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.
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.”)
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.
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.
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.
Ah, got it. Thanks.
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.”)
Thanks.