>>>>>>How does our "God's Eye" view of the simulation compare to the view of the simulation's internal observer?
>>>>>>Any predictions?
>>>>>
>>>>>As usual, the observation will change the event it observes and thus become worthless, impossible etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What do you mean become worthless?
>>>
>>>You observe an event to see what happens. But if your observation changes the event, you still don't know what happens if you don't observe. Did the bear crap in the forest and which toilet paper did it use? You won't know.
>>
>>When you look at a clock, do you change what time it is?
>
>If the clock has an analog display, or it has digits and it's in the US, then yes I do, every afternoon. I have to add 12 hours to what I see :). But I'm not dealing with the clock at the quantum level, and the clock is not a person.
>
>>I get what you're saying, observation collpases the waveform.
>>
>>But that doesn't make anything worthless. That seems to be an unnecessary claim.
>
>OK, instead of "worthless", put "not what you were asking for".
>
>>My point is, once there is a simulation with a simulated human being in it, there is a new set of information, the simulated measurements, that can be compared and contrasted with the underlying data.
>>
>>Make sense?
>
>As soon as the simulation behaves like a human being, it changes behavior when observed.


I think we're already miscommunicating.

The idea is to create a model, a simulation, of a bunch of fundamental particles and quarks.

Through that, build up atoms, molecules, cells, and eventually, a human being.

So there is a simulation of physics, and within that simulation we've put together a human being.

With me so far?



> It may even develop that sense of being watched that we all get at times. And then it doesn't behave the same anymore. It starts acting, and interacting with the observer.
>
>Which is why I tend to discard about 90% of psychological "research". Simulation would add another set of quotation marks somewhere.