From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 18:32:07 MDT
The Simulation Argument is silly. It is circular logic. First, you must
assume that there are more simulations than realities. Then, you conclude
that since there are more simulations than realities, it is statistically
likely that we are in one of them.
But what if we don't conclude that there are more simulations? What if
simulations are rare? What if perfect simulations of reality are just as
boring as reality and nobody makes them? What if perfect simulations are so
wonderful that only people from reality universes migrate into them and very
few simulated people get created? What if simulations are almost always
programmed to prevent discovery of the simulations, such that
discovery-possible simulations are extremely rare? By assuming that
simulations are rare, then our circular logic would have to conclude that
statistically speaking we are likely not to be in a simulation.
Both of these conclusions are circular and lead people to believe what they
want to believe. There is no data either way to lead anybody into either
conclusion. Whatever people already believe, that is where their circular
logic will lead them. There is no statistical support in either direction.
Furthermore, I believe their are other counter-examples to the simulation
universe:
- Occam's Razor suggests that simpler, more direct explanations are more
likely to be correct. In the absence of data, there is no reason to
postulate unfalsifiable, hidden, mystical worlds that cannot be detected or
tested. Why stop there? Why not postulate that every religion is true?
That all fictional stories are real? That imaginary creatures are
everywhere when we're not looking? Etc.?
- Theories are supposed to predict observed phenomenon. This theory is
untestable. It predicts nothing, explains nothing, and provides no further
information about how the universe works. Unless some theorized difference
between a real universe and a simulated universe can be predicted, this
theory will never be testable.
- The very calculation of "more likely to be in a simulation" seems suspect
to me. To do such a simple calculation we would need real measurements, and
more importantly, some sort of mechanism for counting universes and
simulations. If many-worlds interpretation says there are an infinite
number of real universes, how can there be more simulations than infinity?
If every possible universe exists, wouldn't that include many (or most)
universes without simulations?
- As an absurd argument, why not count dreams? They are simulations of the
universe that seem real to us at the time. There are many more dreams than
universes (either simulated or natural). Wouldn't this imply that we are in
a dream instead of a simulation or reality?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 18:47:53 MDT