[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Dan Clemmensen]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>On the contrary, you need to distinguish between unfalsifiable
>arguments based on logic and which works to maximize scientific rigor
>as is possible, and unfalsifiable arguments which are plainly based on
>superstition from the get go.
>
>For example, Fermats Last Theorem was unfalsifiable for many years, as
>previously noted, as were many other theories, theorems, etc. until
>they were proven.
>
>  
>
Mike, there is a fundamental difference between "unfalsifiable" and 
unproven."

Godel (et. al.) proved in the 1930's that mathematical assertions fall 
into three categories, not two. Before that time, logician and 
mathematicians assumed that any formal mathematical statement was either 
"true" or"false." Since Godel, we know that a mathematical statement can 
be in one of three categories: "true", "false" or "provably 
undecidable."  Fermat's last theorem was not "provably undecidable." is 
was merely unproven. (The fourth category, "unproven," means only that 
the statement has not yet been categorized.)

"Unfalsifiable" is to formal philosophy as "provably undecidable" is to 
mathematics. That is, if my best argument, using the rules of 
philosophy, show that a statement is unfalsifiable, then that statement 
is as firmly placed in that third category as a different statement can  
be placed in the "true" category or the "false" category by equally 
cogent argument.

Since the time of Whitehead and Russell,  philosophers have been 
converging the rules of philosophical argument with the rules of 
mathematical argument.

Thus, if a hypothesis is unproven, I'm still interested in the argument. 
If the hypothesis is provably unfalsifiable to my satisfaction, I'm no 
longer interested.