= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on Does the simulation argument even need simulations? - 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 (102)
The Numerical Platonist's construct is just the universe itself again. No problem there.
If you're not a numerical platonist, I don't see how unexecuted computations could be experienced.
And that leaves us with regular simulation.
(Incidentally, point 6 has a hidden assumption about the distribution of simulated universes)
Why? If it's just because the computations come out the same, doesn't that mean any simulation of the universe is also just the universe itself again?