[ExI] simulation stat goofiness

[Will Steinberg]

The assumption is that there are physical limits.  Here is why I'd assume
so:

Di lemma:

A) the simulator's universe is the same as ours

B) the simulator's universe allows for computation greater than ours

If A, eventually there will be a limit that we can conceive

if B, there has to be some reason the universe allows greater computation.

Staying on B, now apply the simulation argument to that universe, and use
the same dilemma.  That means the universe is either the same as theirs
(and will have a limit as each simulation includes trillions of simulations
which all include trillions of simulations &c.) or their simulator has a
universe which allows for more computation due to some reason.

I believe these reasons would be subject to some kind of laws of physics,
and could only accept infinite levels of simulation if the higher universes
were infinitely large or of infinite duration.  Which may be its own issue.

WHAT'S MORE, if those worlds are sufficiently large, it stands to reason
that there will be infinite intelligent civilizations in those universes.
So if the simulations run IN that universe mimic the simulations in the
above universe, those people would have a good chance at being one of those
civilizations before simulation is developed, and so no longer can be
applied Bostrom's trilemma in order to show they must be in a simulation.

In essence, even if your universe is finite, infinite sim levels would
appear to me to mean that at some point the master universe is infinite,
but this leads to the fact that if you are in a universe which would
require an eventual infinite universe of your master, then you are just as
likely to be a regular, physical civilization in that universe as you are a
simulation in one of the levels (because that universe is literally
infinite).

Therefore repeatedly applying the simulation argument with SOME sort of
laws of physics in every universe leads to a contradiction.

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 2:29 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 2:36 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > But still, as you keep going up simulation levels, at some point
> processing power must run out, right?  Unless each higher universe is
> successively larger and lengthier (...no laughing at that one!)
>
> That might be, but I believe John's point was from inside the
> simulation you couldn't tell... In the same way that say, running a
> complicated smoke simulation model on one system that runs half as
> fast as another (because of resources, processor speed, etc.) will
> still give the same simulation and results as another just at a slower
> speed from our perspective. But inside the model, step n follows step
> n-1 regardless of whether that takes one millisecond or two, no? And
> how from the inside would you know processing power was reaching its
> limit? You might come up against a wall if you were running a
> simulation -- adding more complexity into the simulation you're
> presumably part of. But would that tell you you're in a maxxed out
> simulation as opposed to telling you that your technology isn't
> advanced enough (imagine running today's smoke simulation models on
> 1940s computers) or that there really are physical (non-simulation
> ones) limits on what you can simulate?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200919/f171ef10/attachment.htm>