[extropy-chat] The world as a Sim ? Irrelevant

[Brett Paatsch]

[Hmm I have to conserve my posts like precious shots or I may
exceed 8 again :-)  ]

Kevin wrote:

> With an experiment where we were[are] in a sim, the results
> of the experiment would be flawed if we kn[o]ew we were in
> the sim.

Interesting notion.

> Therefore, they would make it either impossible to prove, or,
> delete the idea from our memory.

Why, and more importantly how, would/could "they"? (Hint: Cogito ergo
sum). No one gets between one and one's mind without one's
consent.

> So I guess, if we proved we were in a sim, that proof would
> show that we weren;t  in a sim...............?
> Hmmm. It's a weird day here.

The weirdness may linger longer for you (about as long as you think
that this sort of thing can be apprehended as proof-for-you by "we".
If one does one's own *reckoning* then one may get even more
help from one's friends.

Brett
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brett Paatsch" <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The world as a Sim ? Irrelevant
>
>
> > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> >
> > > Brett Paatsch wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eliezer S. Yudkowsky writes:
> > > >
> > > >>This world could easily be a computer simulation, but if so
> > > >>it is a simulation of a  world without ESP.
> > > >
> > > > I reckon (without believing) that it is NOT a sim and could
> > > > NOT easily be a sim.
> > >
> > > I used to have a very strong intuition that the world was not a
> > > sim. Eventually it went away, and in retrospect I think it was
> > > based on nothing but wishful thinking.
> >
> > Even in retropect I wonder why such a notion would just go
> > away? Could it be that the notion was not important to you?
> >
> > >
> > > As Lee Corbin pointed out with respect to the Tegmark
> > > bubble duplication, there is no *particular* you, only the
> > > *set* of yous.  It seems to me likely, on my current model,
> > > that at least some of you are living in a computer simulation.
> >
> > [Sorry some ambiguity in that -hard to process]
> >
> > You necessarily see the world from your own standpoint Eliezer
> > and from that standpoint the words "me" and "you" tag different
> > referents than the same words do in other persons standpoints.
> > I am not sure if you mean "you" as a self-reference also (like in
> > "one") or you as other-reference only.
> >
> > >  The question is whether almost all of you are
> > > simulated, or almost all of you are real.
> >
> > I know I'm real.  Do you know you are real?
> >
> > > > I think that to entertain the notion that it is is to run the risk
of
> > > > repeating (now dead) Pascal's wager and betting the same
> > > > wrong way.  Of betting that there is a super-natural being that
> > > > is going to come to the rescue like Santa Claus. I prefer to
> > > > work with friends and the resources that I have, rather than
> > > > fret over the resources I don't have. I am not malicious and
> > > > I will deal with maliciousness if I must with resolution and
> > > > ferocity of my own.
> > >
> > > That some people may be inclined to abuse the simulation
> > > hypothesis in predictable ways, does not bear on the simulation
> > > hypothesis's *actual  truth or falsity*.
> >
> > True. But really who cares?
> >
> > >
> > > > I can see no advantage or change in my habits that I would
> > > > make if I thought the world was a sim. I would probably have
> > > > more allies and friends if less people entertained the sim
> > > > hypothesis so much but so be it.
> > >
> > > Okay, so most actions are the same on the simulation hypothesis.
> > > Again this does not bear on the simulation hypothesis's actual truth
> > > or falsity.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >
> > > > I think that if no-one can come up with a reliable test, (group
> > > > test - science or solitary test - pure reason) to see if the world
> > > > is a sim then it would be better to step around what looks like
> > > > an iteration of the same old mindfuk, to put away childish
> > > > things and to concentrate minds and energies on the tasks
> > > > at hand.
> > >
> > > If you can't come up with any experimental observation that
> > > differs on the world being a sim, then you don't need to know
> > > how much of your measure lies in sims, because it won't make
> > > any difference to subjective  probabilities.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > The problem is in dealing with questions like "Would my measure
> > > sharply decrease after a Singularity, and if so, what would that
> > > look like?",
> >
> > [sorry perhaps I am missing something but I don't find that to be
> > an important question. Perhaps it is because I don't think of the
> > Singularity in pro-noun terms. I really don't know. Perhaps I could
> > see your point a bit better if you could unpack 'baby' a bit more.
> >
> > Can you describe the Singularity as you see it with more words
> > than the one (Singularity) but no pronouns? I think that would help.
> >
> > > where the triggering event lies in the future, is
> > > important, and there is no obvious way to test different
> > > hypotheses in advance.
> >
> > You may have a point but I can't parse to it for the reasons given
> > above.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Brett
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat