Re:Scientists are looking for ways to put the simulation hyp...
by ASipos on Thursday October 04, 2018 @12:26PM
(#18141337)
That's because the simulation argument is the finitary version of the ontological argument.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Scientists are looking for ways to put the simulation hyp...
by warent on Thursday October 04, 2018 @12:37PM
(#18141428)
I've never heard that a qualifier for the simulation hypothesis is that it must be finite. For example, there could be infinitely many simulations recursively, or there could be a sufficiently advanced extra-dimensional lifeform that has generated an unbounded simulation that we live in.
Re:Scientists are looking for ways to put the simulation hyp...
by ASipos on Thursday October 04, 2018 @03:19PM
(#18142795)
I wasn't referring to the finiteness of the simulation, but rather to the fact that the notion of necessary truth (the box operator) is replaced by high probability. (I'm specifically referring to the modern modal versions of the ontological argument, which are not subject to Kant's objection.)
Re:Scientists are looking for ways to put the simulation hyp...
by warent on Thursday October 04, 2018 @04:55PM
(#18143583)
There's too much jargon here for me to follow what you're saying. I'm not sure what you mean by "box operator" or "modern modal versions of the ontological argument", nor do I know what Kant's objection is.