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

[Harvey Newstrom]

Samantha Atkins wrote,
> 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.

Actually, I agree with you.  I was countering Mike's argument that science
doesn't hold in other universes.  I said in that case, we can't call
speculation about these areas outside science "scientific".  I was objecting
to using the claim that science doesn't work in some cases as part of the
scientfiic argument!  I actually do agree that science can speculate about
what is outside our universe.  But throwing out the requirements of science
is not part of scientific speculation.

> It would be a pretty poor simulation if it did not follow
> well defined and consistent internal laws.  From the point
> of view of beings within the simulation those laws are the
> "known physical laws".   Within the simulation they are not
> in the least wrong.  Nothing is possible except what the
> simulation (local reality) was designed to make possible
> unless something from outside interferes.   There is no
> necessary rejection of science.

I didn't say that it "couldn't" be true.  But science doesn't lead to
speculatation about what "might" be true that we can't detect.  That is more
properly the realm of religion.  Science leads to explanations about what is
observed.  If we haven't observed it and someone dreamed up the idea without
observation or evidence, this is religion, not science.  Likewise, God might
be true.  But discussions about God are religion, not science.

-- 
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>