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

[David Lubkin]

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>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.

The sad part of the equation is that, as we see, there are all sorts of 
interesting things that could be going on that we can never confirm.

The twelve-year-old inside me, who was awed by Arisian Visualization of the 
Cosmic All, is disappointed. He still wants to be a third-stage lensman 
when he grows up though.


-- David Lubkin.