[ExI] A Simulation Argument.

[John K Clark]

"Ian Goddard" <iamgoddard at yahoo.com> Wrote:

> If Occam's razor is a useful rule of thumb

It is very useful indeed.

> and the simulation theory is equally explanatory as the MWI

But it's not.

> we should reject the MWI outright given the economy of
> the simulation theory.

I don't think so. I'm not being anti-simulation, it's a perfectly
respectable idea, it may even be true, but I don't see it as a substitute
for Manny Worlds. MWI was developed in order to rid Quantum Mechanics
of the very fuzzy concept of "an observer", and in this I think it was
successful; but it is not clear to me how the simulation theory helps in
this philosophical puzzle. Well, I suppose you could say that in the world
where the simulation computer hardware exist the laws of physics are 
completely different and have nothing to do with quantum mechanics;
but then you'd have to ask why those Godlike simulation nerds chose the 
idea of quantum mechanics for our simulation to operate in. Why not
Newtonian physics, or Aristotelian physics, or Harry Potter physics? 
The only possible answer is "that's just the way things are"; but you can
say that's just the way things are without going into all the complicated 
simulation business. I just don't see the simulation theory and the many
worlds theory as being competitors, they could both be true and I guess
they could both be false.

 John K Clark