[ExI] A Simulation Argument

[Ian Goddard]

Kevin H wrote:

> Interesting argument Goddard.  But one thing 
> strikes me: you're trying to argue for a computer-
> simulated reality, but given your definition for a
> "real external world" all you're really arguing for 
> is an observer-dependent reality. 


 Not following you there. My definition of 'real
external world' is of an observer independent reality:

[1] Definition of 'real external world' : observable
area outside an observer the fundamental components of
which exist as they are observed by the observer
independently of the observer's observation of them.

It's the antithesis of an observer-dependent reality.


> While, I agree that a computer-simulated entails an
> observer-dependent reality, I don't see how the 
> reverse can be argued.  To me, this looks like a 
> classical argument for anti-realism, just given a
> quantum theoretical spin. 


 Those are good points. The eight-step argument just
concludes that empirical data from quantum experiments
conflicts with the reality criterion of observer
independence in assumption 1. It says nothing about
computer simulations. So in a larger argument I'm
making I insert 'computer simulation' as an indicated
explanation. But now it seems that that move lacks and
needs justification. It might be that we conclude that
the world 'out there' must be a dream and I'm really a
brain in a vat. Now I think there are reasons to go
with the former view rather than the vat view, but
that needs articulation. ~Ian


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