[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Dan Clemmensen]

kevinfreels.com wrote:

>One thing has consistently bothered me about the simulation argument. Is
>there any reason to think that there is a difference between simulation and
>reality to begin with? In a simulation that is done correctly, isn;t the
>difference small enough to where it doesn't really matter which you are in?
>If so, why waste valuable mental energy on pondering such questions? If not,
>why not?
>
>Keep in mind, I may be part of the simulation and may have been told to ask
>those questions. :-)
>
>
>  
>
Assume a perfect simulation....

Here is the way I analyze such a proposition?

1) logical and self-consistent? Yes.
2) consistent with observed phenomena? Yes.
3) useful explanatory power? Maybe.
4) falsifiable?  No.
    Oops! our hypothesis is in trouble, but this is not absolutely 
fatal. We must still decide between
the assumption and the null hypothesis, so:
5) (Occam's razor) Is the system simpler with or without the assumption? 
Without. That's it,
ignore it henceforth unless new evidence arises.


Please note: this is exactly the same analysis we do for:
    "Assume an omnipotent deity."

Thus "perfect simulation" and "omnipotent deity" are equivalent concepts.