[extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]
extropy at unreasonable.com
Sun Apr 18 16:23:28 UTC 2004
>The simulation argument is not scientific. It is not meant to be.
>It is not falsifiable. But that doesn't make it pointless.
>Agreed. So I wish people would stop claiming that it is more *scientific*
>than a religion.
The categories of simulation arguments and religions are not inherently
unscientific or untestable, although most instances of each are in
practice. A religious or simulation theorist could make specific
predictions that, if observationally confirmed, provide supporting evidence
that something extraordinary is at play, e.g., "For the next 10 hours, the
speed of light will be 205,000 km/sec."
Whether that agent is labeled SysOp, God, or a Power is irrelevant; they
are equivalent terms.
>I question the whole statistical assumption that we are equally likely to
>have been born any universe or simulation, so that if there are more
>simulations than universes we are statistically likely to appear in them.
This and your variation are equally premature, as are any assertions about
the goals, behavior, and capabilities of an ETI or SI. Speculation is fun
but in no way a basis for decision-making. We have no data, and should
-- David Lubkin.
More information about the extropy-chat