You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Coscott comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Mestroyer 24 September 2013 01:25AM

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

Comments (261)

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

Comment author: Coscott 24 September 2013 04:05:51AM 0 points [-]

Hmm. I was more thinking about a physics simulation by something that is nothing like a human than an ancestor simulation like in Bostrom's original argument. I think that most people who assign a non-trivial chance to ancestor simulation would assign a non-trivial chance to physics simulation.

I don't think either variety is very similar to a zoo, but if we were in a physics simulation, I do not think our relationship with our simulators is anything like a animal-zookeeper relationship.

I also think that you should taboo the word "universe," since it implies that there is nothing containing it. Whatever it is that we are in, our simulators created all of it, and probably could interfere if they wanted to. They are unlikely to want to now, since they went so long without interfering so far.

Comment author: Mestroyer 24 September 2013 04:12:55AM 4 points [-]

I also think that you should taboo the word "universe," since it implies that there is nothing containing it.

It may have once meant that, like the word "atom" once meant "indivisible." But that's not how people seem to use it anymore. Once a critical mass of people start misusing a word, I would rather become part of the problem than fight the inevitable.

Comment author: Coscott 24 September 2013 04:14:43AM 0 points [-]

If you were using the word that way, then it seems they are "creators of a (real) universe."