[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I misread your earlier comment - yes, one could plausibly
> argue that if we could be sure we are _not_ living in a simulation,
> then this would also give us reason to suspect it is impossible to
> simulate whole universes.
> 
> However, since in fact we cannot know whether or not we are living in
> a simulation, we also cannot know whether it is possible to simulate
> whole universes; the simulation argument can't tell us anything about
> whether it is possible or not.

Not *now*, but at some point we should know enough to know whether it
is possible or not, because we would have the technology to be able to
simulate universes if it were possible and be unable to do so for some
physical reason, or able to do it. At that point, because
simulatability would be provable, then we cannot, even by Godel's
arguments, say that living in a simulation is the same as not.

=====
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!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com