From: Vladimir Nesov (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 22 2008 - 14:56:34 MST
On Jan 22, 2008 11:23 PM, Murphy, Tommy <TommyMurphy@livingstonintl.com> wrote:
> To my understanding the odds of this being a simulation are
> overwhelmingly high, so I'd be fascinated to see you expand on this.
Problem with simulation arguments (including in this case, when we
supposedly have evidence) is that it's somewhat meaningless to
categorize worlds on 'simulated' and 'not simulated'. If simulated
world works exactly as you'd expect from 'normal' world, without any
miracles, it doesn't matter to you if it's simulated.
You can't directly interact with 'simulatedness'. You can't observe
it. You only can observe miracles. And even if one happens, it doesn't
mean that probability of encountering another will increase
sufficiently to worry about it. It needs to be carefully quantified,
but I guess it'll turn out to be another infinitesimal.
-- Vladimir Nesov mailto:email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT