[ExI] A Simulation Argument

[Ian Goddard]

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>>   All unicorns live in England.
>>   Oscar is a unicorn.
>>   Ergo, Oscar lives in England.
>> 
>> It makes no difference that the major premise is
>> false, the argument is deductively valid. But if 
>> we take what you're saying to be the case, that 
>> argument is a fallacy, but it's not. And notice 
>> how we didn't derive a new fact, that 'Oscar lives 
>> in England' was already contained in the premises.
>
> No.  The conclusion is not contained in either the 
> first or second premise. It is only the combination 
> of them together that deduces the conclusion.


 I never said the conclusion of a valid deduction
exists in one if its premises, that would obviously be
circular. My point is better stated: deduction makes
explicit what's already implicit in the premises. Hay,
I just googeled "deduction makes explicit" and got an
perfect hit: 

"This deduction makes explicit what is implicit in the
premises, and it does not increase their semantic
information."
http://books.google.com/books?id=dxxTBRRkqREC

That's exactly my point. So again, the point of
deductive argumentation is to see where we can go from
some set of assumptions. In other words, to see what
statements we must accept as true if we accept the
assumptions as true, which are known as the 'logical
consequences' of the assumptions.


> However, in your original argument, I believe that 
> the single first premise that quantum mechanics 
> don't really work (but only appear to work) does
> conclude that we are in a simulation all by 
> itself. It does not require the further facts, and 
> is only understandable given the possibility of the
> conclusion.


 If the argument was circular, it would show up in its
formal representation I posted, but it doesn't. It's a
straight out non-circular valid argument. Moreover,
the shortfall Kevin H astutely pointed out is that my
eight-step argument is moot on the issue of any
simulation, it's more of a standard anti-realist
argument with a quantum twist, as he put it. So the
argument didn't even assume a simulation, much less
conclude that a simulation is necessary. I simply
presented a simulation theory as an explanation after
the argument. A better argument needs to demonstrate
some necessary connection from the deduction to the
universe being a simulation.


http://IanGoddard.net

"What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you are
talking about what you feel, smell, taste, and see,
then 'real' is merely electrical signals interpreted
by your brain." - Morpheus

 


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ