4 ms·

Here, Chalmers is flirting with the simulation hypothesis. I have not yet read his new book, but an article in the NY Times indicates that there he goes deeper

Here, Chalmers is flirting with the simulation hypothesis. I have not yet read his new book, but an article in the NY Times indicates that there he goes deeper into the issue, where he says that he estimates a 25% likelihood that we are in a simulation. I wonder how he squares that with his enthusiasm for zombie arguments, which purport to show that no mere simulation of a conscious human would have all that is necessary for it to be conscious itself? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/opinion/virtual-reality-simulation.html?searchResultPosition=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/26/opinion/virtual-reality-s...

oneoff786 5y ago
Honestly it annoys me that someone would throw out a specific number like that for something they have literally no possible basis for.
- jamesrom 5y ago
  Without knowing where this number came from, I could imagine that his reasoning is that there's 4 main theories that are well-reasoned and he estimates they are all as equally likely.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    That’s not how probability works
    - jamesrom 5y ago
      Sure it is, there's even a name for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference
  - rgoulter 5y ago
    Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown) was recently on a Numberphile video where he explained Bertrand's Paradox. An under-specified question meant that there were good arguments for different answers, depending on how the question was interpreted. In the complementary video supporting the discussion, I found Sanderson's discussion pretty interesting. -- One of the suggested arguments was even "let's take the average of the other answers", although Sanderson wasn't sure if this was meant to be a joke or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJyKM-7IgAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJyKM-7IgAU
- Barrin92 5y ago
  John Kay wrote a good book about this (Radical Uncertainty). There is a trend to falsely quantify questions that take place either under conditions of uncertainty or where numbers are just axiomatic assumptions rather than based on regular observations. It's very much everywhere now, not just in abstract philosophy like this but even in a lot of real world scenarios like the pandemic. Instead of giving a qualitative narrative and leaving space for human intuition people try to present arguments as more certain than they are by slapping some numbers / models onto them.

oneoff786 5y ago

Honestly it annoys me that someone would throw out a specific number like that for something they have literally no possible basis for.

jamesrom 5y ago
Without knowing where this number came from, I could imagine that his reasoning is that there's 4 main theories that are well-reasoned and he estimates they are all as equally likely.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  That’s not how probability works
  - jamesrom 5y ago
    Sure it is, there's even a name for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference
- rgoulter 5y ago
  Grant Sanderson (3blue1brown) was recently on a Numberphile video where he explained Bertrand's Paradox. An under-specified question meant that there were good arguments for different answers, depending on how the question was interpreted. In the complementary video supporting the discussion, I found Sanderson's discussion pretty interesting. -- One of the suggested arguments was even "let's take the average of the other answers", although Sanderson wasn't sure if this was meant to be a joke or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJyKM-7IgAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJyKM-7IgAU
Barrin92 5y ago
John Kay wrote a good book about this (Radical Uncertainty). There is a trend to falsely quantify questions that take place either under conditions of uncertainty or where numbers are just axiomatic assumptions rather than based on regular observations. It's very much everywhere now, not just in abstract philosophy like this but even in a lot of real world scenarios like the pandemic. Instead of giving a qualitative narrative and leaving space for human intuition people try to present arguments as more certain than they are by slapping some numbers / models onto them.