Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spiney" data-source="post: 109089" data-attributes="member: 192438">I think quantum indeterminacy is just a red herring (oh no, we’ve gone back to fish again …..).Let me put it a bit differently. Suppose I’m just a brain in a jar. Or rather, you’re just a brain in a jar, and I’m a huge computer perfectly simulating the outside world (in fact, you’ve no reason at all to believe that any other people exist, although this doesn’t affect what follows). This might be true, certainly there’s no way I can disprove it, as long as it’s not logically or mathematically impossible.But why stop there? There’s absolutely no reason why this “next level” computer should be the ultimate reality. It might be just be a simulation, running on an even bigger computer. We’ve already taken this step, and there’s no reason not to take it again (now return to the top of this paragraph …….).I think that’s what the computer chaps (and ladies) call “infinite recursion”, you just keep on going deeper and deeper and deeper …….. (Didn’t Dr Who once have this problem, when his Tardis materialised inside its own control room?).I believe Rudy Rucker wrote a book about this. At least, if he exists he did, if not then it must have been the computer ……….</blockquote>