= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ESRogs comments on Open thread, July 29-August 4, 2013 - 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 (381)
Again, this seems irrelevant. I talked about ancestor simulations because that's how it's worded in the Simulation Argument, but as I said in the post above, as far as I can tell the logic doesn't depend on it. Just replace 'simulations of ancestors' with 'simulations of worlds containing sentient beings'.
As for the rest of your post, those are fine arguments for why the second horn of the trilemma should be rejected. I don't find them absolutely convincing, so I still assign non-negligible credence to option 2 (and thus still find the acausal control question interesting), but I don't have strong counterarguments either, so if you do assign negligible credence to option 2, perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
I do and based on the wording of your comment you have no real reason not to either.
Did you miss this part?
Nope. They weren't meant to be absolutely convincing - option 2) is possible just not probable.
Perhaps. I will have to think about it some more.