[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Dirk Bruere]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>--- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>>The entanglement problem doesn't let you work that way. You have to
>>>      
>>>
>>sim
>>    
>>
>>>it all. Inertia alone is proof of that, being caused by the
>>>gravitational influence of all the other matter in the universe
>>>      
>>>
>>going
>>    
>>
>>>forward in time then back to the moment you push on a mass... If it
>>>were merely some code faking inertia, there would be servere
>>>repercussions in our astronomical observations.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Not at all.
>>Faking all the astronomical observation we are presently making could
>>be done now using existing computer tech.
>>It's not an elegant soln, but it certainly cuts computational 
>>requirements by tens of orders of magnitude.
>>    
>>
>
>It isn't just us as individuals making the observations. Sentient
>beings are not the only observers, that is a Bohmian conceit. Every
>atom that interacts with a photon is 'observing' it. The fact alone
>that weather is as unpredictable as it is is evidence of that.
>  
>
The weather would be equally unpredictable if there were no levels below 
the molecular in the sim.
In fact, all that has to be modelled is our intelligence and sensory input.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 21/02/2005