= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paper-machine comments on Falsification - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (39)
As far as I can tell, your argument is that the proportion of simulations of us that are run by our descendents is significant with respect to the total number of simulations of us, because the number of simulations we currently run of our past is significant with respect to the total number of simulations of our past.
My argument is that we all have no data about either proportion, so it is ineffective to specialize our simulation arguments to the subclass of those simulations made by our descendants.
I don't think I ever said that. Rather, I was criticising the idea of comparing the number of past simulations with the number of "possible simulations" - by pointing out that considering the number of possible simulations ignored the important issue of motive - and I gave an example illustrating how motive might matter.
Obvious alternatives to ancestor simulations include optimisationverse and the adapted universe. We do have a whole universe worth's of data about which idea is more likely.
Oh, okay. Relevant in comparison to some other ad hoc simulator theory. I can understand that.