https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTLztfI86rU
I haven't seen somebody make so many mistakes in a 6 minute clip.
- Fudging probabilities and playing around with math and then believing they are arriving at something profound;
- "Normally with objective Bayesian inference you just apply even weights to everything" :0)
- Believing that simulated worlds would be less powerful than the world that hosts the simulation -
- Turing completeness is a model that does not reduce the simulation's power (though it's arguable whether this can be physically implemented)
- Subjective simulations do not have physical limitations (and at any rate our minds cannot easily simulate other minds, so we might already be at the lowest level...)
- The idea is that the "world" doesn't exist, what exists is just the subjective view of reality. Just like how video games only render the parts of the world that the player sees, a subjective simulation could just minimally simulate the subjective experience. We only have a very limited ability to simulate worlds with our minds (eg. through telling stories, through our imagination, etc.)
It's amazing how bad arguments from PhDs are... :-/
No comments:
Post a Comment