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 postulated to swamp any countervailing number of 'natural
observers'.  It's because of this that I prefer to focus on other
possible issues constraining such scenarios, because, as Bostrom points
out, if you accept his basic premises (its feasible and some advanced
civilisation would actually do it) then you can always set the
situation up so that an argument based on 'observer moments' seems to
swamp any objections. I can't help feeling there's something fishy
about this. I've never been very happy with the logic of the doomsday
argument either, but that's another topic.


> 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 actually do it, then the huge number of 'observer
> > moments' thus generated would make it probable that we were in fact
> > living in one.  I don't think there are any other assumptions about the
> > motivations of the simulaters.
> what puzzle's me about this, is that accepting this argument (which as similar
> root with the doomsday argument) is accepting also this:
> (here follows assumption about a pure materialist mwi).
> 1- Materialist mwi alla everett is true.
> 2- So there exist world in the plenitude which have a lot of observer.
> 3- Then it is more likely that I'm in a branch where a lot of observer exist.
> But I'm not (obsviously)... I'm about the 60 billions human born on this
> earth... and this number seems very low (just only for human life form). If
> (physical) mwi is true then I should be part of a universe with a lot of
> sentient life forms, if not I'm a peculiar case and it should be strange that
> I am. So the argument that I should be in a simulation because the majority
> of OM should be in a simulation (because we can't rule out that our future
> civilisations will simulate us if it is possible), means also that we should
> be in a universe that has plenty of sentient life forms (but it seems we're
> not). So my question is simply this :
> - Why accepting the simulation argument is "simpler" than accepting
> the "multitude sentient life forms hypothesis" ? ;)
> Best regards,
> Quentin
> P.S.: I would like to apology to "W.C.", sometimes my thoughts are quicker
> than my fingers /o\
> P.S.2: I also apology form my horrible english ;) One day, I'll be a perfect
> english speaker, but this day hasn't come yet.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to