I agree with your approach to the question but perhaps if we really take the simulation hypothesis seriously (or at least consider it probable enough to concern us) the first step should be finding a way to tell whether or not we actually live in a simulation. Research in Physics/Astronomy could explicitly look for and device experiments looking to demonstrate systematic inconsistencies in the fabric of our universe that could give a hint on the made up nature of all laws. This in a way is an indirect answer to your last question. If effective altruisms is not an ideology just to be followed but a rational enterprise grounded on the actual nature of our universe, then it should also be concerned with improving our understanding of it. Even if this eventually leads to a radical re-think of what effective altruisms should be.
I agree. If the Simulation Hypothesis became decently likely, we would want to answer questions like:
- Does our simulation have a goal? If so, what? - Was our simulation likely created by humans?
Also, we’d probably want to be very careful with those experiments—observing existing inconsistencies makes sense, but deliberately trying to force the simulation into unlikely states seems like an existential risk to me—the last thing you want is to accidentally crash the simulation!
I agree with your approach to the question but perhaps if we really take the simulation hypothesis seriously (or at least consider it probable enough to concern us) the first step should be finding a way to tell whether or not we actually live in a simulation. Research in Physics/Astronomy could explicitly look for and device experiments looking to demonstrate systematic inconsistencies in the fabric of our universe that could give a hint on the made up nature of all laws. This in a way is an indirect answer to your last question. If effective altruisms is not an ideology just to be followed but a rational enterprise grounded on the actual nature of our universe, then it should also be concerned with improving our understanding of it. Even if this eventually leads to a radical re-think of what effective altruisms should be.
I agree. If the Simulation Hypothesis became decently likely, we would want to answer questions like:
- Does our simulation have a goal? If so, what?
- Was our simulation likely created by humans?
Also, we’d probably want to be very careful with those experiments—observing existing inconsistencies makes sense, but deliberately trying to force the simulation into unlikely states seems like an existential risk to me—the last thing you want is to accidentally crash the simulation!