Re: Simulation argument in the NY Times

From: Norman Noman (
Date: Thu Aug 16 2007 - 21:54:15 MDT

> > This is simply not true. From what we know of the inside of the box, we
> can
> > make predictions about the outside of the box. For instance, inside the
> box
> > we find love, suffering, and oscillating fans. Therefore, it would seem
> > probable that whoever or whatever is outside the box does not have a
> problem
> > with these things existing.
> These things can also arise from an enumeration of Turing machines. How
> can
> we assume that the simulation was created by intelligent beings, much less
> that they think like us?

We can't assume, but we can predict. It is more likely for a simulation,
whether or not it is part of an enumeration of turing machines, to be
created by intelligent beings than to spring out of nothingness, get etched
out of a rock by wind, or be created out of twigs and spittle by
unintelligent beings.

And whether or not they think like us, if they realize that an enumeration
of all turing machines will result, among other things, in the simulation of
love, suffering, and oscillating fans, and they go ahead and enumerate all
turing machines, then it would seem they don't have a problem with
simulating those things.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT