### What problem am I trying to solve? I want to explain why HM's views on simulation are wrong. I want to do this via a critical rationalist mindset. I want to show how *not* to argue against this and how you should argue against this. ### What problem am I *not* trying to solve? I am not trying to address: * Dust theory * The simulation hypothesis * Boltzmann Brains * On Dust Theory, Boltzmann Brains and Simulation Do not try and address all of the above with little tangents. Note that you may write this article and then while in the process of writing the others realize there were *flaws* in this one. That is normal. You can make updates moving forward. ### What key principles will I be following? Review the following principles prior to editing your first draft: 1. I want to create a [Cohesive Narrative](Cohesive%20Narrative.md). Your argument should be coherent, but it need not be *comprehensive*. Too much information will *hurt* and not help. 2. Provide a window into the world here. 3. Show, don't tell—readers love rich examples and will thank you for them! 4. Pare down my argument to the essentials: Say one thing and say it well - do not try and say 100 things. 5. I want to build tension, move away from my main goal (via steel manning), and then resolve the goal. The hero's journey 6. Avoid mixing too many analogies 7. Visually eavesdrop 8. Read and review the following resources prior to editing your first draft 1. Pinker book 2. [Epistemic Legibility — LessWrong](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jbE85wCkRr9z7tqmD/epistemic-legibility) 3. [On Writing Better: 43 Things I Learned from My Insane 2 Years of Study](https://blog.nateliason.com/p/on-writing-better) Small todos: 1. Catchy transition section headers, just as hofstader uses 2. Three examples of wittiness 3. Five uses of favorite words 1. [Favorite Words for Writing](Favorite%20Words%20for%20Writing.md) 2. Morass 3. Smuggling 4. Devilishly difficult 5. Delicious 6. Armor 7. Needling 8. Skulking 9. Squirm 10. Hopelessly 11. Mindless Machine 12. "The Slippery Slope Towards Tautology" 13. Moravec's March towards Mechanism 14. The Materialist’s Dilemma 15. Sleight of hand 16. Dreary, dread, dreams 17. Sinking, slipping (use in intro) 18. Sharpen 19. Load bearing claim 20. Off load 4. Visuals * Simulation (internal, consistent laws) * Interpretation (simulation + external program interpreter) 5. Concepts I would like to ensure I've included 1. [Computation is the Window to the Abstract](Computation%20is%20the%20Window%20to%20the%20Abstract.md) 2. [The Domino That Didn't Fall](The%20Domino%20That%20Didn't%20Fall.md) ### Resources * Counter argument * [Simulation](Simulation.md) * [Interpretation of Simulations](Interpretation%20of%20Simulations.md) * [Defend Science by Arguing Against Arbitrary Boundaries](Defend%20Science%20by%20Arguing%20Against%20Arbitrary%20Boundaries.md) * [Interpretation of Simulations](Interpretation%20of%20Simulations.md) * [5 - Virtual Reality](5%20-%20Virtual%20Reality.md) * [Virtual Reality](Virtual%20Reality.md) * [Dr Johnsons Criteria](Dr%20Johnsons%20Criteria.md) * Logically Inconsistent argument from SC # Open Logistical Questions * Where should I post this? * Obsidian makes it harder to share but allows nice linking to my other ideas. Substack allows commenting and easier sharing. * In a sense, doing it in Obsidian but linking to unfinished posts can be sloppy (it means I'm pointing to something I have in my head, but the reader may not). On the other hand, if I don't point to my extra content, I may make it harder for the reader to learn/follow # Draft two questions / cleanup 1. Cleanup language and wording around similar language that may just confuse a reader: 1. internal relationships vs intrinsic rules 2. interpretation/translation/decoding/external observers 2. Align on main thread: the dangers of logic without explanation 2. logical possibility pumping 3. seeking good explanations 4. Part of the issue I am trying to address is that I don't think the common person actually knows the difference between: * First principles thinking * seeking good explanations * logical possibility pumping * At core I think the real theme is: *The Dangers of Logic without Explanation*, or *the dangers of logical possibility without explanation* 3. Align on main visuals 1. HMs machine 2. Chains / links 3. descent from explanation 4. Counter-Counter Arguments 1. what if he responded by saying "sometimes a simulation depends on an external observer, sometimes it doesn't". How would I respond to that? 5. Determine if you need to 1. Address the concept of "reality" and "what is real"? I don't think you actually do. I think your argument can stand on its own without this. But you'll want to be sure. 6. Avoid / make sure you are following... 1. Avoid asking "what is real?" - this is a "what is question". In general, any word/definition you introduce should solve a problem 7. Do not try and say too many things at once, or else people will glaze over it