The Numerical Platonist’s construct is just the universe itself again. No problem there.
If you’re not a numerical platonist, I don’t see how unexecuted computations could be experienced.
And that leaves us with regular simulation.
(Incidentally, point 6 has a hidden assumption about the distribution of simulated universes)
Why? If it’s just because the computations come out the same, doesn’t that mean any simulation of the universe is also just the universe itself again?
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
The Numerical Platonist’s construct is just the universe itself again. No problem there.
If you’re not a numerical platonist, I don’t see how unexecuted computations could be experienced.
And that leaves us with regular simulation.
(Incidentally, point 6 has a hidden assumption about the distribution of simulated universes)
Why? If it’s just because the computations come out the same, doesn’t that mean any simulation of the universe is also just the universe itself again?