Re: The Simulation Argument again

From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 14:14:42 MDT

  • Next message: Terry W. Colvin: "FWD [SK] Re: A Field Guide to Skepticism (3 of 3)"

    > > So my current world view includes things like the laws of
    > > physics, math, evolution, and the absence of anything resembling
    > > historical theistic descriptions of God. But I am not "agnostic"
    > > about God any more than I am "agnostic" about physics, just because
    > > I can't offer complete, final, unassailable proof of either one.
    >
    > This is a false exclusion. If the simulation argument holds, then it is
    > entirely possible to accept the laws of physics, math, evolution yet to
    > also accept the possibility *as an undetermined probability at
    > present*, and as a reality of one can demonstrate being within a
    > simulation.

    Well, yes, didn't I just say exactly that? What are you trying to
    argue here? I'm arguing with your contention that there should be
    some correlation between the simulation argument and theism. I disagree,
    because I admire the SA and am an atheist. You're talking about
    something different here, and I'm not sure what that is.

    > Ah, but can you point to an atom? Are they directly observable? No, you
    > must infer they exist based on indirect observation, using tools to
    > mediate the experience (and if this were a sim, such tools should
    > function the same way, whether or not atoms really exist or are just
    > individually simulated whenever you use an electron microscope.)
    >
    > The Slashdot discussion pointed this out, that a sim doesn't need even
    > to simulate every atom all the time, since macroscale phenomena are all
    > we are able to observe directly. Atomic scale and subatomic phenomena
    > are only observed via mediation technologies.

    Again, I agree with all of this. When have I said otherwise?

    > Only if you refuse to accept the simulation argument taxonomy of
    > possible universes and instead adhere to strict materialism. It is self
    > dishonesty, at least for anyone claiming to be a scientist.
    >
    > There is a difference between thinking there is more likely than not no
    > God, and claiming to know that there is no God. One is agnosticism and
    > the other is atheism.
    >
    > Claiming knowledge in the absence of evidence is the very definition of faith.

    Please point out where I have ever claimed knowledge in the absence of
    evidence. If you're going to argue with someone, you might try actually
    addressing the arguments made instead of making up your own.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 22:47:23 MDT