[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:
> 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.

While I wouldn't say omnipotent (I can think of many ways a sysop could
have created my simulation but have absolutely no control over the
weather in my area of the 'verse), I would make a qualified agreement
to this. The important thing is that the simulation argument is the
meme virus by which we can infect theists worldwide with transhumanism.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com