X-Message-Number: 8192
Subject: yadda yadda yadda
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 12:51:29 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <>

> From: 
> 
> The main claim in Metzger's #8180 was that I started the discussion by saying
> some one couldn't live out his life in a simulation, and that I have now
> conceded that I might be doing so.
> 
> Wrong as usual.
> 
> What I have said, among other things:
> 
> a) We do not know that an inorganic medium--let alone a computer
> simulation--could sustain feeling and consciousness. The "information
> paradigm" is only a postulate, not proven.

Prove, Mr. Ettinger, that YOU are conscious. The "Robert Ettinger is
conscious" paradigm is a postulate, not a proven. Please name a
reproduceable experiment I can perform which will show that you are
conscious.

And no, saying "well, you should guess that I'm conscious because you
and I have the same sort of brain hardware" doesn't cut it. Provide me
with a scientific demonstration of that consciousness.

> b) IF a simulation could be conscious, and IF a computer could be made to
> simulate a world full of people, still generally one could not live
> indefinitely, in such a simulation, a life closely similar to what one's life
> would have been in the real world.

Well, you have already agreed that you could be a brain in a vat
hooked up to a VR system, and that you would have no way to prove this
was not the case. Given this, I think you've already agreed that b)
isn't true except for the "simulated scientist" issue. Of course,
since you have no way of proving you aren't a brain in a vat right
now, you also have no way of knowing if the laws of physics you
observe around you correspond with those in the "real" world right now.

> c) If people in the real world are motivated to simulate a world full of
> people, the simulated people will also be so motivated, generating an
> exploding set of subsimulations, effectively causing the original computer,
> in the real world, to stop. 

This is demonstrably provable as false. No matter how many nested
copies of PSIM I run, my machine runs just as fast. As I noted, no
matter how many new copies I started (actual experiment here, not
thought experiment) my machine continued to function just the same for
all other work.

> 4. Metzger: "I am currently running five nested copies of PSIM on the machine
> I am typing this on. The outer machine is not "grinding to a halt."
> 
> I did not say the hardware of the real computer grinds to a halt; the
> effective production of the system grinds to a halt. See above. And instead
> of five, try running a billion nested copies on your machine--just for
> openers.

If I ran a billion nested machines, the outer machine would notice
nothing. No matter how many additional nested machines I run, my
real machine continues to run at exactly the same speed. This isn't
even a theoretical question -- its demonstrably true. No amount of
denial on your part is going to make it untrue.

Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8192