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

[Dirk Bruere]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Simulation Argument
critique(wasfermi'sparadox:m/d approach)


> 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 only question worth asking to determine whether it is scientific is 'Is
it falsifiable?'
Nobody knows.
A bit like the Many Worlds Hypothesis of QM at present.

Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org