[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Dirk Bruere]

Dan Clemmensen wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>> --- Dirk Bruere <dirk at neopax.com> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> It could be done by a superficial sim at the molecular level for only
>>> the parts of the universe that we can observe at the molecular level.
>>> That would require very little in the way of computational
>>> requirements compared to a Planck level sim of an entire universe.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>  
>>
> What do you mean by "we", kimo sabe?
>
> If you believe you are in a sim, why do you think the sim includes 
> anything but yourself and your perceptions? By what criteria can you 
> distinguish between a sim that encapsulates just yourself, and a sim 
> that includes any particular larger "universe"?
>
> For example, you mention "inertia," "gravitational influence," "other 
> matter in the universe," and "astronomical observations." If you are 
> the only object int he sim, then all of these concepts are amenable to 
> direct manipulation. How can you select a point on the sim continuum?
>
Even six billion intelligences being simulated, complete with 
coordinated sensory input data, doesn't sound very difficult compared to 
almost any other scenario.

> At one end of the continuum, The entire universe is being simulated. 
> All of us are emergent consequences of the laws of the simulated 
> universe. At the other end of the continuum, your current state is the 
> only thing being simulated. it was constructed one microsecond ago, it 
> embodies only the current microsecond of your existence, and it will 
> terminate one microsecond from now. How do you choose?
>
> For myself, the question is intrinsically undecidable, and all points 
> on the simulation continuum are indistinguishable from the no-sim 
> hypothesis. I therefore choose to treat the simulation hypothesis as a 
> non-starter, except as a basis for harassing fellow extropians.

It's an interesting possibility and should be borne in mind when we 
decide to behave badly because we think we can get away with it. God is 
watching!

-- 
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