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

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> 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.

How about these reasons:
1) In a SIM you might be able to bend the reality.  In most religions
   you can't.
2) In a SIM you might escape from the reality.  In most religions
   you can't change the rules.
3) In a SIM you might be able to detect you are in a SIM (e.g. The
   Truman Show).  In most religions by assertion this is impossible
   (i.e. you can never tell that the God(s) are frauds).

Now interestingly this would seem to put string & brane theory
in the category of religions (from Harvey's perspective I think)
because they can probably never be tested.  I think this leads
into some very very subtle distinctions, e.g.:
a) What can never be proven;
b) What can be proven only by mathematics;
c) What can be proven only by mathematics with certain assumptions;
d) What can be proven by experiment.

Feel free to throw stones -- I'm just thinking out loud and have
some other emails that require attention.

:-)
R.