[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Russell Wallace]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:39:05 -0500, igoddard at umd.edu <igoddard at umd.edu> wrote:
> The hypothesis that the universe could be a computer program
> is attractive, but Dan may be right that it's unfalsifiable
> (and thus pseudoscientific).

Indeed, I'll go further than that.

Consider Newton and Lagrange's formulations of classical mechanics, or
the wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. In each case we
have two sets of equations which give the same results - we therefore
regard the distinction between them as not merely unfalsifiable but
meaningless; we say that in each case, the two theories are in fact
the _same_ theory. Preference for one over the other is therefore
neither true nor false; it's just a matter of what you happen to find
more convenient to work with.

Now the hypothesis "we are living in a simulation" (if the simulation
is assumed to be fully accurate) gives the same results as "we are not
living in a simulation". Therefore it can be argued that they are the
_same_ hypothesis. So we have a situation where P and not-P are the
same statement; therefore, P is a null statement; so the simulation
hypothesis actually _has no truth value_.

- Russell