“But then we’re back to the Extrapolation argument, which you claimed you weren’t committed to.”
No, I didn’t claim that—I said the snippet you quoted wasn’t the Extrapolation argument, and I stand by that. I’m definitely sympathetic to something like Extrapolation in general.
The original snippet was more about the acausal stuff, and wasn’t Extrapolation, and the distinct argument I subsequently mentioned about simulators was Extrapolation.
There’s no quick objection I can give to your response specifically (except to simplistically say “no, I don’t buy it, we know more than that, we can have some reasonable guesses about simulators’ intentions”) - properly laying out my disagreements would take a little bit of time and effort, as is usually the case for deep worldview differences.
“But then we’re back to the Extrapolation argument, which you claimed you weren’t committed to.”
No, I didn’t claim that—I said the snippet you quoted wasn’t the Extrapolation argument, and I stand by that. I’m definitely sympathetic to something like Extrapolation in general.
(Edited for tone)
Sorry, I don’t understand. The snippet I quoted — about acausal stuff and simulations — is what’s at issue in this discussion.
Regardless, I’m still interested in where you object to my response to Extrapolation. Could you please say more on that?
The original snippet was more about the acausal stuff, and wasn’t Extrapolation, and the distinct argument I subsequently mentioned about simulators was Extrapolation.
There’s no quick objection I can give to your response specifically (except to simplistically say “no, I don’t buy it, we know more than that, we can have some reasonable guesses about simulators’ intentions”) - properly laying out my disagreements would take a little bit of time and effort, as is usually the case for deep worldview differences.