[ExI] A Simulation Argument

[Harvey Newstrom]

Kevin H wrote:
> On 1/6/08, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> > If you actually looked up the terms "vacuous truth", "counterfactual
> > conditional", "begging the question" and "circular logic", you would 
> > see what is flawed in his premise.
> 
> Enough with the patronizing, I know what those terms mean.

Sorry.  I though you didn't understand my position.  You now seem to claim
that you do, but you don't think it applies in this case.

> Look, this syllogism has been criticized:
> 
> All men are mortal.
> Socrates is a man.
> Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
> 
> By your standards, this syllogism too is begging the question.

No, I do not think this is begging the question.  The fact that the premise
leads to the conclusion does not mean that it presupposes the conclusion.
All men could be mortal even if Socrates was not a man and was not mortal.

But in Ian's example, I don't see how the premise that quantum mechanics
don't really work (but merely are made to appear to work) could be true
unless the conclusion is also true.  The premise is dependent on the
conclusion, instead of the other way around.  That's why I think it is
circular logic or begging the question.  In fact, I insist that there is no
evidence that quantum mechanics are mere simulations except based on the
simulation argument in the conclusion.  The conclusion came first, and this
argument with its premise came afterwards.  That is how I see it.

> If
> that bothers you then stay away from deduction.  Myself, I see a role
> that deduction plays in overall inquiry, but it can't establish the
> truth of it's own premises, that's its nature.   

That is exactly what I am saying.  That is why your example premise was
good, but Ian's premise is flawed.  His conclusion that we are in a
simulation is trying to prove his premise that quantum mechanics don't
really work (but are simulated to appear to work).  His logical deduction is
trying to establish the truth of its own premise.

> And I thought I'd even do what you ask, just to be amicable, and found
> an article here 
> (http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2006/09/circular-reasoning.html
> ).  I suggest you take a look at it too as it brings up the same issue 
> I'm raising: that deduction itself can be seen as circular.  I think 
> he tries to distinguish between circular reasoning and deduction, but 
> I'll leave it to you to decide if you think he's successful.

Interesting diversion into nihilism.  But the flaw here is that the author
confuses "==>" with "==".  Just because the premise leads to the conclusion
via "==>", does not mean that the premise equaled the conclusion via "==".
The author is arguing that the premise must contain the conclusion to lead
to it.  Classical logic says that a proper syllogism cannot contain the
conclusion that it leads to.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP