From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Sun May 05 2002 - 11:51:19 MDT
John K Clark wrote:
> "Adrian Tymes" <wingcat@pacbell.net> Wrote
> >good enough to fool your conscious, short-term notice.
>
> I still don't understand you, it doesn't matter if I've been fooled or not,
> if I think I've survived then I have.
...? That's off the topic I was talking about altogether. Yes, "you"
survived for some definition of "you", there is no doubt. The
discussion was how you would know if you woke up from cryo in a
simulation or in the same (level of) reality you went to sleep in. I
suggested that the reason people suspect you would know is because, in
practice, such simulations have so far been lacking, thus the natural
instinct (all logic aside) is to suspect they will always be lacking
some detail.
> >What of an event that heppens once every 100,000
> >times or so in reality, but approximated to never in
> >the simulation? Say...someone winning the lottery?
> >It can build up to a noticeable difference, eventually.
>
> A difference certainly but I don't see how it could be noticeable because
> you'd have no way of knowing what the alternative would have been.
I was comparing it to situations where you *did* know what the
alternative should have been. In this example, you might not
consciously notice until years later, "Hey, why does no one ever win the
lottery? Where does all that money go?" But something might seem odd
at a less-than-conscious level well before then.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:50 MST