anyone will every be able to sim the "true" past.
>
>True past? For a simulation?
Yeah, some people on this thread were proposing future SI's would sim us.
>Classical complexity perhaps but Heisenburg uncertainty like any law of
>physics can be changed by the simulation operator just by modifying a
>few lines of code.
Not by us, certainly. The argument that we should consider ourselves
simulations since there will be umpteen futures sims doesn't hold water
if ditching heisenburg is required. And, of course, Heisenburg appears
very much unditched in our universe.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:26 MST