[extropy-chat] the structure of randomness

Russell Wallace russell.wallace at gmail.com
Sat Dec 31 03:33:22 UTC 2005


On 12/31/05, Jeff Medina <analyticphilosophy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Your assessment of how much computation counts as impractical is based
> on how much computation goes on in our observed world, posited here as
> a potential simulation. If we *are* in a simulation, then we have no
> idea what the limits of computation are in the "parent world", nor how
> much computation is considered an impractically large amount.
>
> Which is not to say we're in one; just that any argument that starts
> from the quoted premise is not sound, and hence not grounds for
> dismissing or discounting the possibility.
>

*nods* We can't dismiss the possibility - that's why I said the argument I
gave didn't amount to ironclad proof.

But it's based on a bit more than the limits of computation under our laws
of physics. Detection of ground-level universe simulation based on a slight
imperfection such as anisotropy, would require that the computer has just
barely enough power for the job. The amount of power required is on the
order of the exponent of the number of particles in the visible universe,
something like 10^10^89 (including cosmic background photons and neutrinos);
that's a small target to hit in the range 0 to infinity - granted we don't
have a good model for distribution of computers by processing power
throughout the multiverse, but I'll suggest it seems a little unlikely that
the amount available would be just that much.

- Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051231/c5ec6844/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list