[Link] How the Simulation Argument Dampens Future Fanaticism

David Althaus

Very comprehensive analysis by Brian Tomasik on whether (and to what extent) the simulation argument should change our altruistic priorities. He concludes that the possibility of ancestor simulations somewhat increases the comparative importance of short-term helping relative to focusing on shaping the "far future".

Another important takeaway:

[...] rather than answering the question “Do I live in a simulation or not?,” a perhaps better way to think about it (in line with Stuart Armstrong's anthropic decision theory) is “Given that I’m deciding for all subjectively indistinguishable copies of myself, what fraction of my copies lives in a simulation and how many total copies are there?"

They design it so that once started it will run with no interference from either of them or anyone else until it is done.

This is the case of the "dream-maker on full autopilot", right?

But I'm curious about Bob. Can Bob meddle with the simulation if he decides he wants to? Can he hit the off switch? Cut the wires? Smash the computing substrate into tiny little pieces?

To the extent that this sim has gods, Alice is one.

Why so? Alice is not a god. She has no special ("supernatural") powers. Since we are talking about our empirical reality maybe/possibly being a simulation, Alice even does not remember being outside of the simulation. She is just another unique snowflake in the Matrix. Now, Bob, he's in a very different position.

15

[Link] How the Simulation Argument Dampens Future Fanaticism

15

15

15

[Link] How the Simulation Argument Dampens Future Fanaticism

15

15