2 ms·
Ah, yes, I see where you're coming from. My take on it is that it just fails occam's razor. As in, it turns the theory "The universe is a simulation", into "Th
by scrollaway 8y ago
Ah, yes, I see where you're coming from.
My take on it is that it just fails occam's razor. As in, it turns the theory "The universe is a simulation", into "The universe is a simulation, and the simulation is imperfect and lazy-loaded". It's adding even more requirements to an unprovable theory.
Essentially, it turns "God exists" into "God exists, and he has a beard".
- Vraxx 8y agoAhhhh this makes more sense with your previous objections and I wasn't understanding it as well before. I always took little tidbits of the scenario that pointed to "lazy-eval" to be indicative of it being more likely to be a simulation because lazy eval is popular among programmers. Obviously when I write it out like that I can see where I lean on the same logic I argue against in other scenarios which is that we can't make any assumptions about intentions/motivations/etc. of the simulation creators, and the assertion that they would have similar programming paradigms is a pretty big assertion for sure.