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

[Harvey Newstrom]

Samantha Atkins wrote,
> 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. 

That doesn't make it science.  If anyone ever develops a scientific theory,
scientific proof, scientific investigation, scientific explanation or
anything using the scientific method relating to the Simulation Argument,
then it might become science.  Right now it is a religious belief, a fantasy
story or maybe even a philosophical musing.  It seems that most people here
don't have a good definition for what is science or not.  Arguing that it
"might be true" or "hasn't been disproved" doesn't make it science any more
than "Creation Science" is science.  

The simulation argument is almost identical to the creation science
argument.  Instead of evolving by itself, the universe was created
mid-stream with history already in place, and an external entity directing
its actions.  We cannot detect that the history of carbon-dating or old
light from other stars was simulated by God instead of really coming from
those stars.  This makes much of the Creation Science universe a simulation.
The intervention by God sometimes is like tweaking of the simulation.  

I don't see how anybody can believe in the simulation argument without
believing in most religions.  I don't see how anybody can claim the
simulation argument is science without including most religions as 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>