5 ms·

I've thought down these paths a lot, and I came to similar but different conclusion. It's not simply that I don't trust argument - I weight arguments with evide

I've thought down these paths a lot, and I came to similar but different conclusion. It's not simply that I don't trust argument - I weight arguments with evidence. If you take the simulation argument for instance - if you're contemplating the probability that we are living in a lifelike simulation you must factor in the number of lifelike simulations you have seen.

mtdewcmu 11y ago
>> you must factor in the number of lifelike simulations you have seen Right. I take the position that there are problems that are unsolvable by technology; simulating the universe seems likely to be in that category. That position is fundamentally unprovable, but call it a hunch. Also, Occam's Razor argues against it, FWIW.
- greendestiny 11y ago
  Yes the full simulation probability has to be something like the probability simulations are possible and the probability that simulations have been discovered and the probability that simulations are numerous and the probability that simulations are 'unaware' times the then (n-1) in n probability that you are in a simulation. The size of the (n-1) in n part of the probability is pretty irrelevant vs the other parts.
- eru 11y ago
  > I take the position that there are problems that are unsolvable by technology; simulating the universe seems likely to be in that category. Why?
  - mtdewcmu 11y ago
    It's hard to make a compelling argument for why a particular problem will never be solved. However, I think it's a reasonable supposition that such unsolvable problems exist. Resurrecting the dead, for instance. In order to faithfully simulate the universe, you'd apparently need complete understanding of the laws of physics. And, you'd probably need a tremendously large (and presumably very power-hungry) computer to run the simulation. There's no particular reason to think that physics will ever be completely understood, and the computer might need more power than all the stars in the universe can supply. Again, it's extremely difficult to argue compellingly for why something can't be solved: even if it seems to be ruled out by known laws of physics (like traveling faster than light), you can always argue that new laws will be found someday that will be more favorable than the current ones. That argument never terminates, because you don't know what you don't know.
    - eru 11y ago
      Oh, I am happy to accept speed of light as the limit. I was more thinking about (hypothetically) using the same techniques as a quine to store a simulation of the universe inside a universe.
      - mtdewcmu 11y ago
        I have no idea how that would work.

mtdewcmu 11y ago

>> you must factor in the number of lifelike simulations you have seen Right. I take the position that there are problems that are unsolvable by technology; simulating the universe seems likely to be in that category. That position is fundamentally unprovable, but call it a hunch. Also, Occam's Razor argues against it, FWIW.

greendestiny 11y ago
Yes the full simulation probability has to be something like the probability simulations are possible and the probability that simulations have been discovered and the probability that simulations are numerous and the probability that simulations are 'unaware' times the then (n-1) in n probability that you are in a simulation. The size of the (n-1) in n part of the probability is pretty irrelevant vs the other parts.
eru 11y ago
> I take the position that there are problems that are unsolvable by technology; simulating the universe seems likely to be in that category. Why?
- mtdewcmu 11y ago
  It's hard to make a compelling argument for why a particular problem will never be solved. However, I think it's a reasonable supposition that such unsolvable problems exist. Resurrecting the dead, for instance. In order to faithfully simulate the universe, you'd apparently need complete understanding of the laws of physics. And, you'd probably need a tremendously large (and presumably very power-hungry) computer to run the simulation. There's no particular reason to think that physics will ever be completely understood, and the computer might need more power than all the stars in the universe can supply. Again, it's extremely difficult to argue compellingly for why something can't be solved: even if it seems to be ruled out by known laws of physics (like traveling faster than light), you can always argue that new laws will be found someday that will be more favorable than the current ones. That argument never terminates, because you don't know what you don't know.
  - eru 11y ago
    Oh, I am happy to accept speed of light as the limit. I was more thinking about (hypothetically) using the same techniques as a quine to store a simulation of the universe inside a universe.
    - mtdewcmu 11y ago
      I have no idea how that would work.