= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Getting Over Dust Theory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (97)
It's basically modal realism for compsci geeks. In a universe without ontologically fundamental mental things, we can't perceive reality directly; our thoughts are implemented in brains. But then, once you concede that thoughts are implemented somehow, it seems to follow that there's no way to tell that you're not actually being implemented in a computer situation. And if you buy some strong Machian principles, you start thinking, well, if I can't possibly tell whether or not I'm in a simulation or the "real world," then maybe there is no fact of the matter. Maybe the universe is just pure information, all possible programs, all possible mathematical structures, and I'm an observer that just happens to find itself embedded in the "dust" of random bits. Cf. Tegmark level IV.
ADDENDUM--- Yeah, I don't buy it, either.
I haven't read Permutation City, but that's pretty much my view of reality. I don't think there's a meaningful difference between "the real world" and a perfect simulation of it (at least seen "from the inside") - the same way a chess configuration is the same whether it's played on a computer or on a real chessboard today or on a real chessboard a couple centuries ago. Does the rook agonize about whether he's a real rook or a simulation? Does it mean something to him?
What's the meaning of meaningful? Do you mean that you literally cannot understand the opposite of simulationism? Or are using "meaningful" to mean "empirically confirmable"? The empirical indetectability of a simulation follows from simulations premises, right enough....but it cannot be used to argue for them.
I mean, roughly, that not only are the two empircally indistinguishable, but that I don't even see a reason to care about whether I'm "in a simulation" or not, and it's not even clear what would qualify as a simulation...
Don't you mean "have been indistinguishable up to time T"
Simulations support counterfactuals, such as shutdowns. getting out into the real world, etc.
If we're given assurances that things you might care about, such as being abruptly halted, aren't going to happen, then you might have nothing further to care about....but it is difficult to see what such assurances would consist of,