David Nyman writes:
They're not just simulating us, are they? They might have just slapped
together a virtual universe in an idle moment to see how it turns out. Maybe
they're more interested in star formation, or bacteria or something. Is an
E. coli
in your gut justified in thinking
- Original Message -
From: David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: The moral dimension of simulation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we simulate what we are living in according
Brent Meeker writes:
David Nyman wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Perhaps it says something about the nature of the simulation's creators,
but I don't see that it says anything about the probability that we are
living in one.
Do you mean that if we are living in one, then
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
They're not just simulating us, are they? They might have just slapped
together a virtual universe in an idle moment to see how it turns out. Maybe
they're more interested in star formation, or bacteria or something. Is an E.
coli
in your gut justified in
PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 5:05 PM
Subject: RE: The moral dimension of simulation
If we are living in a simulation (and I believe the matrix hypothesis is a
real possibility) and if we are all just software constructs then the
architect has some
in. We just think and therefore we think we are.
Most ignorantly and commonsensically yours
John M
- Original Message -
From: Nick Prince [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 5:05 PM
Subject: RE: The moral dimension of simulation
David Nyman wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Perhaps it says something about the nature of the simulation's creators,
but I don't see that it says anything about the probability that we are
living in one.
Do you mean that if we are living in one, then the moral standards of
its
David Nyman writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Perhaps it says something about the nature of the simulation's creators,
but I don't see that it says anything about the probability that we are
living in one.
Do you mean that if we are living in one, then the moral standards of
its
Brent Meeker wrote:
But the hypothesis that the creators are like us is part of the
justification for supposing they would run simulations of intelligent
beings. If you then argue that their motivations and ethics might be alien
to us, you've discarded any reason for supposing they would
List
Subject: Re: The moral dimension of simulation
Nick Prince wrote:
Who says morality to all other species is useful anyway (for survival) and
even a defining feature of intelligent species? In war people kill people
just like themselves, as long as they wear a different uniform! We drop
Hi David,
Le Mardi 8 Août 2006 15:47, David Nyman a écrit :
I'm not sure that Nick Bostrom et al actually take this view. Rather
the notion seems to be based on the assumptions that if this is a
feasible thing to do, and unless you could rule out that *some* future
civilisation would
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
- Why accepting the simulation argument is simpler than accepting
the multitude sentient life forms hypothesis ? ;)
Hi Quentin
I think the argument here is based on the presumed lack of practical
constraints on the sheer magnitude of 'simulable observers', which can
be
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Perhaps it says something about the nature of the simulation's creators,
but I don't see that it says anything about the probability that we are
living in one.
Do you mean that if we are living in one, then the moral standards of
its creators are reprehensible (to
.
Nick Prince
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Nyman
Sent: 07 August 2006 00:16
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: The moral dimension of simulation
But your observation goes to the heart of my question. If we were
Subject: Re: The moral dimension of simulation
But your observation goes to the heart of my question. If we were
indeed 'merely incidental' (from whose perspective?) then what would
this say about the ethical position of the simulaters? Further, if we
are merely playing the role of 'simple
It could be that we are merely incidental to the purpose of the simulation.
In the game of life for example there are many interesting patterns which
come out of simple automata. In the case of this game , AFAIK the only
purpose was to demonstrate the possibility of complexity from simplicity.
But your observation goes to the heart of my question. If we were
indeed 'merely incidental' (from whose perspective?) then what would
this say about the ethical position of the simulaters? Further, if we
are merely playing the role of 'simple automata' then what is the
purpose (from the
David Nyman writes:
I don't know whether these issues have been given an airing here, but
I have a couple of thoughts about whether we're really 'in the
Matrix', a la Nick Bostrom.
Firstly, a moral issue. At least at the level of public debate, in our
(apparent?) reality there is
18 matches
Mail list logo
