A provoking question: if we found evidence that convinced us, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we were living in a computer simulation, would you change your behavior?
Bostrom's postulates are exceedingly bad. His assumptions rely to much on the isotropy of properties of the one "real" existence and the simulated ones. I would expect, statistically, that there would be far more universes simulated that have properties that are nothing like the "real" one as technology progresses, i.e. there are more instances of "sonic the hedgehogs" and "super mario brothers 1" over the more "realistic" call of duty. It follows that if our universe is one of the more probable universes that our laws of logic and probability estimates are not calculated from probable postulates, thus our assumptions leading to any conclusion are probably in error.
> It follows that if our universe is one of the more probable universes that our laws of logic and probability estimates are not calculated from probable postulates, thus our assumptions leading to any conclusion are probably in error.
What 'postulates' would they be calculated from? Does it even make sense to speak of universes following different 'logics'?
> far more universes simulated that have properties that are nothing like the "real" one as technology progresses, i.e. there are more instances of "sonic the hedgehogs" and "super mario brothers 1"
Those seem like perfectly normal universes to me: they're fully describable by short programs executing over discrete binary states like a chunk of RAM. Where's the violation of logic or metaphysical oddities there?
What 'postulates' would they be calculated from? Does it even make sense to speak of universes following different 'logics'?
Exactly the point. What game do you know of that follows the laws of logic as we know them in the 'real' universe we habitate? It follows that it's nonsensical that we can reason ourself to reality if we are a simulation.
The real universe is actually continuous rather than discrete at the macro-scale (ie: relativity). In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch.
> The real universe is actually continuous rather than discrete at the macro-scale (ie: relativity).
But the 'real universe' appears discrete on the smallest level, and I don't believe physicists will ultimately settle on a theory in which two completely different sorts of theories take over at different regimes and the macro-scale theory is not reducible, even in principle, to derivations and predictions of the micro-scale theory. The quantum theories will eventually predict the relativity-scale results./
> In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch.
How would you know? What governs quantum randomness?
You have to live as if you have free will. You can't say, "I've considered all the possibilites, and have decided that there is no free will", because considerations and decisions are acts of free will themselves. Of course, that doesn't mean you have free will.
I find it interesting how people often cite determinism as incompatible with free will. Our minds don't violate the laws of physics, but they still make decisions. Similarly, a car can still be described as "driving", even if the physics behind it are deterministic.
A provoking question: if we found evidence that convinced us, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we were living in a computer simulation, would you change your behavior?