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

[Samantha Atkins]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 18:19:41 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:

> 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.

Thinking creatures with imagination will certainly think about what "might be".  From this "might be" thinking much of our philosophy and many of our scientific discoveries sprang.  Science gives us the means of teasing out the truth from our "might be" scenarios.   There are many things in science today that were not observed but were posited as "might be" explanations or even as pure thought experiments.  A "might be" does not relegate its content to belonging to religion.  I am surprised by the characterization. 
 
- s