It changes probability spectre of possible futures. It makes more probable that I live in interesting historical simulation and may be simulation with miracles. But this shift is not strong enough so I could conclude “Ups, my life is ordinary and boring and so it is real”.
The problem here is that creators of simulation could use all their power to prevent me from knowing that I am in simulation. That is why Popper-style scientific method need to be use here with caution.
That sounds pretty similar to a Deist’s God, which created the universe but does not interfere thereafter. Personally, I’d just shave it off with Ocam’s razor.
Also, it seems a little absurd to try to infer things about our simulators, even supposing they exist. After all, their universe can be almost arbitrarily different from ours.
If you’re still at this level of confidence in the argument, I’d check Bostrom’s argument somewhere online, it’s pretty straightforwards over all.
In particular, your above comment has a similar mental flavor to the argument:
One of these is likely true:
The universe came into being as-is while you were reading this
The universe came into being a long time ago and then things happened that caused this state
I select 1 because it’s simpler to assume less time in the past.
It seems like you’re making a similar error, but I can’t really tell if it’s a form of some named error or not.
It changes probability spectre of possible futures. It makes more probable that I live in interesting historical simulation and may be simulation with miracles. But this shift is not strong enough so I could conclude “Ups, my life is ordinary and boring and so it is real”. The problem here is that creators of simulation could use all their power to prevent me from knowing that I am in simulation. That is why Popper-style scientific method need to be use here with caution.
That sounds pretty similar to a Deist’s God, which created the universe but does not interfere thereafter. Personally, I’d just shave it off with Ocam’s razor.
Also, it seems a little absurd to try to infer things about our simulators, even supposing they exist. After all, their universe can be almost arbitrarily different from ours.
If you’re still at this level of confidence in the argument, I’d check Bostrom’s argument somewhere online, it’s pretty straightforwards over all.
In particular, your above comment has a similar mental flavor to the argument:
One of these is likely true:
The universe came into being as-is while you were reading this
The universe came into being a long time ago and then things happened that caused this state I select 1 because it’s simpler to assume less time in the past.
It seems like you’re making a similar error, but I can’t really tell if it’s a form of some named error or not.