3 ms·

Ignoring the arrogance that, the network effects of his podcast is incredible. I don't know of another podcast that gets the kind of guest list lex does. But yo

Ignoring the arrogance that, the network effects of his podcast is incredible. I don't know of another podcast that gets the kind of guest list lex does. But you're right, his questions are often quite (pseudo-intellectual?) he's got a thing for "are we living in a simulation"

Eisenstein 4y ago
> he's got a thing for "are we living in a simulation" The 'simulation' argument is actually very persuasive if you look into it. Quoted below from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis: [Begin quote.] Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions is almost certainly true: 1. "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or 2. "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero", or 3. "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one." The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors. Bostrom goes on to use a type of anthropic reasoning to claim that, if the third proposition is the one of those three that is true, and almost all people live in simulations, then humans are almost certainly living in a simulation. [End quote.] * Note I don't care at all about Friedman and have listened to exactly one of his podcasts (Carmack).
- tipsytoad 4y ago
  I think I misrepresented the point there a little. It's not the fundamental question per se but something he asks every one of his guests, and comes off alil 3am teenage philosopher. I don't mean to bash him too much though, I think it's hard interviewing experts in areas they have spent their whole lives in and not to feel less informed in comparison.

Eisenstein 4y ago

> he's got a thing for "are we living in a simulation" The 'simulation' argument is actually very persuasive if you look into it. Quoted below from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis: [Begin quote.] Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions is almost certainly true: 1. "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or 2. "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero", or 3. "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one." The trilemma points out that a technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power; if even a tiny percentage of them were to run "ancestor simulations" (that is, "high-fidelity" simulations of ancestral life that would be indistinguishable from reality to the simulated ancestor), the total number of simulated ancestors, or "Sims", in the universe (or multiverse, if it exists) would greatly exceed the total number of actual ancestors. Bostrom goes on to use a type of anthropic reasoning to claim that, if the third proposition is the one of those three that is true, and almost all people live in simulations, then humans are almost certainly living in a simulation. [End quote.] * Note I don't care at all about Friedman and have listened to exactly one of his podcasts (Carmack).

tipsytoad 4y ago
I think I misrepresented the point there a little. It's not the fundamental question per se but something he asks every one of his guests, and comes off alil 3am teenage philosopher. I don't mean to bash him too much though, I think it's hard interviewing experts in areas they have spent their whole lives in and not to feel less informed in comparison.