[ExI] A Simulation Argument

[Harvey Newstrom]

Ian Goddard wrote:
> Wrong. Counterfactuals and vacuous truths are not
> classical logical fallacies. For example, here's a
> counterfactural: 'if it rained today, then I'd be
> wet'. But in saying that I'm not proposing 'it rained
> today' is true, nor am I guilty of a fallacy.

Agreed.  Counterfactuals and vacuous truths are not classical logical
fallacies.  They merely are examples where the truth or falsehood of the
premise leads to the truth or falsehood of the conclusion.  The above quote
comes from a tangent, but is not my main argument.  My main argument is that
I claimed your logic was circular.

>   All unicorns live in England.
>   Oscar is a unicorn.
>   Ergo, Oscar lives in England.
> 
> It makes no difference that the major premise is
> false, the argument is deductively valid. But if we
> take what you're saying to be the case, that argument
> is a fallacy, but it's not. And notice how we didn't
> derive a new fact, that 'Oscar lives in England' was
> already contained in the premises.

No.  The conclusion is not contained in either the first or second premise.
It is only the combination of them together that deduces the conclusion.

However, in your original argument, I believe that the single first premise
that quantum mechanics don't really work (but only appear to work) does
conclude that we are in a simulation all by itself.  It does not require the
further facts, and is only understandable given the possibility of the
conclusion.

In fact, I would argue that you would have never thought up that premise or
been lead to it had you not first considered the possible conclusion that we
are in a simulation.  The premise doesn't mean anything outside that
conclusion.  (How could quantum mechanics not really be working, but only
appear to us that they are working?)  That is what I mean.  I think your
premise is derived from your conclusion and cannot be derived or understood
on its own without deriving or understanding the conclusion first.

>> If the major premise is assumed, it is
>> called "begging the question" or "circular logic"
>> where the assumption is made first, and then the
>> argument is derived from the assumption.
> 
>  Harvey, that's not what 'begging the question' or
> 'circular logic' are... look 'um up!

Right, I was sloppy here and typing too fast.  (So the confusion was
confounded by me.)

What I meant to say was if the major premise assumes the conclusion (not is
assumed without the conclusion) it is called begging the question or
circular logic.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom
CISSP CISA CISM CIFI NSA-IAM GSEC ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP