I don't understand the Bayesian argument that we live in a simulation. It takes fewer resources to build a computer than to simulate one.
-
-
Replying to @Noahpinion
This is discussed in Section III of Bostrom's article: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
Hmm, I don't see how this really addresses it, but I'll think more about it...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion
It addresses it by arguing that one physical planet can simulate many subjective planets by leaving out unneeded details.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies @Noahpinion
I.e., it takes far fewer resources to simulate a mind and (relevant parts of) its environment than to build a brain and its environment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies @Noahpinion
So, yes, cheaper to build than simulate a computer, but most of the world isn't computing anything important.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Which means you can get away with simulating only a tiny fraction of the whole thing by abstracting over statistical mechanics etc.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.