4 ms·

> Basically, I believe the advanced calculations to be correct because they lead to things which are (eventually) used in daily life. I think you are missing m

> Basically, I believe the advanced calculations to be correct because they lead to things which are (eventually) used in daily life. I think you are missing my point - if you can short circuit logic, you will never be able to know whether your calculations are correct (but you will believe it) Whether the outputs are used in daily life or not is irrelevant. You don't truly know if that is happening because you do not know what the fuzz factor is in the simulation. Is the night sky the same as it was yesterday, or is it generated on the spot and your memory edited? The latter is more compute efficient. Does your coworker look the same, or is the fuzz factor in the sim very high and they have a new face/body generated every day, with your memory edited to match? Etc. that the outputs of the equations you described are used or not is irrelevant because it would be far more compute efficient to just not have them mean anything and to fuzz their existence/workability

genrilz 3y ago
Indeed, I can't prove that it is or isn't the case that my thoughts and memories aren't being constantly overwritten to make reality consistent. I don't have a firm belief one way or the other, but I act like reality does intrinsically make sense. Reason being, if reality is consistent, than acting as though it does achieves my goals. If reality isn't consistent, or is consistent in a way that differs from what I am capable of comprehending, then I am unable to compute any pattern of behavior that would be helpful to achieving my goals. Thus it only makes sense to me to act like reality is consistent. I think that if I am acting this way, then it makes sense for me to say that I "believe" reality is consistent in a non thought overriding way. EDIT: Looking at your comment again, I think that you think it is likely that reality should be simple because computing that would be easier. If we are stuck in a simulation by more advanced beings, then it is possible that compute power is a limiting factor, or they may just have computers so powerful that simulating us could be a cinch. The simulation scenario is easy to imagine. However, just because I can't imagine scenarios besides "it just is this way", "God did it", and "We are in a simulation" doesn't mean such scenarios don't exist.

genrilz 3y ago

Indeed, I can't prove that it is or isn't the case that my thoughts and memories aren't being constantly overwritten to make reality consistent. I don't have a firm belief one way or the other, but I act like reality does intrinsically make sense. Reason being, if reality is consistent, than acting as though it does achieves my goals. If reality isn't consistent, or is consistent in a way that differs from what I am capable of comprehending, then I am unable to compute any pattern of behavior that would be helpful to achieving my goals. Thus it only makes sense to me to act like reality is consistent. I think that if I am acting this way, then it makes sense for me to say that I "believe" reality is consistent in a non thought overriding way. EDIT: Looking at your comment again, I think that you think it is likely that reality should be simple because computing that would be easier. If we are stuck in a simulation by more advanced beings, then it is possible that compute power is a limiting factor, or they may just have computers so powerful that simulating us could be a cinch. The simulation scenario is easy to imagine. However, just because I can't imagine scenarios besides "it just is this way", "God did it", and "We are in a simulation" doesn't mean such scenarios don't exist.