----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Hanson <rhanson@gmu.edu>
Robin wrote:
" If our descendants tend to be more interested in simulating "pivotal"
people and events from their history, then you should raise your estimate of
the chances that the events and people around you will be considered pivotal
to your descendants. You should also try to encourage this to happen, as it
will make the simulators less likely to drop you from their simulation, or
to end that simulation. If you can identify an especially interesting event
around you, you might also try to prevent it from ending, as the simulation
might end soon after the event does. "
If our descendants are interested in at least a single blind study then our
world may be coming to an end. By single blind here I mean that we do not
know, or believe there is a reasonable degree of probability, that we are
living in a simulated world. We have good evidence that if we are in a
simulation then our descendents want the simulation to be at least single
blind. For on the one hand, if they want to let on that it was a simulation
they could give us some pretty direct evidence (think of the matrix). On
the other hand, if the simulation is not single blind then this might effect
their experimental results--for of course we might start acting differently.
So, even if you think or know this is a simulation you ought not to act
differently for fear that the experimental protocol will be aborted. Indeed,
if someone were to post the suggestion publicly about the possibility of
acting differently, given the probability that this is a simulation, this
might bring about a quick end to the simulation. An end to this simulation
would be an end to our world. So, the guy that makes that post will be the
one who is responsible for the end of our world. I am trying to remember the
name of that guy that is thought to be the harbinger of the end of the
world. Mark.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:40 MDT