[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: 
> Indeed, I'll go further than that.
> 
> Consider Newton and Lagrange's formulations of classical mechanics,
> or the wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. In each
> case we
> have two sets of equations which give the same results - we therefore
> regard the distinction between them as not merely unfalsifiable but
> meaningless; we say that in each case, the two theories are in fact
> the _same_ theory. Preference for one over the other is therefore
> neither true nor false; it's just a matter of what you happen to find
> more convenient to work with.
> 
> Now the hypothesis "we are living in a simulation" (if the simulation
> is assumed to be fully accurate) gives the same results as "we are
> not living in a simulation". 

No, it doesn't. One distinction would be that if you were living in a
simulation, then it would be possible to simulate whole universes. If
you were not living in a simulation, given the odds otherwise, then it
is likely that it is not possible to simulate whole universes.

=====
Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com