3 ms·

There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulatio

by blix 5y ago

There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation. Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence of "God." In fact at the fundemental level these two beliefs are basically identical; the difference is in language and emotional baggage.

nobody9999 5y ago
>There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation. >Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence of "God." In fact at the fundemental level these two beliefs are basically identical; the difference is in language and emotional baggage. The former is a claim that I made explicitly. The latter is also true to a certain extent, but a whole raft of the claims made by those who hypothesize the existence of a "god" have been shown to be empirically false. The simulation hypothesis isn't falsifiable either, but it doesn't make demonstrably false claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." All that said, both are metaphysics[0] at best, and to paraphrase Sir Peter Medawar[1], a "bounteous harvest of gobbledygook" at worst. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics [1] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507 https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507
- blix 5y ago
  > The former is a claim that I made explicitly. I think you recognized the contradiction in your own point and corrected it so I will leave it be. It is unimportant to the broader idea of the simulation hypothesis that any individual hypothesis can be disproven. In fact there is an infinite number of trivial variants that can easily be disproven. This is still an infinitessimal fraction of the uncountable space of hypotheses. Similary it doesn't matter if the claims of any individual religion can be falsified, there is simply another one without those claims. Just because I read something false in one book, or many books, doesn't mean all books are false. Or just because one scientfic paper turns out to not be replicable doesn't mean empiricism is fundementally useless.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I think you recognized the contradiction in your own point and corrected it so I will leave it be. I didn't "correct" anything. And there's no contradiction, AFAICT. You either chose to misinterpret my points or I was unclear in expressing them. Either way, you drew an incorrect conclusion from my statements. If the reason for that was the former, shame on you! If it was the latter, shame on me!
    - blix 5y ago
      So do you want to correct my incorrect conclusion or are you happy to just call it a day :P The contradiction was in saying the simulation hypothesis was fundementally unfalsifiable, and then pointing to its falsifiablity as a reason to prefer it to other belief systems. Your edit made it more clear, but there is still a contradiction there. Given that a sibling comment is expressing very similar criticisms, I think my interpretation of your argument reflects something present in your text. If I am mistaken, please help me understand your point of view better. This is what good faith discussion is about. No shame necessary.
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        Hopefully my explication here[0] will resolve your confusion: I didn't say that the hypothesis of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator was falsifiable, I said that some of the claims made by those who believe that hypothesis (Abrahamic religions) are demonstrably false. I then contrasted that with the simulation hypothesis, that doesn't make such claims. >If I am mistaken, please help me understand your point of view better. This is what good faith discussion is about. No shame necessary. I hope I've been able to do that. As to "shame," that was a rhetorical flourish. Please feel free to ignore it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28843001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28843001

by blix 5y ago

nobody9999 5y ago

>There is no experiment that can disprove all simulation hypotheses. There is always another hypothesis where that result is simply a valid part of the simulation. >Similarly, there is no evidence that can demonstrably disprove the existence of "God." In fact at the fundemental level these two beliefs are basically identical; the difference is in language and emotional baggage. The former is a claim that I made explicitly. The latter is also true to a certain extent, but a whole raft of the claims made by those who hypothesize the existence of a "god" have been shown to be empirically false. The simulation hypothesis isn't falsifiable either, but it doesn't make demonstrably false claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." All that said, both are metaphysics[0] at best, and to paraphrase Sir Peter Medawar[1], a "bounteous harvest of gobbledygook" at worst. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics [1] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507 https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507

blix 5y ago
> The former is a claim that I made explicitly. I think you recognized the contradiction in your own point and corrected it so I will leave it be. It is unimportant to the broader idea of the simulation hypothesis that any individual hypothesis can be disproven. In fact there is an infinite number of trivial variants that can easily be disproven. This is still an infinitessimal fraction of the uncountable space of hypotheses. Similary it doesn't matter if the claims of any individual religion can be falsified, there is simply another one without those claims. Just because I read something false in one book, or many books, doesn't mean all books are false. Or just because one scientfic paper turns out to not be replicable doesn't mean empiricism is fundementally useless.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I think you recognized the contradiction in your own point and corrected it so I will leave it be. I didn't "correct" anything. And there's no contradiction, AFAICT. You either chose to misinterpret my points or I was unclear in expressing them. Either way, you drew an incorrect conclusion from my statements. If the reason for that was the former, shame on you! If it was the latter, shame on me!
  - blix 5y ago
    So do you want to correct my incorrect conclusion or are you happy to just call it a day :P The contradiction was in saying the simulation hypothesis was fundementally unfalsifiable, and then pointing to its falsifiablity as a reason to prefer it to other belief systems. Your edit made it more clear, but there is still a contradiction there. Given that a sibling comment is expressing very similar criticisms, I think my interpretation of your argument reflects something present in your text. If I am mistaken, please help me understand your point of view better. This is what good faith discussion is about. No shame necessary.
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      Hopefully my explication here[0] will resolve your confusion: I didn't say that the hypothesis of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator was falsifiable, I said that some of the claims made by those who believe that hypothesis (Abrahamic religions) are demonstrably false. I then contrasted that with the simulation hypothesis, that doesn't make such claims. >If I am mistaken, please help me understand your point of view better. This is what good faith discussion is about. No shame necessary. I hope I've been able to do that. As to "shame," that was a rhetorical flourish. Please feel free to ignore it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28843001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28843001