[extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists launchinquisition...)

[Kevin Freels]

Of course, if we develop the ability to run such sims, what kind of strain
does that put on those who are running our sim? After a period of time, you
would end up with infinite sims within sims as each one develops this
ability.

Kevin Freels

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Giu1i0 Pri5c0" <pgptag at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] The Simulation Argument (was: Atheists
launchinquisition...)


> But I don't emotionally dislike the conclusion that we live in a sim.
> Actually, I emotionally LOVE it! When I was reading Nick's paper the
> first time I was very excited and happy.
> But while I have little doubts that we will become posthumans (if we
> manage not to kill ourselves before), and that posthumans will have
> the means to run sims, I think we have no info on the computational
> cost of running a sim wrt their total computational resources, and no
> info on their actual interest in running a sim. An experiment, of
> course yes, but massive sims that include billions of conscious
> beings? I don't know.
> The SA is not religion of course but includes all elements found in
> religion. You have an all powerful being who can answer your prayers
> if she wants to, and wake you up in Heaven after death (she extracts
> you from the most recent backup and injects you in a better sim).
> G.
>
> On Thu,  2 Dec 2004 09:09:10 -0800 (PST), "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org>
wrote:
> > Giu1i0 writes:
> > But mere emotional dislike of a conclusion should not cause us to
> > re-evaluate our assumptions.  That would mean putting emotion over
> > reason.  It is a non-Bayesian way of reasoning.  If we believed
posthuman
> > simulations had a certain probability before, we shouldn't adjust that
> > probability merely if the SA convinces us that this implies that we are
> > in a simulation, and that possibility feels spooky.
> >
> > > No, I think the SA is one of those things that you just don't know
> > > about. But its value is to show how one can build a religion perfectly
> > > compatible with our scienfific knowledge of the universe.
> >
> > I don't see the SA as having anything to do with religion.  It is a
> > question of philosophy, of ontology, of metaphysics.  But not religion.
> >
> > Hal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat