lmm comments on Does the simulation argument even need simulations? - Less Wrong

7 Post author: lmm 11 October 2013 09:16PM

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

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: brazil84 12 October 2013 08:37:20PM 2 points [-]

I'd like to see that argument. If you can find a mapping that doesn't end up encoding the simulation in the mapping, I'd be surprised.

Well why should it matter if the simulation is encoded in the mapping?

Comment author: Baughn 13 October 2013 04:39:00PM 1 point [-]

If it is, that screens off any features of what it's mapping; you can no longer be surprised that 'random noise' produces such output.

Comment author: brazil84 15 October 2013 08:56:09AM 0 points [-]

Again, so what?

Let me adjust the original thought experiment:

The operation first computer is encrypted using a very large one-time pad.

Comments (102)