Curated. Like others, I found this a good simpler articulation of the concept. I appreciated the disclaimers around the potentially infohazardous section.
One thing I got from this post, which for some reason I hadn’t gotten from previous posts, was the notion that “to what degree am I in a simulation?” may be situation-dependent. i.e. moments where I’m involved with historically important things might be more simulationy, other times less so. (Something had felt off about my previous question of “do more ‘historically important’ people have a more-of-their-measure in simulations?”, and the answer is maybe still just “yes”, but somehow it feels less magical and weird to ask “how likely is this particular moment to be simulated?”)
Something does still feel pretty sus to me about the “during historically significant moments, you might be more likely to see something supernatural-looking afterwards” (esp. if you think it should be appear in >50% of your reality-measure-or-whatever).
The “think in terms of expected value” seems practically useful but also… I dunno, even if I was a much more historically significant person, I just really don’t expect to see Simulationy Things. The reasoning spelled out in the post didn’t feel like it resolved my confusion about this.
(independent of that, I agreed with Richard’s critique of some of the phrasing in the post, which seem to not quite internalize the claims David was making)
Curated. Like others, I found this a good simpler articulation of the concept. I appreciated the disclaimers around the potentially infohazardous section.
One thing I got from this post, which for some reason I hadn’t gotten from previous posts, was the notion that “to what degree am I in a simulation?” may be situation-dependent. i.e. moments where I’m involved with historically important things might be more simulationy, other times less so. (Something had felt off about my previous question of “do more ‘historically important’ people have a more-of-their-measure in simulations?”, and the answer is maybe still just “yes”, but somehow it feels less magical and weird to ask “how likely is this particular moment to be simulated?”)
Something does still feel pretty sus to me about the “during historically significant moments, you might be more likely to see something supernatural-looking afterwards” (esp. if you think it should be appear in >50% of your reality-measure-or-whatever).
The “think in terms of expected value” seems practically useful but also… I dunno, even if I was a much more historically significant person, I just really don’t expect to see Simulationy Things. The reasoning spelled out in the post didn’t feel like it resolved my confusion about this.
(independent of that, I agreed with Richard’s critique of some of the phrasing in the post, which seem to not quite internalize the claims David was making)