Re: Simulation argument and Occam's razor

From: P K (
Date: Wed Aug 29 2007 - 16:22:10 MDT

>From: Peter de Blanc <>
>Subject: Re: Simulation argument and Occam's razor
>Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:05:09 -0400
>On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 16:51 +0000, P K wrote:
> > *takes a big breath* For every undetectable reality you can imagine
> > with
> > actions that we should take to take advantage of that reality, I can
> > imagine
> > a reality where those actions would have the opposite effect and the
> > opposite of those actions would have the desired effect. Of course,
>Yes, but are those two realities always going to be equally probable?
The key word here is *undetectable* reality. If you have evidence pointing
one way or the other it becomes 'detectable' by definition. If you don't
know which is more probable you don't know wether to act one way or the
other. However, you can simply act on what you do know and adjust if you
have new evidence.

>Obviously you don't think they are in all cases (or else you would be
>indifferent about any decision).
I don't care about *undetectable* realities. If they had any effect on our
reality they would be detectable. Otherwise they are only useful for
entertainment or as a thought exercise but pointless for real life. All else
being equal, the simplest explanation is the best.

>Why are these symmetry arguments more valid in theistic worlds than in
>naturalistic worlds?
Occam's razor is equally valid for all extraneous realities/phenomenon.
-being in a computer simulation
-cloaked aliens sneaking around

Former Police Officer Paul Gillespie’s TAKE BACK THE INTERNET tips and
tricks, watch the video now

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT