Date: Wed Jan 23 2008 - 14:32:43 MST
On Jan 23, 2008 1:04 PM, Matt Mahoney <email@example.com> wrote:
> --- John K Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > It [the Universe] has finite age T, finite size
> > > limited by the speed of light c, finite mass
> > > limited by G, and finite resolution limited
> > > by Planck's constant h.
> > It would seem to me that is evidence (but not proof) that we do not live
> > in a simulation because if we did the simulators could make c, G, and h
> > have any value they wanted them to have. Physics is what the simulators
> > say it is.
> The simplest simulator would try different values of these and other physical
> constants. Some would result in universes that support life, and others not.
> The laws of physics are as they are because otherwise we would not be here.
More accurately "We observe the laws of physics as they are...", "Our
laws of physics are as they are..."
In my opinion there is a straightforward argument based on economics
for why it's unlikely we would exist in someone's simulation. That is
that extracting meaning is inherently expensive, and like the entropic
arrow, it will always generally pay better for an agent to look
forward than behind.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT