On 14-1-2011 18:13, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Does that prove that there is nothing "running" our universe - ie it's
>> not some computer simulation inside another far more complex universe?
>
> It means that there isn't some "value" that exists before we measure it.
> It's possible that the super-universe is simulating ours, but if so,
> that super-universe also has purely random interactions in it.

And that would make the idea of that super universe superfluous. By 
applying occam's razor the answer is therefore: yes. Surprising isn't it?

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> And that would make the idea of that super universe superfluous. 

Not necessarily. Only in this one particular case. The super-universe might 
be controlling the probabilities, for example, or the constants like c or q.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 15-1-2011 0:20, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> And that would make the idea of that super universe superfluous.
>
> Not necessarily. Only in this one particular case. The super-universe
> might be controlling the probabilities, for example, or the constants
> like c or q.
>
Only if these constants are free variables. I don't know if they are.

Actually for many constants we don't know why they have a specific value 
(or even if they are constants at all). It may turn out that all of them 
can be computed without reference to any measurements or that there are 
a few free variables in this universe or perhaps that some depend on the 
time since the big bang. Only if there are true free variables among the 
constants you super universe could exist. Or actually if that is not the 
case we might still find another way that that super universe might 
exist. Sort of like finding a way that a god might still have an 
influence this universe.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Or actually if that is not the 
> case we might still find another way that that super universe might 
> exist. 

Sure. I'm sure none of us know enough cosmology to rule out whether this 
universe could be simulated.

Heck, *you* could be simulated and I and all the scientists you've ever 
heard of could be just part of the simulation.

 > Sort of like finding a way that a god might still have an
> influence this universe.

Yep. I'll still recommend Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. A wonderfully 
fun bit of fiction.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2011 12:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Yep. I'll still recommend Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. A
> wonderfully fun bit of fiction.

I’ll give that a try since you recommend it. I take it you’ve read 
Simulacron 3 (Counterfeit World in the UK) by Daniel F. Galouye? Or The 
Tunnel Under the World by Frederik Pohl?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 12:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Yep. I'll still recommend Calculating God by Robert Sawyer. A
>> wonderfully fun bit of fiction.
> 


> Simulacron 3 (Counterfeit World in the UK) by Daniel F. Galouye? Or The
 
> Tunnel Under the World by Frederik Pohl?
> 

The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't. Calculating God isn't abou
t 
the universe being a simulation, tho.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2011 1:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't.

It was written in 1964 so you may have missed it.

> Calculating God isn't about the universe being a simulation, tho.

Neither it is but what the heck! I could do with finding a new author. 
And the synopsis looks OK.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 15/01/2011 1:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't.
> 
> It was written in 1964 so you may have missed it.

I am looking for one even as we speak. :-)  (It certainly explains why it's 
not on the Kindle. ;-)

>> Calculating God isn't about the universe being a simulation, tho.
> 
> Neither it is but what the heck! I could do with finding a new author. 
> And the synopsis looks OK.

As for that, Greg Egan is my favorite hard SF writer right now. Pretty much 
everything he has written is very, very thought provoking.  I also am quite 
enjoying the Neal Asher stories, especially the Spatterjay series.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2011 1:44 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On 15/01/2011 1:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>> The second sounds familiar. The first doesn't.
>>
>> It was written in 1964 so you may have missed it.
>
> I am looking for one even as we speak. :-) (It certainly explains why
> it's not on the Kindle. ;-)
>

I've got a pdf copy in my collection if you can't find it (676 k).

>>> Calculating God isn't about the universe being a simulation, tho.
>>
>> Neither it is but what the heck! I could do with finding a new author.
>> And the synopsis looks OK.
>
> As for that, Greg Egan is my favorite hard SF writer right now. Pretty
> much everything he has written is very, very thought provoking. I also
> am quite enjoying the Neal Asher stories, especially the Spatterjay series.
>

I've read some Greg Egan, he is good. I don't think I've read Asher, tho'.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I've read some Greg Egan, he is good. I don't think I've read Asher, tho'.

Start with The Skinner. That's my favorite of the bunch. Lots of interesting 
philosophy amongst all the plot.


(I did have to giggle at some of the weapons, like the anti-photon weapon, 
or the full-spectrum laser.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message