[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Dan Clemmensen]

Hal Finney 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.
>[SNIP]
>
>In the case of the SA, A = "the human race is unlikely to go extinct
>before becoming posthuman"; B = "any posthuman civilization is likely
>to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history
>(or variations thereof)"; C = "we are likely to be living in a computer
>simulation".
>  
>
Sorry, you are correct. was arguing against the SH, not the SA in you 
terminology.

>{SNIP Hal's recap of when and how to use Falsifiability and Occam's Razor]
>  
>
>If we were dealing with a Simulation Hypothesis, which was simply
>that we are living in a simulation, then you would be right to demand
>falsifiability and use Occam's Razor.  But we are not.  We are dealing
>with a Simulation Argument, and you should look at it as a piece of logic,
>not a hypothesis about the nature of reality.
>  
>
Again, you are correct.

However, we now go back to your premises A and B. Unfortunately, they 
are falsifiable only in the containing "real" universe, not in the sim, 
so we are still in trouble. You have committed a level shift from the 
rule set of the sim to the rule set of "reality." This in turn requires 
yet another unfalsifiable assumption: that statements of probability 
derived from observations in the sim somehow apply to the containing 
world.  I must therefore apply falsifiability and Occam's razor to your 
entire resulting logical structure, including its premises rather than 
to the conclusion, I reach the same result: your additional assumptions 
increase the complexity without changing the result, so I will stay with 
the null hypothesis.

By the way, thanks for your post: it clarifies an important distinction.