3 ms·

I suppose it would be, if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome. It's probably not a concern for anyon

I suppose it would be, if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome. It's probably not a concern for anyone reading this, though.

pcthrowaway 12y ago
You said it would be unethical for people to create a simulation wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering. If you have children, you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times.
- O____________O 12y ago
  wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times Hence my statement: if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome.
  - seba_dos1 12y ago
    So doesn't that also apply to the whole simulated universe as well?
    - O____________O 12y ago
      Yes? Either I'm misunderstanding your comment, or we're just running in a circle now.
      - seba_dos1 12y ago
        You said that "it would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering", but it applies also to having children, so you clarified that the creator has to have a "reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome" for it to be unethical. So if the creator of the universe doesn't have such reason, your original assumption is not valid anymore, making it perfectly ethical to create a simulation of universe as long as you believe that the net outcome will be positive.
        pcthrowaway 12y ago
        Thank you. That's what I was getting at. A simulated world would contain suffering just as the 'real' (presumably) world does. Bringing 'conscious life' into a simulated world would be no more unethical than bringing life into the world we inhabit.

I suppose it would be, if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome. It's probably not a concern for anyone reading this, though.

pcthrowaway 12y ago

You said it would be unethical for people to create a simulation wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering. If you have children, you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times.

O____________O 12y ago
wherein the simulated minds might experience suffering you are creating new lives that are capable of experiencing suffering, and who inevitably will at times Hence my statement: if you had reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome.
- seba_dos1 12y ago
  So doesn't that also apply to the whole simulated universe as well?
  - O____________O 12y ago
    Yes? Either I'm misunderstanding your comment, or we're just running in a circle now.
    - seba_dos1 12y ago
      You said that "it would be unethical to create a simulation in which the simulated beings were sophisticated enough to be self-aware and capable of significant suffering", but it applies also to having children, so you clarified that the creator has to have a "reason to believe there was a sufficient likelihood of a sufficiently negative outcome" for it to be unethical. So if the creator of the universe doesn't have such reason, your original assumption is not valid anymore, making it perfectly ethical to create a simulation of universe as long as you believe that the net outcome will be positive.
      - pcthrowaway 12y ago
        Thank you. That's what I was getting at. A simulated world would contain suffering just as the 'real' (presumably) world does. Bringing 'conscious life' into a simulated world would be no more unethical than bringing life into the world we inhabit.