= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dfranke comments on We are not living in a simulation - 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 (211)
These things are not identical.
So you would assert that we can be in a simulation, but not living in it...?
Try reading it as "the probability that we are living in a simulation is negligibly higher than zero".
I tried it. It didn't help.
No joke -- I'm completely confused: the referent of "it" is not clear to me. Could be the apparent contradiction, could be the title...
Here's what I'm not confused about: (i) your post only argues against Bostrom's simulation argument; (ii) it seems you also want to defend yourself against the charge that your title was poorly chosen (in that it makes a broader claim that has misled your readership); (iii) your defense was too terse to make it into my brain.
dfranke means, I think, that he considers being in a simulation possible, but not likely.
Statement A) "We are not living in a simulation": P(living in a simulation) < 50%
Statement B) "We cannot be in a simulation": P(living in a simulation) ~= 0%
dfranke believes A, but not B.
No, rather:
A) "We are not living in a simulation" = P(living in a simulation) < ε.
B) "we cannot be living in a simulation" = P(living in a simulation) = 0.
I believe A but not B. Think of it analogously to weak vs. strong atheism. I'm a weak atheist with respect to both simulations and God.
Ah, got it. Thanks.
Thanks.
That may be dfranke's intent, but categorically stating something to be the case generally indicates a much higher confidence than 50%. ("If you roll a die, it will come up three or higher.")
That I agree with, though not for reasons brought up here.