From: Stuart Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 08 2008 - 03:26:08 MDT
> There are two possibilities. Either your sensory inputs are generated by
> a real world behaving according to laws of physics that we partially
> understand, or they are generated by a computer running an unknown
> algorithm. If it is a computer, where did it come from?
I know the probabilistic argument in favour of the world being a
simulation. I just don't think it's particularly relevant, because the
predicted out comes in this case are identical to what happens if the
world is not a simulation. If there is acomputer, then based on the
evidence seen so far in the world, we are unlikely to ever know that
fact, and even more unlikely to ever know where it came from.
Since the two scenarios have identical conclusions, why should be
acting differently is one is true rather than the other?
> Your failure to see the relevance is a sign of high genetic fitness.
> Don't take it as a criticism.
I don't take it as a criticism! I take it with a degree of
bewilderment bordering on complete incomprehension. I started the
thread talking about post-singularity signaling and its effect on
competition and culture - you responded talking about genetic fitness,
beliefs versus reality, and whether we are just simulations.
I feel there is a very interesting point there somewhere, but could
you tell me what it is? In detail?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT