From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 14:09:28 MDT
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
In-Reply-To: <3D628AD0.2010706@earthlink.net>
Sender: owner-extropians@extropy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
Charles writes
> Still, with all of these possibilities, the only really
> reasonable choice is to take the universe at face value,
> and assume that it's as real as it appears to be.
Yes, but if you believe in the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation)
of quantum mechanics---to which a majority of cosmologists
subscribe---then even if this is a simulation, this is also
quite separately a different and real world among the many
worlds.
In other words, the token "this" in the previous sentence
is not an unambiguous pointer, but is in effect a multiple
valued function. When we say "this" world, we mean both
the real one (somewhere) which we are in, and the simulation
(which also exists in the multiverse). We are equally and
identically in both. And have to be.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:18 MST