|
OK, somewhat stale already... But WTH, there are still "Reply" links, so AFAICS replying is acceptable. And the "reverse-perspective" rebuttal I'm about to propose hasn't been proposed so far. > OK, but I'm saying the burden of proof is on who think that simulation is possible. It's not at all obvious that it is. You seem to be arguing about whether it's possible to simulate this reality, the one we're in, within itself. That's like saying Sim City is impossible, because you can't build the computer Sim City is running on in Sim City; you can't have your Sims build a PC and then run that same copy of the Sim City game on that simulated PC. If we and the universe we live in are all part of a simulation, that simulation can be running on something that cannot be built in our universe -- within that simulation itself -- without, AFAICS, that constituting any logical contradiction. Or, IOW: Ants can build anthills, but we can build ant farms. If an ant claims "I can't be living in an ant farm; there can be no such thing, because we ants don't know how to make one!"... Then it is wrong. In the simulation hypothesis, it is not necessary for humans to know how to build the simulation environment, because in that hypothesis we aren't the simulation builders. We're just the Sims (or ants). |