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

[Samantha Atkins]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:57 -0500
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I agree with this hierarchy.  I someone who believes in "a" believes in a
> religion.  Someone who believes in "d" is a scientist.  Someone who believes
> in "b" or "c" is a theoretician.
> 

Well, there is a bit of a problem here.  It can never be proven that X can never be proven except for a very few highly tuned impossibile statements.   We have no valid algorithm for determining (a).  Nor is it clear than only mathematics and experiment qualify notions as being outside of "religion".  Nor is it clear what this evil and ambiguous "religon" cloud includes in your view.  It seems it includes an awful lot.

-s