3 ms·

Is this the blog post you've mentioned? http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/06/reality-check-1.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/20

• eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Yeah, that one. And I didn't bother addressing the "Simulation Argument", since it's unfalsifiable nonsense.
  • halfcat 12y ago
    Unfalsifiable, okay. But why nonsense? (I haven't read it, yet, genuinely interested in your non-hand-waving thoughts).
    • eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      "Nonsense" in that there's literally no way to ever tell the difference between a "simulation" being run on a computer in some exterior universe and a very real universe whose laws of physics are fundamentally discrete. "Real" is what you can causally interact with, which means that until that exterior universe decides to deliberately talk to us, they are not actually real with respect to us.
      • halfcat 12y ago
        Maybe "pointless" is more correct then. "Nonsense" suggests you have a strong opinion on whether we live in a simulation, which as you said, we can't know.
• ableal 12y ago
  This bit: "What we're going to see is increasingly solicitous machines defining our environment" reminded me of Jack Williamson's With Folded Hands scenario (from 1947, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands )