3 ms·
"AR more potential future states in which we don't exist" - This is covered in the simulation argument as a possible solution, it doesn't break the argument if
by cortic 10y ago
"AR more potential future states in which we don't exist" - This is covered in the simulation argument as a possible solution, it doesn't break the argument if its part of it. Edit; Thinking some more about his, it doesn't matter how many potential future states in which we (or people like us) don't exist, there must be NO states in which we DO exist otherwise it would still be billions to one that we would be the 'real' one.
"But it is impossible to completely simulate a system from inside that system" - This is true, so if we WERE in a simulation you would expect some kind of 'fuzziness' to exist in most of the universe, perhaps collapsing into more exact points when important, a kind of 'uncertainty principal' :O.