

An Argument That We're Living in a Simulation - danielrm26
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html#

======
bediger4000
Has anyone seriously refuted this? I'm looking for more than a "tish tosh,
what an absurdity!" dismissals. I'm looking for something where serious
examination of the argument leads to problems, logical or otherwise.

Also, has anyone tried to measure this? I've heard of people proposing ways to
test simulation-or-not, but has anyone tried those methods?

~~~
lutusp
> Has anyone seriously refuted this?

But it doesn't need to be refuted, any more than the existence of Bigfoot
needs to be refuted. A refutation would require proof of a negative, which is
a logical impossibility.

One of the important differences between a scientist's outlook and that of a
philosopher is that a scientist accepts the _null hypothesis_ , the precept
that an idea without supporting evidence is _assumed to be false_. This saves
a huge amount of time and effort in sorting out reality. It also explains a
scientist's disdain for philosophers.

For the simulation hypothesis, as with all such ideas, the burden of evidence
rests with those who advocate it, not those who doubt it. Until there's
evidence, there's no basis for discussion.

It's the same with religion / God. Can the nonexistence of God be proven? Of
course not. Does that fact stand as evidence in favor of the existence of a
supreme being? Of course not.

Learn the null hypothesis -- it's the single most important element of a
scientific outlook.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis>

~~~
bediger4000
Refutations of philosophical ideas happen all the time. Perhaps Bostrom missed
something subtle, that negates his argument. Or perhaps the logical form of
the argument is incorrect, or perhaps there's no way to falsify it, rendering
it on the level of most superstition.

Besides all that, you can prove negatives at least some of the time: logicians
and mathematicians work on decision problems all the time. Sometimes they come
up negative: <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DecisionProblem.html>

~~~
lutusp
> Refutations of philosophical ideas happen all the time.

On the contrary, this never happens -- not among philosophers, anyway.
Philosophy isn't about reality-testing, that's reserved to science, and it's
why science is a branch of knowledge separate from philosophy. The term
"natural philosopher" was once used to describe what we now call a scientist,
but the problems with an association with philosophy became obvious to all and
the name was changed.

> Besides all that, you can prove negatives at least some of the time ...

No, false. You're thinking of a positive proof that a proposition is false.
Let's say I claim there is a largest prime number. If I take this position,
Euclid's theorem of the infinity of primes _positively disproves_ my claim --
positively proves it to be false:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclids_theorem>

> Sometimes they come up negative ...

First, your reference (<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DecisionProblem.html>)
flatly contradicts your claim -- it says that there is no algorithm that can
decide whether a given theorem does or does not have a proof, and this fact
has been _positively proven_.

Second, you're confusing a positive proof of the falsehood of a claim, with
proof of a negative. To understand the difference, read this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot>

A quote: "Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic
teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell
(1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a
person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the
burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote
that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the
Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on
the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still
referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."

~~~
bediger4000
_You're thinking of a positive proof that a proposition is false._

Yes, of course! Thank you for reminding me of that! I abase myself before your
superior semantics. I'm not worthy, and I shall soon delete this now defiled
account name.

