__Emil__ comments on What does it take? - Less Wrong

2 Post author: Hyena 12 September 2011 01:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (27)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: __Emil__ 12 September 2011 02:32:59PM 4 points [-]

If the gray-haired gentleman is the Simulator of our universe, then presumably he could demonstrate this by allowing you to "view" the simulation, in particular your decomposing corpse, grieving loved ones &c. Also, he could further replay to you events from the past: events you remember vividly, and perhaps some historical ones too. And also, he could allow you to spectate on the ongoing simulation.

Of course, he would no doubt have to provide a considerable number of bits of information in order for the Afterlife hypothesis to become more likely than the alternatives such as dreaming, drugs, major brain malfunction, &c.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 12 September 2011 05:10:44PM *  1 point [-]

This also doesn't differentiate 'dead but sentient' from 'brain in a vat', and I think the prior for the latter is a bit higher than the prior for the former.

Comment author: __Emil__ 12 September 2011 07:45:57PM 3 points [-]

I'm not sure what the difference is between 'dead but sentient' and 'brain in a vat'.

I was assuming that we want to distinguish between:

  1. The universe is simulated and the Simulator has the power to preserve minds even after their bodies in the simulation die. (This may or may not include brains being in vats.)

  2. You are still in this universe and someone is trying to trick you into thinking that (1) is true.