The Grad Student and the Dropout
jbone at deepfile.com
Tue Apr 29 17:34:04 PDT 2003
On Tuesday, Apr 29, 2003, at 16:16 US/Central, Russell Turpin wrote:
> Definitely, following Bostrom's argument. Not only
> will our intellectual descendants want to simulate
> their ancestors, but they also will want to simulate
> gods and demons (why not?), who will create subworlds
> of beings, who might or might not look like their
> ancestors. After all, wouldn't it be strange if we
> were the *first* race to reach the singularity? IF
> we exist as a simulation, THEN I think it is more
> likely that we exist not as a simulation of our
> descendants, but of some race we haven't imagined.
You're really hung up on this level-notion of who's the simulator and
who's the simulated... and I'm telling you, that's the wrong question
to ask, probably based on looking at the problem with a particular
What if things don't stack up in a nice neat layer cake, but are rather
a graph --- with cycles?
Who cares? Does it matter?
> The issue with empiricism isn't that it is ruled
> out as a pragmatic tool, but that as a philosophical
> position it would no longer serve as a basis for
> ruling out an unknowable reality behind the
> observable reality, for laughing at the possibility
> of demons and gods.
It doesn't, however, prevent it from being used as a tool for ruling
out pragmatically useless discussions. Watch! ;-) Tell you what,
Russell: when the Big Man With The Beard, Bugs Bunny, and Einstein's
brain-in-a-book show up at your door to discuss whether the simulation
hypothesis requires, entails, or implies faith --- then we'll talk.
Also: who said that all parts of the phase space are equally reachable
from any given part? What does "reachable" mean, etc.
It's the lack of definition of questions like the above, much less
answers, that make your wild and desperate attempts to do away with the
"odd" and apparently uncomfortable-to-consider consequences of a
simulation hypothesis incredible at the moment. You're leaping ahead
about 10 turns --- I don't even know what the questions are (and
apparently you haven't given them any thought either) that would allow
us to deal with this seriously.
Running to the corners.
> That's true in MWI. But in EPW, the phase space is
> every possible reality where our reality exists as
> a simulation or embedded reality.
Fine so far.
> In THAT phase
> space, I think there are many more worlds where we
> cannot probe the nature of the Really Real -- or
> actually, the Next Reality Up -- than those where
> we can.
> And that's true also for the beings in the
> reality behind ours. When you start considering the
> hierarchy, the possibilities explode.
You're assuming a lot more than I am.
> I think
> you're trying to tame EPW with analogy from MWI,
> and it doesn't really work.
And I think you're failing to see that MWI is merely a subset of EPW,
and that there's nothing on the books that makes the two incompatible.
Look: I understand that you've got serious, long-standing issues about
"what constitutes a model" and "what constitutes a simulation" ---
we've had (many of) those discussions before. But you're dragging all
sorts of baggage into this, making all kinds of wild assumptions and
assertions (to which I have not stipulated) and leaping to frankly
incredible conclusions. Presumably for the purpose of creating such an
incredible strawman that you can simply knock it over and not have to
puzzle out any admittedly uncomfortable conclusions to which
alternatives might lead.
You're not convincing me, Russell. You're going to have to drill down
on this in order to do so.
More information about the FoRK