In article <bpgvp3l5oc7nc2pr89ug12r1uco18qvqin@xxxxxxx>,
John O'Flaherty <quiasmox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:58:00 +0100, "Luigi Caselli"
> <luigicaselli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >You can see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html
> >Dr. Bostrom doesn't pretend to know which of these hypotheses is
> >more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. "My gut
> >feeling, and it 's nothing more than that," he says, "is that
> >there's a 20 percent chance we 're living in a computer simulation."
> >80 percent of living in a "real" world is scaring, isn't it?
> 20%? How precise. Unless there's an implication or a testable
> prediction, it's a vacuous hypothesis.
It wasn't presented as anything but a "gut feeling". In that context,
the quantification isn't necessarily meaningless: for example, one might
infer that Bostrom would take a bet that we're in a simulation if
offered better odds than 4:1.