Lol, after the first reply it doesn't even seem like they're talking to each other.
>If infinite computation is possible, and the universe is a simulation, our universe almost certainly uses infinite computation
Why? Is this some kind of anthropic reasoning? Only events within humanity's light cone could possibly affect our experience, and this is a finite region. It's meaningless to make any kind of claim about computations happening outside this finite region. If computation = experience, then our experience is only what's inside our light cone, you could rip out the adjacent stick of hyperRAM storing the stuff going on outside it and it makes no difference to "our universe". (Really I'm just rehashing my earlier argument that reasoning about being inside a simulation is incoherent.)
>I think that "computations" are qualia
>reality really can't generate novel qualia ad infinitum
But there are infinitely many possible computations. These are contradictory.
>It seems awfully suspicious that there is so little novelty. There is a lot of recycling of the contents of consciousness.
Why would you expect your brain to be capable of performing novel computations just for fun? Survival and reproduction is Serious Business, and it involves doing the same types of computations (tiger checks, breast size and perkiness evaluations) over and over without wasting energy. Color spaces can have more dimensions than R,G,B, we could perceive color vectors in these spaces that aren't reducible to RGB if our eyes had the right hardware, and this would presumably create novel experiences, but Gnon determined that computing colors from three dimensional input was the best use of our limited computational ability.
>I doubt infinity, infinity itself, would come up with such a shitty and limited experiencePost too long. Click here to view the full text.