|
|
|
|
|
by avar
3435 days ago
|
|
An argument from personal incredulity is still a logical fallacy. It's easy to see why this line of reasoning doesn't make sense. If we're living in a simulation the thing most likely to running the simulation is ourselves, in the future. It's easy to see why that would be valuable, e.g. this could be a simulation to see what happens if a war broke out in 1914, and all the downstream effects on that happening. |
|
Not just the "matrix" flavor where the goal is to learn specific skills. I'm talking about being born, growing old, and dying in a simulation many times in a matter of hours? / days? / weeks? and being able to recall those experiences / decisions and their rewards and/or consequences once you're back to living your "real" life.