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

[Technotranscendence]

On Saturday, January 03, 2004 11:39 AM Harvey Newstrom
mail at HarveyNewstrom.com 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.

I agree with you here.  Of course, I read Samatha as trying to be
open-minded not anti-scientific.

> 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.

Granted.

> 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.

I would reword that last paragraph because I distinguish between belief
and justification.  You might believe something to be the case -- e.g.,
we are living in a simulation or the Bible is literally true -- but be
unable to justify it in terms of logic, coherence, or experience.
(Also, granted, something might be true but the justification for it
might be invalid.  Someone might believe, e.g., that the Earth is round
(true) because people walking on it molded it into that shape (wrong).)

I bring up this distinction because there are so many things anyone
believes that one has not validated in any meaningful way.  Some of
those beliefs might be validated or invalidated when one gets into a
bind -- such as when there's someone who disagrees with the belief or
when one finds some contradiction between the belief and other beliefs
one holds.  However, I doubt anyone has done this with each and every
belief she or he has.  Each person's totality of beliefs is much too big
for that.

Instead, I kind of adopt Pierce's model -- IIRC, maybe it was Dewey; it
was one of the pragmatists:) -- of rationally reconstructing beliefs.
You work on them piecemeal, slowing changing the totality, but not all
at once.  I believe -- no pun intended:) -- the practical thing is
usually to change those beliefs that cause the most immediate trouble...

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/