I’m not sure what supernatural means for the more arcane simulation possibilities. I consider it likely that if we’re simulated, it’s from a universe with different physics.
I would rather see checkboxes for global catastrope, since it’s hard to judge likelihood and I think the more interesting question is whether a person thinks any global catastrophe is likely.
Would it be worth having a text box for questions people would like to see on a future survey? I’m guessing that you wouldn’t need to tabulate it,-- if you posted all the questions, I bet people here would identify the similar questions and sort them into topics.
So far no one of several hundred people has identified Muslim, so I think finer gradations there would be overkill.
I can’t do checkboxes.
I ask every year what questions people want in a future survey on this site. That way the good ones can get updated and people can hold discussions about them.
On the face of it, I would expect that if a physics P1 is the result of some agent A that lives under some other physics P2 constructing a simplified physics for simulation purposes, it would have characteristically different properties from a physics P3 that is not the result of such a process. Put differently… if our physics is P1, it should be more likely to be easily understood by A’s cognitive processes than if it’s P3.
That said, I don’t understand the general constraints on either physicses or cognitive processes well enough to even begin to theorize about what specific properties I would expect to differentially find in P1 and P3.
Still, I wonder whether someone a lot smarter and better informed than me could use that as a starting point for trying to answer that question.
I agree that it seems more likely that if we’re in a simulation, it’s got a simplified version of our simulator’s physics rather than some drastically different physics. On the other hand, this is very much guesswork.
And on yet another hand, if you assume that our simulators have huge amounts of computational power, they might be exploring universes with possible laws of physics thoroughly enough that the proportion of simulations with simplifications of the home physics isn’t very high.
I’m faintly horrified at the idea of physics which is much more complicated than ours—ours is complicated enough.
I took the survey. Thanks for running it.
Should Muslim be divided into types?
I’m not sure what supernatural means for the more arcane simulation possibilities. I consider it likely that if we’re simulated, it’s from a universe with different physics.
I would rather see checkboxes for global catastrope, since it’s hard to judge likelihood and I think the more interesting question is whether a person thinks any global catastrophe is likely.
Would it be worth having a text box for questions people would like to see on a future survey? I’m guessing that you wouldn’t need to tabulate it,-- if you posted all the questions, I bet people here would identify the similar questions and sort them into topics.
So far no one of several hundred people has identified Muslim, so I think finer gradations there would be overkill.
I can’t do checkboxes.
I ask every year what questions people want in a future survey on this site. That way the good ones can get updated and people can hold discussions about them.
I’m curious: why? (Not necessarily disagreeing, just wondering.)
Because the simulations we make have simpler physics than we do.
Sensible.
On the face of it, I would expect that if a physics P1 is the result of some agent A that lives under some other physics P2 constructing a simplified physics for simulation purposes, it would have characteristically different properties from a physics P3 that is not the result of such a process. Put differently… if our physics is P1, it should be more likely to be easily understood by A’s cognitive processes than if it’s P3.
That said, I don’t understand the general constraints on either physicses or cognitive processes well enough to even begin to theorize about what specific properties I would expect to differentially find in P1 and P3.
Still, I wonder whether someone a lot smarter and better informed than me could use that as a starting point for trying to answer that question.
I agree that it seems more likely that if we’re in a simulation, it’s got a simplified version of our simulator’s physics rather than some drastically different physics. On the other hand, this is very much guesswork.
And on yet another hand, if you assume that our simulators have huge amounts of computational power, they might be exploring universes with possible laws of physics thoroughly enough that the proportion of simulations with simplifications of the home physics isn’t very high.
I’m faintly horrified at the idea of physics which is much more complicated than ours—ours is complicated enough.