From: Vladimir Nesov (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 24 2008 - 11:38:59 MST
On Jan 24, 2008 7:57 PM, Matt Mahoney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> We could have laws of physics that allow us to make exact predictions. The
> existence of any such law would prove that the universe is not simulated.
By problem of induction you can't have absolute certainty even if you
have such law, so again it doesn't make a test. If degree of certainty
that your computer won't suddenly turn into a fire-breathing dragon
isn't good enough, what is?
> I mean that if there is a program on A that can simulate any program on B,
> then there is no program on B that could simulate this program on A. I could
> make a similar argument about Turing machines, replacing the number of states
> with algorithmic complexity. In either case, it means you cannot build a
> computer that could run an exact simulation of the universe (including your
> computer), unless the universe is not computable by a Turing machine.
Okay. But you say that question is if machine can simulate itself, so
it's not an arbitrary machine already.
-- Vladimir Nesov mailto:email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:01:12 MDT