dfranke comments on We are not living in a simulation

[dfranke]

we cannot be in a simulation

We are not living in a simulation

These things are not identical.

[Cyan]

So you would assert that we can be in a simulation, but not living in it...?

[dfranke]

Try reading it as “the probability that we are living in a simulation is negligibly higher than zero”.

[Cyan]

I tried it. It didn’t help.

No joke -- I’m completely confused: the referent of “it” is not clear to me. Could be the apparent contradiction, could be the title…

Here’s what I’m not confused about: (i) your post only argues against Bostrom’s simulation argument; (ii) it seems you also want to defend yourself against the charge that your title was poorly chosen (in that it makes a broader claim that has misled your readership); (iii) your defense was too terse to make it into my brain.

[ArisKatsaris]

dfranke means, I think, that he considers being in a simulation possible, but not likely.

Statement A) “We are not living in a simulation”: P(living in a simulation) < 50%

Statement B) “We cannot be in a simulation”: P(living in a simulation) ~= 0%

dfranke believes A, but not B.

[dfranke]

No, rather:

A) “We are not living in a simulation” = P(living in a simulation) < ε.

B) “we cannot be living in a simulation” = P(living in a simulation) = 0.

I believe A but not B. Think of it analogously to weak vs. strong atheism. I’m a weak atheist with respect to both simulations and God.

[Cyan]

Ah, got it. Thanks.

[CuSithBell]

That may be dfranke’s intent, but categorically stating something to be the case generally indicates a much higher confidence than 50%. (“If you roll a die, it will come up three or higher.”)

[Cyan]

Thanks.

[[deleted]]

That I agree with, though not for reasons brought up here.