[extropy-chat] Be[ing] or Not Be[ing]

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 06:45 am, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> > One way to deal with this is to pose the question "What if we
> > are in a simulation?"
>
> I don't see how this position is any more supportable or useful than
> the unproven religious views.  I have never understood why some people
> here bash religion, but think the simulation argument sounds
> reasonable. [snip]

Well one of the extropian principles is "rational thought".  The
problem with religious views is that they generally lack that
(being based on faith rather than rational thought).

On the other hand a simulation argument or a discussion
that the "miracles" or resurrection were due to sophisticated
use of nanotechnology by aliens can all be defended on
the basis of rational thought.

The simulation argument is supportable because we can do the
calculations that indicate that we might one day be able
to do simulations.  If our reality is any reflection of
what might be the real reality (assuming we are in a simulation)
then it is much more reasonable to believe we are in a simulation
than it is to believe some "being" waved his hands and brought
the universe into existance (or worse that he sent his son
to save the world).  If our reality is just some random reality
running in a simulation then it makes more sense that we are
simply lab rats.

Robert