Re: Simulation argument in the NY Times

From: Norman Noman (
Date: Sat Aug 18 2007 - 00:14:49 MDT

> NN> If 1000 of me were
> NN> getting shipped to the desert and one was getting shipped to mount
> everest,
> NN> I'd be preparing for the desert because I'd rather there be more of me
> than
> NN> less of me.
> And if there's no existential risk? Why is more of you better than
> less of you?

It's better under my own personal system of preferences because I like
myself and I like people like me. If the 1001 people were copies of my 8th
grade lab partner, I might prefer that only the 1 survive. What does an
examination of the roots of our value systems have to do with the simulation

>> This is a kind of remnant of evolution, which tried to infect
> >> as much future branches as possible with given DNA.
> NN> I'm not really sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. Under
> the
> NN> many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, everything is being
> split
> NN> into zillions of possibilities constantly.
> Yes, and agents are prepared to those possibilities to a different
> degree. I was trying to make a point that number of simulators of each
> kind doesn't affect subjective experience. If there is even a single
> simulator with everything-enumerating TM (and I believe even one is not
> required), estimation of what kind of simulation is likely to be
> performed and what is not will not affect experience from subjective
> POV.

It does affect the insider's experience, because not all simulations are
hermetically sealed. If we are in one which is not, what the interface is
and what is outside will matter, and they will affect our experience. I'm
really not sure what you're trying to say.

Evolution produced a system that is sustained in our universe branch.
> It is prepared to exist in this branch.

If I understood what you were trying to say, I would argue with it.

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