= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Theists are wrong; is theism? - 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 (533)
So, a science fiction author as well as a science fiction movie? What evidence should I be updating on?
Nonfiction author at the time - and predominantly a nonfiction author. Don't be rude (logically and conventionally).
I was hoping that you would be capable of updating based on understanding the abstract reasoning given the (rather unusual) premises. Rather than responding to superficial similarity to things you do not affiliate with.
If you link me to a post, I'll take a look at it. But I seem to remember EY coming down on the side of empiricism over rationalism (the sort that sees an armchair philosopher as a superior source of knowledge), and "just simulate the entire universe" comments strike me as heavily in the camp of rationalism.
I think you might be mixing up my complaints, and I apologize for shuffling them in together. I have no physical context for hacking outside of the matrix, and so have no clue what he's drawing on besides fictional evidence. Separately, I consider it stunningly ignorant to say "Just simulate the entire universe" in the context of basic epistemology, and hope EY hasn't posted something along those lines.
Simulating the entire universe does seem to require some unusual assumptions of knowledge and computational power.