site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   5882 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 24, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For those who care, about whether or not we're living in a simulation, why do you care? From your perspective, what does this change about your relationship to existence and creation?

If we lived in a top-level, non-simulated universe, there would be no chance of an afterlife, no chance of being a constituent part of a greater self. Reality would be 'as-is'. There'd be no chance of a score at the end of one's life where you get to see how well you did in comparison with your peers. There'd be no point in being justified after one's death.

Why does living in a simulation imply any of that is true, though? Each of the soldiers in your Total War army don’t get a personality score and rating at the end of each game.

Why does living in a simulation imply any of that is true, though

It doesn't, only that it's not impossible. Thus I repeat 'no chance' three times. It's like being a passenger on a train that's heading off a cliff, it's reassuring to know that rescue might come.

Ah, so ‘simulation’ includes eg. all Abrahamic or similar religion in this definition (because God created it)? ‘Top level non-simulation’ is essentially just atheism?

Yes, plus simulation theory has some quantitative reasoning as to the mechanics of otherwise unknowable divine powers. Big computer go brrrr. Thus the three postulates in Bostrom's paper.

I think what a person cherishes and how they act are consequences of internalized metaphors. Metaphors are like the building blocks of cognition. “Living in a simulation” is a bad metaphor because it automatically connotes insignificance, whim, chance, and technology culture. Imagine the difference in feeling between “I live in a simulation” and “I am the beloved creation of an infinitely great benevolent monarch.” Which one a person believes will have huge ramifications for how they treat life.

I mean clearly, ignoring metaphysical/moral implications (such as that simulated beings are definitely conscious), that has a lot of practical implications on life as we know it. Reality becomes much more tenuous. It could end at any moment, the rules could change dramatically, it could have started last Tuesday.

There would still be normal physics, and then there would be metaphysics where we try and appeal to the simulator to get things changed. Clearly earning the favor of the all-powerful creator will be more productive than inventing a 10% more efficient nuclear reactor (unless the latter is how we earn favor).

If we're in a simulation, then perhaps we should be purposefully trying to serve/help whoever made the simulation. Or try to negotiate with them so they will give us stuff. I couldn't say really what we should do about it, but I figure it'd be at least worth putting together a big think tank to come up with ideas.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats