[extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi'sparadox:m/d approach)

[Harvey Newstrom]

Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > No, I don't see how.  No matter what laws exist in any 
> > universe, the simulations within it are subject to those laws.
> 
> This is patently false. The only limitations that laws are 
> subject to are the processing limits of the operating 
> substrate. In many ways, it is *easier* to simulate LESS 
> physical constraints. Simulating a highly restrictive set of 
> physical laws takes a lot more processing power.

This is what I meant.  The operating substrate is in the real physical
universe.  It is subject to those laws.  I did not mean that one couldn't
simulate something impossible in their own physical universe.  But the
amount of information stored to do so takes as much or more physical
universe resources than it really would in the physical universe.  You
either map incompletely with less detail, or you consume as much resources
to store the information as the real universe takes.  One can't store more
information in the simulation than would fit in their real universe, because
the storage medium is in the real universe and takes real resources.

Kevin Freels wrote,
> That is only assuming that their laws of physics do not allow 
> for a particle to exist in two places at once. It also 
> assumes that each particle can only represent one piece of 
> data at a time and that time itself cannot be manipulated to 
> change the amount of data represented by a single particle. 
> Whoa....My head is about to bust.

No.  If a universe is warped so that it can represent two pieces of
information per particle, than each simulated particle has two pieces of
information to store.  Each particle can therefore store a sum total of one
particle's information.  (Again, unless you make an incomplete simulation.)
If a particle can be in two places at once, then it must be simulated in two
places at once in the simulation to be a complete simulation.  Whatever you
invent to give the real universe more storage, that creates more storage
requirement for that same item in the simulation.  It's like a mirror.
Whatever you invent in the real universe, appears that complex in the
simulation.  The only way out is if the simulated universe has reduced
complexity compared to the real universe, which was my point.  You have to
leave out complexity and details to make room for other complexity or
details, so the net total is still the size of the enclosing universe.  An
object inside a universe cannot contain more information than the enclosing
universe can hold, or else the object is not really contained inside the
enclosing universe.  This is a tautology of definitions.  No universe can
hold more than it can hold.  Anything it holds must be the same size or
smaller.

Dirk Bruere wrote,
> But their 'real universe' may (for example) be a truly
> continuum one with infinite computing power. In which case
> we are comparing degrees of infinity.

Perhaps, but I am willing to do so!  Imagine an infinite space one inch by
one inch by infinity.  Now imagine a space twice as large, one inch by two
inches by infinity.  Despite complaints about comparing infinities, it seems
obvious that the second object can hold exactly two of the smaller objects.
When comparing similar magnitudes or dimensions of infinities, it is
possible to do math and compare them.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>