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.

Dagon comments on Open thread Jan. 5-11, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: polymathwannabe 05 January 2015 12:48PM

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

Comments (150)

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

Comment author: Dagon 06 January 2015 03:56:46AM *  2 points [-]

There's no reason to limit simulation to one level, nor to privilege "real" as any special thing. All reality is emergent from a set of (highly complex, or maybe not) rules. This is true of n=0 ("reality", or "the natural simulation"), as well as every n+1 (where a level N entity simulates something).

It's turtles all the way up.

Put another way, the simulation parent entities wonder if they're being simulated, so it's exactly proper for the simulation target entities to wonder, for exactly the same reasons. I suspect that in every universe, thinking processes that can consider simulation will consider that they might be simulated.

I don't know if they'll reach the conclusion that it doesn't matter - finding the boundaries of the simulation is exactly identical to finding the boundaries of a "natural" universe, and we're gonna try to do so.

Comment author: ike 06 January 2015 07:08:41AM 1 point [-]

However, see my point about how the method of learning about the simulation matters for a imperfect-fidelity simulation.