[ExI] A Simulation Argument

[Ian Goddard]

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

>> 1. If x are unaware and in a real external world,
>>[1] then x do not change their state when observed.
>
> Your first assumption is flawed.  Subatomic 
> particles do change their state when observed.  You 
> argument assumes that this could not occur in a 
> real external world.  But you give no evidence or 
> argument for this belief.


 Right, I agree with your overall point, but the first
assumption is not 'flawed' because it merely assumes.
Assumptions are just * assumptions *. And so classic
logical-argumentation structure is: IF assumption x is
true, THEN... leading by rules of deduction from x to
such and such other statements.

 The purpose of deductive argumentation is to see
where we can go IF we accept some assumption(s) as
true. It is informative to me that we can go from an
assumption that reflects classical physical theory to
a conclusion that the world is not a real world.

 Otherwise, I agree with your overall point... How do
we prove assumption 1 is better than another saying
some things are unaware and change their state upon
observation? I raised that question in my post.


http://IanGoddard.net

"Since proofs need premises, it is impossible to prove
anything unless some things are accepted without
proof." - Bertrand Russell 

 



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