Re: Re: Re[2]: Simulation argument in the NY Times

From: Алексей Турчин (
Date: Mon Aug 27 2007 - 07:32:51 MDT

Converting man into the frog is a mirracle, because it works against known laws of phisics. So it shows us that what we know before as a basic laws of phisics - are not they. And we have extraphisical force that could convert man into the frog.

Then we could use Bayesian logic. If our prior was 2 hypotesis - we are in the real world and we are in the simulated world, when after fining a miracle, I should say that it is more chaces that we are in simulation.

It works in lucid dreams. In such a dream I don''t know whether I am dreaming or it is real, but if I find any unreal thing, I will conclude that I am dreaming.

Now let's take a glance on the arguement that I can''t judje about the reality outside the simulation based on the features of the simulation.

These arguement works only if I know that I am in the simulation. So it can''t be used in the discussions is I in the simulation or not.

It means that I already assume that the world of simulator has the same phisics as mine world. If it is not - I am in simulation 100 per cent!

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