tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post2777872657034390928..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: The creation argumentJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-76182432423552603102008-05-02T21:18:00.000+01:002008-05-02T21:18:00.000+01:00Well, it appears several of us have recognized the...Well, it appears several of us have recognized the generalization of the Simulation Argument.<BR/><BR/>http://transfigurism.org/community/blogs/lincoln_cannon/archive/2008/04/22/4340.aspxLincoln Cannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08009185417814627678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-71410905780080803382007-08-30T22:07:00.000+01:002007-08-30T22:07:00.000+01:00TBH I think it is rather pompous and badly written...TBH I think it is rather pompous and badly written - it was a near word-for-word copy of the abstract of the paper linked. But I think the logic follows like this:<BR/><BR/>If the first two sentences are both false, then the human species will develop god-like powers at some point in its evolution, and also choose to use them to create universes. Therefore, there will in total be a lot of such created universes, and a strong probability that our universe is one of them rather than the original "seed".James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-60969251403204280842007-08-30T20:11:00.000+01:002007-08-30T20:11:00.000+01:00I don't understand why you think it is clear that ...I don't understand why you think it is clear that at least one of your three propositions is true. I hope you will explain!<BR/><BR/>Is it:<BR/><BR/>(A) each proposition individually is quite likely on its own, and they are relatively independent, so the chances that at least one of them is true is very high?<BR/><BR/>or:<BR/><BR/>(B) for all three to be false would lead to a contradiction, or to an inconsistency with our observations? (And if so, could you explain the contradiction?)Hal Finneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03982492169754485098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-4859533824711775592007-08-22T22:34:00.000+01:002007-08-22T22:34:00.000+01:00In the words of Arthur Clarke"The technology of a ...In the words of Arthur Clarke<BR/><BR/>"The technology of a sufficiently advanced civilization will be virutually indistinguishable from magic."EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-18837877308285796912007-08-21T14:38:00.000+01:002007-08-21T14:38:00.000+01:00Ha! Takes me back to the good old days of first ye...Ha! Takes me back to the good old days of first year philosophy (a much underrated subject, IMO). The simplest answer to the question is: What difference would it make? Our 'reality' is as real as it gets, so any suggestions that it is somehow 'unreal' can carry no meaning. WYSIWYG.<BR/><BR/>McTaggart had a good answer for this kind of solepsism, wherein he show that it lead to a vicious infinite regression, & is thus worthless. Strikes me that a certain journalist needs to get in touch with his existential being.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for providing a smile.<BR/>Regards,Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16986271841074352598noreply@blogger.com