From: Vladimir Nesov (robotact@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jan 30 2008 - 16:04:34 MST
On Jan 31, 2008 1:10 AM, Peter de Blanc <peter@spaceandgames.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 16:02 -0500, Thomas McCabe wrote:
> > People running the simulation? As in, intelligent thinkers? That's a
> > heck of a lot more complicated, and therefore much more unlikely, than
> > assuming the simulation is governed by a simple set of Turing-style
> > computational rules.
>
> Scenario 1: Simple Laws of physics produce intelligent beings via
> natural selection.
>
> Scenario 2: Simple Laws of physics produce intelligent beings via
> evolution, [who build more intelligent beings] who run simulations of
> other intelligent beings.
>
> Both scenarios are governed by a simple set of Turing-style
> computational rules.
>
Scenario 3: Complex Improbable Laws of Physics magically produce
intelligent beings, [who build more intelligent beings] who run
simulations of other intelligent beings, namely those from Scenario 2.
Now difference between scenario 2 and scenario 3 is meaningless for
inhabitants of simulation, if they can't find out and have different
experience based on it. And ditto for scenario 1. There is nothing we
can do specifically to find this bug thing that would allow us to go
outside in case that it's a simulation, it's Pascal's wager all the
way. Just keep exploring physics.
-- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact@gmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT