Бюрократы, Администраторы, Редакторы
3667
правок
Are We Living In Nick Bostrom’s Speculation: различия между версиями
Перейти к навигации
Перейти к поиску
→Circular reasoning
Rodion (обсуждение | вклад) |
Rodion (обсуждение | вклад) |
||
| Строка 232: | Строка 232: | ||
== Circular reasoning == | == Circular reasoning == | ||
If we do not live in a simulation, the whole logic of using ''fI'' or ''fP'' is invalid, because ''fsim'' is precisely zero. We know that we do not run any simulations and therefore whole argument is flawed. This is a common logical fallacy, known as a circular reasoning | If we do not live in a simulation, the whole logic of using ''fI'' or ''fP'' is invalid, because ''fsim'' is precisely zero. We know that we do not run any simulations and therefore whole argument is flawed. This is a common logical fallacy, known as a circular reasoning<ref>An argument that uses circular reasoning (also known as “begging the question”) makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument. | ||
</ref>. It was used, for example, by Rene Descartes to construct an argument that God exists, known as the Cartesian Circle [3]. | |||
One may object to this by saying that even if we do not run any simulations today, there might be simulations run in the future and they must be accounted for. Clearly such argument is without merit. Taking into account future simulation not only makes no sense (if we assume that we live in a real world, the simulation argument is useless), but also violates several important philosophical and physical principles. First, it violates the causality rules by allowing future events to affect our present world. Second, it ignores the fact that uncertainty principle in the quantum mechanics makes future effectively non-deterministic and it is impossible, neither practically, nor in theory to predict what simulations will be run by us in the future. | One may object to this by saying that even if we do not run any simulations today, there might be simulations run in the future and they must be accounted for. Clearly such argument is without merit. Taking into account future simulation not only makes no sense (if we assume that we live in a real world, the simulation argument is useless), but also violates several important philosophical and physical principles. First, it violates the causality rules by allowing future events to affect our present world. Second, it ignores the fact that uncertainty principle in the quantum mechanics makes future effectively non-deterministic and it is impossible, neither practically, nor in theory to predict what simulations will be run by us in the future. | ||