@allgebrah @AlleleOfGene @The_Lagrangian I don't get what this bit means. https://twitter.com/allgebrah/status/728867406085533697 … & maybe too simple to have an inside view
-
-
Replying to @ProofOfLogic
@ProofOfLogic@AlleleOfGene@The_Lagrangian "[2], then [1]" is a computation that could've happened, each of its steps has indeed happened1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @allgebrah
@allgebrah@AlleleOfGene@The_Lagrangian If (1) is "run universe 12 steps from big bang" is "2 then 1" running 13 steps?2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic
@ProofOfLogic@AlleleOfGene@The_Lagrangian if you find a [2] that could conceivably happen causally-before the bang, sure1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @allgebrah
@allgebrah@AlleleOfGene@The_Lagrangian Ah ok, I see what you meant then.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic
@allgebrah@AlleleOfGene@The_Lagrangian So I think in the first case (where we run (2) second) there's no casual connection with (1)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ProofOfLogic
@ProofOfLogic@AlleleOfGene@The_Lagrangian if it's a reversible machine, it's indistinguishable from inside the machine2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @allgebrah
@ProofOfLogic@AlleleOfGene@The_Lagrangian at least, it's much easier to imagine for a reversible machine1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @allgebrah
@ProofOfLogic@AlleleOfGene@The_Lagrangian are we talking inside-causality or outside-causality?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @allgebrah
@allgebrah@AlleleOfGene@The_Lagrangian if a conscious observer exists just at the transition from 2 to 1, they won't when run separately2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@allgebrah @AlleleOfGene @The_Lagrangian So if the inside view needs that broken casual structure, then it's not being simulated there.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.