From: Mikko Rauhala (mjrauhal@cc.helsinki.fi)
Date: Wed Jan 23 2008 - 13:30:33 MST
ke, 2008-01-23 kello 00:56 +0300, Vladimir Nesov kirjoitti:
> On Jan 22, 2008 11:23 PM, Murphy, Tommy <TommyMurphy@livingstonintl.com> wrote:
> > To my understanding the odds of this being a simulation are
> > overwhelmingly high, so I'd be fascinated to see you expand on this.
>
> Problem with simulation arguments (including in this case, when we
> supposedly have evidence) is that it's somewhat meaningless to
> categorize worlds on 'simulated' and 'not simulated'.
Indeed.
Personally, I¹ would consider a verifiably occured "impossible" physics
anomaly as strong evidence for the most generic form of Tegmark level
4 / Dust / etc multiverse with all that entails, including lack of
causality and hence utility. There's a small text touching on the matter
at http://mjr.iki.fi/texts/lue
¹ "I" here refers to a continuation of me that me-now, going by
currently available information, is willing to recognize as non-corrupt.
-- Mikko Rauhala - mjr@iki.fi - <URL:http://www.iki.fi/mjr/> Transhumanist - WTA member - <URL:http://www.transhumanism.org/> Singularitarian - SIAI supporter - <URL:http://www.intelligence.org/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT