[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Russell Wallace]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 03:58:32 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> That is an incontrovertible result of the same logic in the SA:
> because, if it is possible to simulate whole universes, and at least
> one civilization in one natural universe simulates universes capable of
> developing their own posthuman civilizations, then odds are
> overwhelming that we live in a simulation. If we don't in fact live in
> a simulation, we are either the one in a bazillion exception to the
> 'living in a simulation' odds, or else we live in a universe where it
> is impossible to simulate whole universes.

Sorry, I misread your earlier comment - yes, one could plausibly argue
that if we could be sure we are _not_ living in a simulation, then
this would also give us reason to suspect it is impossible to simulate
whole universes.

However, since in fact we cannot know whether or not we are living in
a simulation, we also cannot know whether it is possible to simulate
whole universes; the simulation argument can't tell us anything about
whether it is possible or not.

- Russell