Re: Simulation argument in the NY Times

From: Peter murray (
Date: Wed Aug 15 2007 - 14:37:56 MDT

On 8/15/07, Dagon Gmail <> wrote:
> So let's assume this simulation argument has merits - it should have
> some kind of functionality, right?

The simulation does not necessarily have to be purposeful or even

Given a universe with infinite computational resources you can easily
imagine a buggy program spawning an infinite loop that performs some simple,
repetitive logical operation and/or resource allocation that grows without
bounds and yet is not noticed by the responsible entity (assuming the
infinite computation is performed instantly from the perspective of the
originating universe, as in some form of quantum computation for example).
Such simple operations could form the substrate and fundamental laws of an
entire universe which, over (internal) time, would expand from an initial
computational big-bang into a rich and complex Universe such as that we find
ourselves in today. Of course, if this were true, you'd expect the
expansion of the Universe to be accelerating. hmmm

In fact, given all our experience with writing software up to this point, I
would argue that the introduction of such a bug is inevitable. It may even
be a natural phenomenon. All you need is one universe with infinite
computation, and from there an infinite number of child computational
universes could "bud off" in parallel. There are likely are far more
(infinitely more) accidental or natural computational universes than there
are deliberate simulations.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT