Re: The Simulation Argument

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon Dec 3 07:07:59 2001

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
Received on Mon Dec 03 2001 - 07:07:59 PST