From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Sat May 04 2002 - 12:49:45 MDT
John K Clark wrote:
> "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat@pacbell.net> Wrote:
> >Perfect, in this case, means absolute fidelity. Way more than just good
> >enough to fool you:
>
> I don't understand, if it's good enough to fool you then how could it be
> anything other than good enough?
Perhaps I misstated: good enough to fool your conscious, short-term
notice.
> >also replicating all the imperceptibles that you don't notice, which could
> >add up to noticeable effects over a long enough time or in odd enough
> >circumstances.
>
> I would say not only could that happen but it must happen, but so what? Take
> a sip of coffee right now. Ok you're different now. Even 20 years from now
> your
> behavior will be different than if you had not taken that sip 20 years
> before, perhaps slightly perhaps profoundly but certainly different. Does
> that mean you are not the same person after you drank it? I think not.
That's not quite the sense I meant. What of an event that heppens once
every 100,000 times or so in reality, but approximated to never in the
simulation? Say...someone winning the lottery? It can build up to a
noticeable difference, eventually.
> >even the slightest discrepancy - and there would likely be discrepancies
> >in the edited memory and the present reality would be noticed.
>
> Everybody has discrepancies in their memory, that's why eyewitness testimony
> is so unreliable. And then there are Black Holes, ever think that's where
> the program may be trying to divide by zero?
True, there is some leniency there. Said leniency is smaller than the
likely proportion of the discrepancies that would emerge.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:49 MST