[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:

> Dan Clemmensen writes:
> > 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.
> 
> The simulation argument is not an assumption.  It is
> an argument.
> It is logic, not science.

[etc.]

A scientific theory is logic which attempts to explain
some facet of the real world.  The simulation argument
is also logic which attempts to explain some facet of
the real world.  In general for this type of logic, it
has been humanity's experience that science works
best, and that logic which does not adhere to
science's precepts - rejecting unfalsifiable
arguments, for example - is almost always useless.
(For example, many a theory has been proposed which
was unfalsifiable at the time; later, when people came
up with ways to test it undreamt of by the theory's
creators, the theory was almost inevitably proven
false.  Given the high number of such data points
throughout the history of human civilization, we can
conclude that any presently unfalsifiable theory is
>99.999% probably also false.)

Ergo, either the SA is science (which it's not: again,
it's unfalsifiable) or it's so likely to be bogus that
it is a waste of time and other resources (like
credibility) to seriously consider it
(Pascal's-Wager-like arguments notwithstanding, but
even those have been debunked in terms of deciding
what one should do or believe).