= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Squark comments on Open thread, 21-27 April 2014 - 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 (346)
The argument falls apart once you use UDT instead of naive anthropic reasoning: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jv4/open_thread_1117_march_2014/aoym
Maybe I am unfamiliar with the specifics of simulated reality. But I don't understand how it is assumed (or even probable, given Occam's Razor) that if we are simulated then there are copies of us. What is implausible about the possibility that I'm in a simulation and I'm the only instance of me that exists?
In the Tegmark IV multiverse all consistent possibilities exist so there is always a universe in which you are not in a simulation. The only meaningful question is what universes you should pay more attention to.
See also this.