Date: Wed Jan 23 2008 - 19:34:31 MST
On Jan 23, 2008 6:03 PM, Matt Mahoney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> --- email@example.com wrote:
> > On Jan 23, 2008 4:28 PM, Matt Mahoney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > --- email@example.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Who said there was "someone" running the simulation?
> > How can there be a "simulation" without intent to simulate?
> > How can there be intent without agency?
> We know nothing about the simulating universe. We cannot assume that there is
> any "intent" to simulate. The concept of intention could be meaningless.
> Ultimately it could be just a mathematical model, the set N of integers, where
> each element maps to a program.
If all you're saying is that the nature of reality appears to be
describable in mathematical terms, then I don't see that your claim
has any information content; no surprise whatsoever so long after
Wigner's statement about the "unreasonable effectiveness of
mathematics." From an anthropic perspective how could nature not
demonstrate mathematical regularity?
But "simulation" [cf. Bostrom], entails more than you apparently
intended [cf. Seth Lloyd et al].
Or am I missing something here?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT