[extropy-chat] Atheism, logic, and metalogic

[Dan Clemmensen]

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen wrote:
>
>> I am living in a simulation, or not. Since the hypothesis that I am 
>> living in a
>> simulation is not falsifiable, it is meaningless. Therefore, I must 
>> apply the next
>> principle: Occam's razor. It is simpler to assume that I am not 
>> living in a simulation.
>>
> I apply Occam's Razor and deduce the opposite.

A simulation implies the existence of an entire simulation 
infrastructure. How is this "simpler"
(in Ocams's sense) than the non0existence of a simulation? In classical 
terms, when you assume
a simulation you must assume the existence of the entire infrastructure 
(unknowable to you) that
supports the simulation. You are postulating the existence of an entire 
new plane of existence
which is at least as complex as the plane we (the inhabitants of the 
simulation) perceive. By definition,
the rules governing th covering plane are at least as complex as those 
on our plane, so you
are violating Occam's razor.

>> Based on the four principles above, I am an atheist, using the 
>> following operational
>> definition of atheism:
>>   I have observed nothing in my universe that is more easily 
>> explained by the
>> existence of a God than is explained by the absence of a God.
>
>
> That rather depends on how 'God' is defined.
>
Please describe an observable phenomenon that is more easily explained 
by the existance of a God
than by the operation of a universe that does not include a god, however 
defined. Note that you will
need to define your God in the context of the enclosing universe.

Most people who accept this challenge end up with an operational 
definition of "God" as "that entity
that controls the portion of reality for which science currently has no 
explanation." If you choose to
define your personal set of otherwise-unexplained phenomena in this 
fashion, please feel free to do so,
but do not expect me to be convinced by your arguments.