[ExI] A Simulation Argument

[Kevin H]

On 1/5/08, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
>
> Ian Goddard wrote:
> > 1. If x are unaware and in a real external world,[1]
> >    then x do not change their state when observed.
>
> Your first assumption is flawed.  Subatomic particles do change their
> state
> when observed.  You argument assumes that this could not occur in a real
> external world.  But you give no evidence or argument for this belief.


Well, the issue with this premise is that it isn't clear where it comes
from.  In addition to this, all superfluous elements of the premise that
aren't relevant to the validity of the argument (including, a great deal of
meaningful content) are left out, which makes the proposition difficult to
grasp.

But, it's not an objection that a deductive argument relies on premises,
just that it should be fleshed out a little as to why the author has
confidence in them.  I think the main thing is that deduction is only one
tool in our logical toolkit, and this deductive argument while, I admit
looks interesting, looks like something put together rather late in the
analysis.  What we need is some context to indicate why this argument should
be meaningful to us.

Best regards,

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080105/6690081a/attachment.html>