[extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...)

[Mike Lorrey]

I think that it is a conceptual and astrophysical error to presume that
nested simulations must run on the computational capacity of higher
level universes. The beauty of M-theory is that new universes can be
computationally pinched off by the black holes that birth them and do
not impose computational load on the universes the black holes reside
in.

--- Kevin Freels <cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Of course, if we develop the ability to run such sims, what kind of
> strain
> does that put on those who are running our sim? After a period of
> time, you
> would end up with infinite sims within sims as each one develops this
> ability.
> 
> Kevin Freels
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists
> launchinquisition...)
> 
> 
> > But I don't emotionally dislike the conclusion that we live in a
> sim.
> > Actually, I emotionally LOVE it! When I was reading Nick's paper
> the
> > first time I was very excited and happy.
> > But while I have little doubts that we will become posthumans (if
> we
> > manage not to kill ourselves before), and that posthumans will have
> > the means to run sims, I think we have no info on the computational
> > cost of running a sim wrt their total computational resources, and
> no
> > info on their actual interest in running a sim. An experiment, of
> > course yes, but massive sims that include billions of conscious
> > beings? I don't know.
> > The SA is not religion of course but includes all elements found in
> > religion. You have an all powerful being who can answer your
> prayers
> > if she wants to, and wake you up in Heaven after death (she
> extracts
> > you from the most recent backup and injects you in a better sim).
> > G.
> >
> > On Thu,  2 Dec 2004 09:09:10 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney"
> <hal at finney.org>
> wrote:
> > > Giu1i0 writes:
> > > But mere emotional dislike of a conclusion should not cause us to
> > > re-evaluate our assumptions.  That would mean putting emotion
> over
> > > reason.  It is a non-Bayesian way of reasoning.  If we believed
> posthuman
> > > simulations had a certain probability before, we shouldn't adjust
> that
> > > probability merely if the SA convinces us that this implies that
> we are
> > > in a simulation, and that possibility feels spooky.
> > >
> > > > No, I think the SA is one of those things that you just don't
> know
> > > > about. But its value is to show how one can build a religion
> perfectly
> > > > compatible with our scienfific knowledge of the universe.
> > >
> > > I don't see the SA as having anything to do with religion.  It is
> a
> > > question of philosophy, of ontology, of metaphysics.  But not
> religion.
> > >
> > > Hal
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com