RE: The Simulation Argument again

From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 11:47:48 MDT

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "RE: Killer app? RE: Extro-biz"

    I want to clarify something I wrote, because I think it was misinterpreted
    and that led to further commentary that was off base.

    I had written:

    > Again, no one is postulating that we live in a simulation. That is
    > a conclusion, which should not be confused with a premise.

    and Harvey replied:

    > I think this will be news to most people reading this list. Many of them
    > think that Bostrom has lead them to the conclusion that we are "more likely
    > than not" to be inside a simulation. If people want to reduce their
    > position to say that there is a small but unproven chance that we might be
    > in a simulation, I would have no objection.

    Then Rafal commented, and things spun off. The problem is that in
    my comment, I meant to emphasize the word "postulating". No one is
    POSTULATING that we live in a simulation. That means, no one is assuming
    it or taking it as a starting point. Rather, they are CONCLUDING that
    we (likely) live in a simulation. A conclusion is the end of a chain of
    reasoning; a postulate is the beginning. They are completely different,
    which is what I was saying in my second sentence.

    However, Harvey read me differently, to be saying that NO ONE was saying
    that we lived in a simulation. That's not true; I do think there are
    people who are persuaded enough by the Simulation Argument that they
    think there is a good chance that we are living in a simulation. I did
    not mean to say or imply that supporters of the SA are only taking the
    weak position that the chance that we live in a simulation is small.

    Unfortunately, in my discussion with Harvey, I don't think I was able to
    get across the distinction I was trying to make. It is absolutely crucial
    to distinguish between premises and conclusions when reasoning logically.
    You can attack a premise directly; but to attack a conclusion, you have
    to go back to the premises (or logic) of the argument which produced
    that conclusion.

    Deriving outlandish conclusions from plausible premises is the greatest
    gift which we can receive from Logic. I feel that the DA and SA are
    marvelous examples of this phenomenon.

    Hal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 12:01:21 MDT