Nick Bostrom wrote: > >[...] > >>Hal Finney: Perhaps you are considering posthumans who simulate variations >>on possible histories? In that case only those simulations which happen >>to match the past exactly would give rise to this question, which is >>arguably a small fraction of simulations assuming imperfect knowledge >>of the past. > >I think a version of your worry would pertain in this case too - one could >ask whether there is a fact of the matter whether my current >observer-moment is simulated or material. And the answer would be the same, >that the hypothesis considered refers indexically to its token >implementation.
But a notion like "token implementation" would lead (with the comp hyp) toward Jacques Mallah unsolved implementation problem. I don't think there is a meaning in such an expression. Token are just token relatively to an infinite set of abstract indistinguishable observers. See also my post to Brett Hall. Bruno
