Subject:
|
Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:40:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
384 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > At the risk of starting too many interesting threads at once, I present a
> > > link I found by reading Kung Fool, a rather amusing webcomic.
> > >
> > > http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
> > >
> > > I only STARTED reading this, I haven't read to the end yet but it's
> > > fascinating so far!
> > >
> > > I can say this, though.. I am NOT a process running on an RCX.. it would
> > > take a much more powerful computer to simulate MY twistiness. :-)
> >
> > Pat Shepard (posted here a few years ago a few times) worked for me at MU and
> > had dropped out of the PhD program in philosophy to learn Flash and stuff. He
> > seemed to pretty seriously believe in this. But then he was a
> > seminary student for a long time too...
>
> Are you saying you don't buy it? I finished it and I have to admit it's a
> persuasive argument as written. So either he's right or there is some
> assumption left out or logic flaw... (certainly possible!)
>
> To a certain extent it doesn't matter whether it's correct or not though,
> does it? Proceed on the assumption this is reality and trust the computers
> to keep all the evidence consistent.
It runs into the same logical flaws as religious belief - there is no
evidence, or way to acquire credible evidence within the context of the
simulation, therefore it is on faith. The principle of Occam's Razor
applies, and the simplest answer is either his (1) the number of human
societies that reach "posthuman" is vanishingly small, or (4)none of the above.
His premises draw out his conclusions, and his house, while sound, is built
on sand. We do not have sufficient information about the capabilities or
desires of a posthuman society, nor an adequate explanation of what a
posthuman society is. He very carefully neglects to give that definition, too.
Any serious student of logic or philosophy could construct a similarly sound
and consistent argument for virtually anything. His 3 conclusions could be
turned into "1: the likelyhood of a supreme being(God) is vanishingly small,
2: the interest of a supreme being (God) in humankind is vanishingly small,
or 3: all of our actions are dictated by a supreme being (God)."
He's created a false trichotomy, and built a logical argument around it.
James
Either I am a duck convinced it is human, or I am not a duck convinced it is
human.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
| (...) Are you saying you don't buy it? I finished it and I have to admit it's a persuasive argument as written. So either he's right or there is some assumption left out or logic flaw... (certainly possible!) To a certain extent it doesn't matter (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
