[extropy-chat] Simulation Argument critique (was fermi's paradox:m/d approach)

[Samantha Atkins]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:32:15 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Science is only useful for describing what is normal and 
> > consistent for this universe. Its ability to predict what 
> > exists outside this universe, or what may intrude here from 
> > other realities (via singularities) is hamstrung by the fact
> > that science relies on a body of data from observation,
> > none of which we have regarding these things.
> 
> Agreed.  But in that case, we shouldn't be calling the Simulation Argument
> scientific.  It is pure speculation of what might occur outside our
> universe.  Any attempt to bring it into our universe with statistical
> certainly enough to claim it "proves" that we are inside a simulation is
> unfounded.
> 


I don't get that argument.  If we are in a simulation then our science, used to study *what is* may be able to determine that fact.  It is a speculation about the overall nature of our universe.  If your argument held then we should also include singularities like black holes from science.

- samantha