Steve Nichols wrote:
> >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."
I guess you'll have to read my paper to find out.
(http://www.nickbostrom.com/Simulation.doc). The basic idea is that given
that there are lots of simulated copies of yourself, whose experiences are
subjectively indistinguishable from the originals, then by a very weak form
of the principle of indifference you are overwhelmingly more likely to be
one of the simulated copies.
> I challenge you to give any
>numerical values to "negligible" or "approaching one" and to
I don't see why picking a somewhat arbitrary numerical value would help. I
derive a formula which relates three quantities. If you want to derive a
precise value for one of them, you'll have to plug in precise values for
the other two.
(If it helps you to think of specific numbers, try 1% for "negligible" and
99% for "approaching one".)
Department of Philosophy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:40 MDT