What do you think of this argument?
It's good because...
Side Score: 4
|
 |
It's bad because...
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
Somewhere in all that chaos enough order must exist to create beings which can create our world if it is indeed a simulation. Why do you think it's necessarily anymore chaotic than our universe? Perhaps it's less chaotic, or maybe it is both more chaotic and less at the same time. For example what if they are on a higher frequency than us, and their world is more ordered and complex yet oscillating so violently that it would rip us apart? Side: It's good because...
|
Infinite number of universes means that all possibilities occur. Therefore in some universes someone made a simulation that is convincingly real and people are unwittingly part of it, however such instances would be rare. Consider that there would need to be a strong motive for imprisoning unwitting people in a simulation given the costs of such an endeavor. Moreover, it is not clear that scientifically advanced races from another completely different universe would even want to create simulation technology in the first place; we are assuming that they would be like humans. This also applies to many other parts of the chain of events and development that has led us to create the simulations that we are capable of. Side: It's bad because...
0
points
The best argument against that is Occam's razor. We don't need the idea that we're in a computer simulation to explain anything, and it doesn't make a difference if it is a computer simulations we would never know till we are out of it To me the whole argument is just another version of the ontological argument in a different guise Side: It's bad because...
Occam's razor favors the simpler explanation over the more complex one only when there isn't compelling reason to believe the more complex one. To use Occam's razor as a counterargument here is to beg the question - to assume that there isn't compelling reason to believe this argument (or to assume that the argument isn't sound). Also, the simulation hypothesis as it is used here isn't intended as an explanation, it is simply a conclusion about the way the world is through reason. I agree that it doesn't make much difference if we are simulated, I think we would still be 'real,' in a sense, but that is irrelevant to whether the argument works. I don't see how it is another version of the ontological argument (which I think is sucky argument). It is of the same style of reasoning - a priori / armchair reasoning, yes, but that doesn't make it flawed in the same way. Side: It's good because...
Who’s doing all the downvoting ? It seems very much like the ontological argument to me. Because we can think it, it must be possible. Because we can simulate things, therefore it must be possible for a simulation to exist complicated and large enough that could simulate us. It also leads to an infinite regression. If we are in a simulation, there's no reason why the simulators aren't also subject to the same likelihood and are also in one, and so on and so on. Side: It's bad because...
|
