= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Perplexed comments on The Irrationality Game - 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 (910)
No, you don't see the problem. The problem is that Will_Newsome began by stating:
Which is fine. But now I am being told that my counter claim "I am not living in a simulation" is meaningless. Meaningless because I can't prove my statement empirically.
What we seem to have here is very similar to Godel's version of St. Anselm's "ontological" proof of the existence of a simulation (i.e. God).
Oh. Did you see my comment asking him to tell whether he meant "some of our measure is in a simulation" or "this particular me is in a simulation"? The first question is asking whether or not we believe that the computer exists (ie, if we were looking at the computer-that-runs-reality could we notice that some copies of us are in simulations or not) and the second is the one I have been arguing is meaningless (kinda).