I might be able to assign a probability to a “normal, reasonable concept of ‘God’” if I knew what that meant, but I agree that simulators aren’t part of the common-language concept, and I really don’t know what people mean when they say they believe in a “universal spirit” or “impersonal force”, if they’re even expressing a proposition at all.

While obviously not many people believe that we are literally living in a simulation created by our descendants, sometimes you’ll hear it said that we are dreams in the mind of God, which is not so different from a simulation in the mind of a future AI. See also Tipler’s notion of God as the Omega Point at the end of the universe, when infinite computational resources become possible and all possible pasts are re-created. All these ideas blur together and make it hard IMO to rule out the more general notions of Intelligent Design. I agree however that the more specifics you layer on that general idea, the less probable it becomes.

As for people redefining a normal, reasonable concept of “God” to whatever created a simulation that we may be a part of, it’s hard to call that anything more than intellectual cheating. I don’t think it’s worth my energy to explain why. It seems to me that the odds of the existence of a normal, reasonable concept of “God” would be on the order of smaller than 1 in a trillion, and much, much lower than 1 in a hundred, based on comparing the concept to things that have reliably been calculated to have 1 in a trillion or smaller odds. But I’d like to see this concept more rigorously hashed out (as a general way of being able to reliably give things odds this low in informal mental estimations and sortings).

Personally, I would think both human extinction and a human future without any simulations are more probable than the simulation hypothesis, leaving perhaps a %10 chance of a simulation.

of course it depends on which people you are talking to: if you talk to ill-educated people, you should tell them to agree with most of the stuff they read in the next science book: it will be an improvement to their previous knowledge. (Of course, even better were to teach them critical thinking, but that is a time consuming process.)

My comment was, as you conjectured, addressed to scientists on scientific issues (or to OB readers ).

I am not so optimistic that these cases of wrong dissent are so rare. Most people work in a system (and paradigm; with system I mean to include their social connections/authority relations/career issues). And a system/paradigm is always more stupid than a single critical thinker, because a paradigm is fixed, not so flexible when presented with new evidence and new ideas.

You will probably learn more of the real problems in a field by hallway discussions in scientific conferences than by the current published papers: why that? Because here people speak their true opinions, and about stuff that they simply dare not publish yet because it’s not backed up by enough evidence to topple the reigning paradigm or which contradicts some “well-known” assumptions.

Take String Theory for example; physics has been dominated by this approach for the last decades, and dissenters (read: grad students) were actively discouraged from pursuing other avenues (I do not want to take a position on the String Theory issue: it is just an example). That kind of behaviour is not conducive to scientific progress.

So if we start encouraging the only people who try to do critical thinking (scientists, intellectuals etc) to go with the crowd, that would be reinforcing the wrong side. A critical thinker is by nature _uncertain_ in his beliefs. This uncertainty is an achievement, still too sparsely sprinkled among humankind to already start paddling in the other direction again.

Of course, Tyler in the interview above says we should be less certain about things (the dissent thing was only a secondary point); so isn’t he paddling in the right direction?

Maybe he and I would find that we agree when discussing things out carefully in person; but I only have access to the interview, and responding to that, I think he is moving in the direction of self-defeating skepticism: if you start being _too_ uncertain, then “anything goes”. ESP? Spaghetti Monsters? and what have you… (see his proposed massive reduction of uncertainty in the atheism question) Why fund scientific education and not some New Age festival when we are so uncertain?

I always try to be open to new arguments, which probably implies that I am very “uncertain” of my knowledge. But that does not preclude me from saying that other propositions are probably even less likely to be true (sometimes even if they be current mainstream; that does not mean that I have a better answer, only that I think some assumptions are premature/biased by our human form etc).

So what I am trying to say is this: being uncertain is ok and good, but not if it lets you fall into some kind of general “anything goes” skepticism (which I have often witnessed happening in people when skepticism is adopted).

I think the approach offered by critical rationalism is a fine heuristic, and evades the problems of extreme skepticism; and probably the idea that “extreme skepticism is a good thing” is only a belief in belief; and that it is in practice actually only used to shoot down novel theories (as in: “I don’t believe these theories of yours are right, they contradict my intuition and my 30 year old education”) versus being used to shake up belief in some deeply held conviction (that would be a good thing, so seldom seen!).

And in practice, we should adopt those stances which are most conducive to progress.