This feels similar to what I was exploring in this post.
A few thoughts on dispelling illusions imposed by evil demons:
Invoking the anthropic principle makes me uncomfortable. I feel it is an unfinished concept, but I suspect there are vastly more instances of the experience of having the memory of temporal events in worlds where there are indeed temporal events than in worlds lacking temporal events. This lends evidence decreasing the likelihood of particularly pernicious demons, but indeed, it doesn’t disprove them and it is not based on solid ground.
Setting aside that uncomfortable argument using deduction based on assumptions about the set of possible worlds, if everything I observe is a demonic illusion, I admit defeat, and so I gain more utility by focusing on the worlds where I expect my actions can, in principle, lead to more utility.
A similar principle applies to trusting my tools of logical analysis. First, I try to subject my tools of logical analysis themselves to logical analysis to improve my confidence they should work well. There is a long tradition of people attempting to do so. But ultimately all of this rests on using tools we already have. We could search for new tools, but how would we evaluate their effectiveness? We would need to use our existing tools. So there is no escaping the need to rely on our existing tools.
Math is a branch of deductive reason which is a branch of philosophy ;^p
if everything I observe is a demonic illusion, I admit defeat, and so I gain more utility by focusing on the worlds where I expect my actions can, in principle, lead to more utility.
Kind of, but consider how much defeat do you actually need to admit?
Before engaging more I should note I don’t really know what the “sceptic” stance is, other than just being dubious of things. If you think I should be more informed please point me at resources.
From your linked post:
In the end the illusion that demon creates has to be all-encompasing.
I like this. This is a good point. I think there’s still unstated nuance but I like noticing the way the scope of demonic illusions must creep far outside of any capability we are aware of.
At which point… what is the actual difference between the “reality” and such “illusion”? They work according to the same rules and produce all the same observations.
Not so.
In the world model of the “naturalistic universe”, it feels right to assume the existence of a past and future that give my memories, past experiments, and future plans real context. A reality illusion demon would provide no such assurances. Perhaps it dreamed of this single moment, having fully fabricated the past and with no plan of further exploring the future. In this case, my plans to perform future tests and make a nice cup of tea gain me no real utility since the demon will not be emulating me in the future where I can see the results of those tests or enjoy that tea. That is the sort of demon to which I say “ok, whatever, I’m just gonna assume you don’t exist because if you do you clearly break and control all my attempts to influence reality in any way.”
This feels similar to what I was exploring in this post.
A few thoughts on dispelling illusions imposed by evil demons:
Invoking the anthropic principle makes me uncomfortable. I feel it is an unfinished concept, but I suspect there are vastly more instances of the experience of having the memory of temporal events in worlds where there are indeed temporal events than in worlds lacking temporal events. This lends evidence decreasing the likelihood of particularly pernicious demons, but indeed, it doesn’t disprove them and it is not based on solid ground.
Setting aside that uncomfortable argument using deduction based on assumptions about the set of possible worlds, if everything I observe is a demonic illusion, I admit defeat, and so I gain more utility by focusing on the worlds where I expect my actions can, in principle, lead to more utility.
A similar principle applies to trusting my tools of logical analysis. First, I try to subject my tools of logical analysis themselves to logical analysis to improve my confidence they should work well. There is a long tradition of people attempting to do so. But ultimately all of this rests on using tools we already have. We could search for new tools, but how would we evaluate their effectiveness? We would need to use our existing tools. So there is no escaping the need to rely on our existing tools.
Math is a branch of deductive reason which is a branch of philosophy ;^p
I commend you for feeling uncomfortable about it.
Kind of, but consider how much defeat do you actually need to admit?
https://substack.com/@apeinthecoat102771/note/c-117316511
I’ll be talking more about Münchhausen trilemma in future posts.
Before engaging more I should note I don’t really know what the “sceptic” stance is, other than just being dubious of things. If you think I should be more informed please point me at resources.
From your linked post:
I like this. This is a good point. I think there’s still unstated nuance but I like noticing the way the scope of demonic illusions must creep far outside of any capability we are aware of.
Not so.
In the world model of the “naturalistic universe”, it feels right to assume the existence of a past and future that give my memories, past experiments, and future plans real context. A reality illusion demon would provide no such assurances. Perhaps it dreamed of this single moment, having fully fabricated the past and with no plan of further exploring the future. In this case, my plans to perform future tests and make a nice cup of tea gain me no real utility since the demon will not be emulating me in the future where I can see the results of those tests or enjoy that tea. That is the sort of demon to which I say “ok, whatever, I’m just gonna assume you don’t exist because if you do you clearly break and control all my attempts to influence reality in any way.”
I wasn’t aware of the term “Munchhausen trilemma”. It’s a good term. Thanks!