A similar conjecture is: “Omniscent Omega tells you that you see is an illusion.”
It could be interpreted as a) Omega is real, it said truth and thus I see is an illusion. b) Omega is not real and thus Omega is illusion, no matter what it says. In both cases I see an illusion.
This paradox appears in the discussions about the Simulation Argument in the following form: some people object to SA: if I am in simulation, I can’t make any conclusion about the outside world and thus I can’t use the computer power estimations to prove future AI capabilities, and thus SA does not work.
However, as it is already assumed that you are in simulation, SA is already proved, no matter what you can or can not conclude, and it is similar to (b) branch of Omega paradox from above.
A similar conjecture is: “Omniscent Omega tells you that you see is an illusion.”
It could be interpreted as a) Omega is real, it said truth and thus I see is an illusion. b) Omega is not real and thus Omega is illusion, no matter what it says. In both cases I see an illusion.
This paradox appears in the discussions about the Simulation Argument in the following form: some people object to SA: if I am in simulation, I can’t make any conclusion about the outside world and thus I can’t use the computer power estimations to prove future AI capabilities, and thus SA does not work.
However, as it is already assumed that you are in simulation, SA is already proved, no matter what you can or can not conclude, and it is similar to (b) branch of Omega paradox from above.