From: Peter de Blanc (peter@spaceandgames.com)
Date: Tue Jan 29 2008 - 21:06:50 MST
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 22:14 -0500, Thomas McCabe wrote:
> > > "* We might live in a computer simulation and it might be too
> > > computationally expensive for our simulators to simulate our world
> > > post-Singularity.
> > > o Rebuttal synopsis: This scenario can be used to argue
> for,
> > > or against, any idea whatsoever. For idea X, just say "What if the
> > > simulators killed us if we did X?", or "What if the simulators
> killed
> > > us if we didn't do X?". "
> >
> > This is not a rebuttal. Just because an idea can be misused to argue
> for
> > all sorts of things does not make it false (consider evolution,
> quantum
> > mechanics).
>
> An idea which can argue for absolutely *anything* must have zero
> information content. See
> http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/your-strength-a.html.
>
Hypotheses don't argue. People argue. Hypotheses generate probability
distributions which can be revealed by careful analysis.
You ignored my example:
> Hypothesis 1: We are in a computer simulation, and it will be shut
down
> if it becomes much more computationally expensive.
> Hypothesis 2: We are in a computer simulation, and it will be shut
down
> _unless_ it becomes much more computationally expensive.
>
> Is hypothesis 2 exactly as plausible as hypothesis 1? I would say it's
> much less plausible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT