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
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
relatively to an infinite set of abstract indistinguishable observers.
See also my post to Brett Hall.