Quote:
Originally Posted by flipfreek
I'm a complete philosophical novice so I'm sorry I can't enlighten you. Seems real interesting though. What does he mean by "post human"? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it's a stage where humans have surpassed everything that makes them human; emotion, compassion etc. Am I close or completely off?
Also, the part about living in a computer simulation is essentially "The Matrix" isn't it? If so, it seems to me that the only argument against it goes something like "its so absurd it can't be true". Similar problem to the God question. We can't absolutely prove it one way or another. However, unlike the God question, there is no evidence to support this argument either way. There is no scientific evidence (to my knowledge) suggesting that we are part of such a simulation, nor is there any suggesting otherwise.
|
The evidence is that it is a logical equation thats premises are based in reality, eg computational power and human curiosity, and seem to logically lead to 3 possible conclusions, one of them being the simulation.
How could there be scientific evidence if the entire universe is a complex simulation or one of an infinite number of simulations.
I read in a Hawking book that a noted physicist was giving a lecture about the earth and its positions in the universe when a little old lady stood up and said," What you've said is rubbish, the earth is flat and it rests on a giant turtle." The physicist self assuredly replied, " and what does the turtle rest upon", to which the old woman replied, "You think you're very clever sonny, but its turtles all the way down.
Of course somewhere we must conclude that the turtle [simulation]rests upon something rather more distant to contemplate as relevant to this existence, but
Unlike 'the god question' for which there is a similar lack of evidence either way, the simulation argument rests on faith in logic while god rests on faith in illogic.
I pick logic, even if it has an 'absurd' conclusion.
As an agnostic it does not matter to me either way, I exist, but for theists and atheists alike this argument does have some interesting implications about the existence of a creative designing intelligence and the nature or natures that intelligence may represent.
It is not the same as the matrix- that was a mind world/ body world schism- the argument does not state your body is plugged in somewhere else while your mind lives out this world.