Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:02:34 -0500
From: Nick Bostrom <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: How To Live In A Simulation
Steve Nichols wrote:
>>But logically I feel Nick is *wrong* ... since he fails to omit 4. That
>>could be the ancestors leading the original lives on which any future
>>simulations are based!!!!!
>I show that 4 has negligible probability.
How can you possibly *show* that probability of this ... which is
the intuitively obvious possibility, after all there must be original, but
not necessarily any simulations .... has "negligible probability."
Academic philosophers are keen to sound mathematical and
precise in their logic chopping, but I challenge you to give any
numerical values to "negligible" or "approaching one" and to
show any workings. The simulation idea is just a flight of fancy,
one of any number of possible worlds.
Median Vision Theory kills artificial conventionalist philosophy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:40 MDT