From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Tue Sep 07 1999 - 10:45:55 MDT
O'Regan, Emlyn <Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au> Wrote:
>If bits of our universe are not simulated when we are not looking at them,
>then how is consistency maintained?
Make a few educated guesses about what's important and what's not,
a butterfly in another galaxy is probably not. Most of the time this would
work but when it doesn't and a observer encounters a paradox or
obtains proof that things are not as they seem to be just stop the simulation,
back it up a little and change things around until he's satisfied, then continue.
No need to rush, feel free to take as much time as you want, the observer
will never know the difference.
>If the universe is deterministic, then the heuristic must come up with the
>one and only possible state
Not so. Event A may always produce event B but event C,D, E and F may produce
event B too. Even in a deterministic universe if you observe event B there is no way
to know what event preceded it. History is a mystery and that gives the simulation
maker lots of wiggle room.
>On a different tack: What is the motivation of this simulation?
Perhaps the universe is a video game. The next time I stick a metal
fork into a toaster to get the bread out without unplugging it I won't blame
myself, I'll blame the bastard who moved my joystick.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:04 MST