I think that was B/K's point of view as well, although in their review they fell back on the Patch 2 argument. The version of my paper they read didn't flesh out the problems with the Patch 2 argument.

I respectfully disagree that the criticism is entirely based on the wording of that one sentence. For one thing, if I remember correctly, I counted at least 6 prose locations in the paper about the Patch 1 argument that need to be corrected. Anywhere "significant number of" appears needs to be changed, for example, since "significant number of" can actually mean, depending on the settings of the parameters, "astronomically large number of". I think presenting the argument without parameters is misleading, and essentially propaganda.

Patch 2 has a similar issue (see Section 2.1), as well as (I think) another, more serious issue (Section 3.1, "Step 3").

Errors in the Bostrom/Kulczycki Simulation Arguments

by DustinWehr 1 min read25th Mar 20177 comments

3