[extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]

[Harvey Newstrom]

On Saturday, April 17, 2004, at 12:37 pm, David Lubkin wrote:
> Part of the question is why do we do "science." I see two goals, that 
> appear compatible with each other, but need not be:

> This, however, does not mean that our theory is true, even if it has 
> complete predictive value.

Yes, these are two different questions.  The simulation argument might 
be true, but as yet there is no scientific reason to suspect this.  The 
hypothesis was not derived to explain observation.  There is not 
scientific (or any?) evidence for it.  It has never been (and can never 
be?) tested scientifically.  So it simply is not a scientific theory... 
even if it is true.

--
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec 
Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>