Generalized atheism rules out "inaccurate simulation"-ism.

LessWrong published a repost of Eliezer Yudkowsky's essay arguing that surprising real-world events—like unexpected election results—shouldn't be treated as evidence for the simulation hypothesis. Yudkowsky bases this on a logical principle: if a powerful being's goals didn't match observed reality, they would visibly intervene to change things. A hypothetical simulator that designed mathematically consistent laws but had no stake in specific outcomes? Theoretically possible, but it wouldn't make those outcomes any more likely than standard physics would. The conclusion: surprising events stay equally surprising, whether simulated or not.

Listen to this story

Hear this and more stories in a personalized audio briefing.

Open The Chonkerton