[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Russell Wallace]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:59:41 -0800 (PST), Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Oh please Eli, you are not THAT pollyannish. Besides, how do YOU know
> its a lie if you can't prove it to be false? So, no, it isn't a lie. It
> is presenting a transhumanist worldview in language that a theist can
> understand and accept because it works in their memespace.

You appeared to be advocating preaching the simulation argument on the
basis of "I myself don't necessarily believe it, but it will suit our
purposes to convince other people of it", which would be dishonest -
was that your intent? If not, if your intent was to preach the
simulation argument on the basis that you believe it to be true, then
that wouldn't be a lie.

> What you are really saying is that it is too contrary to the immature
> and insecure atheism that you cling to too tightly for a truly rational
> man, for you to be able to communicate with people in a different
> memespace in a way they can understand and accept. You being a bad
> salesman of something you don't believe in with all your heart is a
> different thing from the idea being a lie.

I'm an agnostic, and I've quite happily debated Creationism on the
grounds of "the book of Genesis says the world was created in epochs
of increasing complexity, starting with a flash of light; so if you
believe the Bible to be the word of God, then you should reject
Creationism". I'm still not going to start preaching the simulation
argument, because I don't regard it as anything other than an
unverifiable expression of faith, like any other religion.

Indeed, you yourself likened it to Pascal's Wager, but there's a
difference - if you accept Pascal's argument, this should influence
your actions because the practical consequences of those actions will
differ if Pascal's argument is true. How does this apply to the
simulation argument? Even if SA is true (and I'm not making any claims
about whether it is true, false or undefined), what practical benefit
would accrue from believing it?

- Russell