[ExI] A Simulation Argument

[scerir]

From: "Ian Goddard" 
> In theory, a computer could create a simulated world 
> as real and complex as our world, and it could 
> in theory contain computer-generated sentient operators 
> who see that simulation as their 'real world'. 

In theory, in theory, maybe [1].
According to quantum theories, as I understand them,
there are dice everywhere, they generate a huge 
complexity, and mutations. Our world already 
has (or will have) an infinite complexity. In this 
case it should be incomprehensible, at least 
incomprehensible from inside, like the 'omega 
numbers' story. Unless all that we call 'quantum' 
randomness is really only 'pseudo' randomness [2].
Because, in this case, world complexity would not 
be infinite, and would be comprehensible. Would
a simulator like to simulate a comprehensible (from
inside) or an incomprehensible (from inside) world?


[1]
'The physicist rightly dreads precise argument, 
since an argument which is only convincing if precise 
loses all its force if the assumptions upon which 
it is based are slightly changed, while an argument 
which is convincing though imprecise may well be stable 
under small perturbations of its underlying axioms.'
-Jacob Schwartz

[2]
This might be close to something Gerard 't Hooft 
writes so often. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095