[ExI] Simulation argument again (was Re: Computronium planet.)

Joshua Job nanite1018 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 12 23:13:18 UTC 2012

The problem with the simulation argued,went is that we know noting of the
physical laws in the primary universe. For example, it ,at be a universe
that is fundamentally classical, without a quantum limit on precision.
Perhaps a little tweaking with other physical variables would allow life to
develop, and this life could, using reversible computing, conceivably do
some form of hyper computation, as they would be able to improve the
quality of their instruments to an arbitrary degree.

In so doing, they could conceivably perform an arbitrarily large number of
computations per unit volume, without any fundamental restrictions.

Moreover, why couldn't they simply design our laws of physics so as to
render the mesh undetectable? For example, by putting it at the Planck
scale, and having it so that such energies are unachievable? (Or it could
be smaller of course, no reason it couldn't be 10^-100 meters or something).

I know of no physical reason why there would be limits, provided one
stipulates that one exists in a computation. Unless one believes that there
can only be one self-consistent structure of physical laws which gives rise
to entities capable of conceptualization and performing useful computations
from the world around them, one can't place any limits on beings operating
a different, perhaps extremely different, set of physical laws.
-Joshua Job.
On Oct 12, 2012 3:46 PM, "The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>
> > To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ExI] Computronium planet.
> >
> > Recently a friend observed that if our universe is the fastest machine
> > able to compute itself (this assumption seems necessary to avoid
> > causality violation paradoxes), then our matter is _already_
> > computronium, and we just cannot squeeze more computing power out of
> > it.
> Here is a cool paper that borders on experimental metaphysics or an
> empirical test to see if there is a Creator. Physicist Silas Beane, at the
> University of Bonn in Germany, shows how simulated beings could
> use observable properties of fundamental particles to figure out if they
> are being simulated. He proposes tests based on the assumption that a
> simulation would have to run on a [hyper]cubic lattice and that the
> lattice should be detectable by scientific methods.  He goes on to
> calculate limits on the spacing or resolution of the hypothesized lattice
> using the fine structure constant and anomolous magnetic moment of
> electrons and muons.
> He further suggests that if the lattice is comparable in scale to the
> Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin or GZK limit in the energy spectrum of cosmic ray
> particles, then a directional anisotropy or rotational symmetry breaking in
> the distribution of cosmic rays should be detectable. In other words,
> if cosmic rays near the GZK energy limit seem to come preferentially from
> the orthogonal axes of the lattice instead of displaying spherical
> symmetry, it would provide evidence that we are indeed living in a
> simulation:
> Popular science translation:
> http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429561/the-measurement-that-would-reveal-the-universe-as/
> Original article:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847
> Stuart LaForge
> "Prisons are built with stones of Law. Brothels with the bricks of
> religion." - William Blake
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20121012/838f4699/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list