From: Matt Mahoney (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Aug 26 2007 - 18:45:07 MDT
--- Norman Noman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8/26/07, Panu Horsmalahti <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 2007/8/19, Алексей Турчин <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > >
> > > I think that another feature of simulation yet not mentioned here is
> > > that it allows miracles harder simulation allows little miracles, but
> > > one allows many. Simalation that has a lot of miracles is less 'real'
> and so
> > > is less 'simulation'.
> > >
> > > So search for the miracles could prove that we are in the simulation.
> > > But their absence can''t prove the opposite.
> > There is no way to distinguish between miracles and 'features'. For
> > example, some weird quantum effects might be bugs in the simulation, or on
> > the other hand features in physics. You can't extrapolate information
> > the universe where the simulation is being run from the simulated
> If there was a magic word that made people turn into frogs, I would have a
> hard time considering that a natural feature.
No you wouldn't. Miracles are miracles only because they are rare. If people
could be turned into frogs, we would adjust our scientific theories to fit the
facts. We do it all the time.
I consider it a miracle that people can't be turned into frogs, yet frogs
exist. Therefore the universe can't be real...
-- Matt Mahoney, email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT