3 ms·

I welcome a better explanation for the phenomena. AFAIK we've been trying to come up with one for a long time. A brain floating in a nutrient tube and experienc

I welcome a better explanation for the phenomena. AFAIK we've been trying to come up with one for a long time. A brain floating in a nutrient tube and experiencing extremely high fidelity VR you would also claim that table and bubble gum exist. But from perspective of outside observer the only thing that is real is brain in a vat belief that table and bubble gum are real. You are right that solipsism is not the best example, I should have used Descartes Demon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon The overarching point, is that I think it does not matter if we are in simulation as long as it is self-consistent. For the sake of argument, let's assume the world is deterministic. This will allow us to construct two scenarios. One is a real person living and dying in a 'real world'... the other one is a brain in a vat living the same simulated life. Both of their subjective experiences are identical, even if you randomly swapped them they would not notice. Based on the above thought experiment, I think it does not really matter if we are in simulation. Some counter arguments: * But the world is not deterministic! What if things are better in the 'real' world. Sure, but what if they are worse? There is already a wide disparity in this world. Some people live in post-scarcity society and others don't know if they will eat tomorrow. Even if we are in simulation, I would argue average external world experience would fall somewhere on the spectrum we have. * But what if whoever runs the simulation decides to shut down the simulation. This is honestly one of the most benign rapid ending of the world I can imagine. Other events that could cause termination of human species would cause far more suffering. This would be global pandemic wiping out everyone, all out nuclear war, massive meteor or other white sky event... Just as well as shutting down the simulation beings that run it could choose to prevent one of other world ending event from happening. So I think this one is also a wash.

tshaddox 6y ago
> I welcome a better explanation for the phenomena. For which ones specifically? Generally any traditional scientific or layperson's explanation for a phenomenon is much better, namely the part that explains my observation of some entity by accepting that the observed entity exists. (Note that this doesn't imply that all observed entities exist. There are many cases where we have good explanations for why one would observe an entity that does not exist.) > The overarching point, is that I think it does not matter if we are in simulation as long as it is self-consistent. I suppose it might be okay to say that you believe that, as long as you're actually still generating new knowledge in order to solve problems. That's roughly the same as an astronomer saying "it doesn't matter whether Mars exists, as long as the entire Universe behaves consistently as if Mars exists." That astronomer can probably still help solve problems like figuring out how to land a rover on Mars, although I suspect that odd bit of epistemological gymnastics would introduce at least a small amount of difficulty compared to the astronomer whose epistemological stance is simply that Mars indeed exists. Perhaps that's the difference in epistemology here: in your quest for knowledge, is your goal to solve problems, or to experience some feeling like "certainty" or "justification"?
- smaudet 6y ago
  I think that's what he's trying to say here - most of us don't care if the universe is a simulation, just if we can continue to solve problems in it (live). I think you might struggle with the justification or certainty portion. Otherwise, adverse feelings towards simulation tend to stem from elsewhere, namely the inability to ascertain what is real (the root of madness), an aversion to that greatest of promised simulations, heaven, or an innate desire to not be trapped in substandard eventualities - e.g. all man made simulations thus far suck hard donkey balls in a myriad of ways. In light of solving the past three problems, sollipsism at least as I understand you to mean in this context, solves the problem of providing us a framework to tackle dealing with those issues, otherwise for the rest of us, we don't care. I don't much care for the OPs article either, it's as much nonsense as calculating the size or speed of the universe using Genesis's 7 days of creation - that is to say it is hypothetical if not theoretical and ultimately conjectured.

tshaddox 6y ago

> I welcome a better explanation for the phenomena. For which ones specifically? Generally any traditional scientific or layperson's explanation for a phenomenon is much better, namely the part that explains my observation of some entity by accepting that the observed entity exists. (Note that this doesn't imply that all observed entities exist. There are many cases where we have good explanations for why one would observe an entity that does not exist.) > The overarching point, is that I think it does not matter if we are in simulation as long as it is self-consistent. I suppose it might be okay to say that you believe that, as long as you're actually still generating new knowledge in order to solve problems. That's roughly the same as an astronomer saying "it doesn't matter whether Mars exists, as long as the entire Universe behaves consistently as if Mars exists." That astronomer can probably still help solve problems like figuring out how to land a rover on Mars, although I suspect that odd bit of epistemological gymnastics would introduce at least a small amount of difficulty compared to the astronomer whose epistemological stance is simply that Mars indeed exists. Perhaps that's the difference in epistemology here: in your quest for knowledge, is your goal to solve problems, or to experience some feeling like "certainty" or "justification"?

smaudet 6y ago
I think that's what he's trying to say here - most of us don't care if the universe is a simulation, just if we can continue to solve problems in it (live). I think you might struggle with the justification or certainty portion. Otherwise, adverse feelings towards simulation tend to stem from elsewhere, namely the inability to ascertain what is real (the root of madness), an aversion to that greatest of promised simulations, heaven, or an innate desire to not be trapped in substandard eventualities - e.g. all man made simulations thus far suck hard donkey balls in a myriad of ways. In light of solving the past three problems, sollipsism at least as I understand you to mean in this context, solves the problem of providing us a framework to tackle dealing with those issues, otherwise for the rest of us, we don't care. I don't much care for the OPs article either, it's as much nonsense as calculating the size or speed of the universe using Genesis's 7 days of creation - that is to say it is hypothetical if not theoretical and ultimately conjectured.