From: Charles D Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Mar 13 2006 - 20:20:09 MST
On Saturday 11 March 2006 04:48 am, M T wrote:
> The SA is a substitute for religion.
> It creates a purpose and a higher being that provides
> it.
> It could be possible, but is highly impropable, for
> many reasons allready stated by others, and in my mind
> because it arises from people's denial of the
> simplicity and pointlessness of existance.
>
> Thank you for your time,
> Michael
I believe that the Simulation Argument is a philosophical argument rather than
a belief. The thing is, there appears to be no reasonable way to argue
against it. The nature of the entity initiating the simulation is not known,
so any arguments based on morality are inevitably futile. And it's also not
known what the limitations could be in the external universe in which the
simulation would be embedded. So even arguments based around "This looks
like the kind of law you would expect in a simulation" are unsound.
Really, there doesn't seem to be any way to know how that penny will come
down, and it looks likely to land in a hole, so we may never know whether
it's heads or tails.
The best argument I've ever heard is that we seem headed toward the kind of
civilization that would build such a simulator, and the future is long.
(I.e., a probability based argument.) This isn't anything that one could
reasonably make a decent choice on.
It is rather like arguing over the nature of angels, but from the viewpoint of
a theologician rather than from the viewpoint of one of the congregation.
(And anyone who comes to a serious *!*BELIEF*!* about this is probably either
whacko or not a singularitarian. [One seriously believed argument is
"computers will never be that powerful", but I don't think any
singularitarians invest much belief in that position.])
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT