[extropy-chat] Re: Analyzing the simulation argument

[Ian Goddard]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

>On the contrary. If this universe were a simulation, then 
>everything about it would be a product of the physical 
>characteristics of the originating universe. 


 But that's a *giant* IF. My point is that if we are in a 
computer program -- our bodies, minds, and world entirely 
computational fabrications -- then our knowledge is 
restricted to the interior of said program and as such we 
cannot identify any attribute of our reality as confirming 
that our world is a computer program because we cannot 
compare our phony universe to reality. To posit our universe 
as a perfect simulation of a universe outside it is just 
conjecture that carries no epistemic or scientific weight. 

 The SA is a metaphysical argument. Our universe might be a 
perfect or semi-perfect simulation, or an entirely unique 
universe... a prize winning universe entered in a universe-
programming contest in some being-inhabited universe beyond 
both our sight and comprehension. Who knows? Moreover, who 
*can* know? I'd dare to propose that none of us can know. 
All of our systems and parameters of knowledge are based 
entirely on the (assumed for the sake of argument) computer 
program we're in and any universe outside our program 
universe *may* inexorably exceed our epistemic boundaries.



>Well, if our universe is a simulation, we should be able to 
>communicate to its sysop/root, but not necessarily would we 
>be able to hear anything back, even if the root wanted to.


 But could we prove that some powerful being purporting to 
be "The Sysop" was in fact such a sysop? Suppose there are 
advanced civilizations that share our (assumed to be) real 
physical universe (or other dimensions embedded in a higher 
dimensional universe of which our 3Ds of space are a part) 
and they enjoy persuading less evolved computerized 
civilizations like our own by various profound means of 
conjuring that we are merely computer constructs and that 
these jokers are the sysops. Arguments like the SA run into 
problems of trying to define the ultimate nature of reality, 
which *may* inexorably exceed the boundaries of science.


http://IanGoddard.net/journal.htm

David Hume on induction: "When we have lived any time, and 
have been accustomed to the uniformity of nature, we acquire 
a general habit, by which we always transfer the known to 
the unknown, and conceive the latter to resemble the former."