My own take on the simulation argument is that it’s true, but has no implications, because you can narrow nothing down other than pure logic, so it would be a problem.
(Here, I’m focused on the most general version of the arguments I’ve seen).
Maybe. But what do you mean by, “you can narrow nothing down other than pure logic”?
I interpret the first part—”you can narrow nothing down”—to mean that the simulation argument doesn’t help us make sense of reality. But I don’t understand the second part: “other than pure logic.” Can you please clarify this statement?
Basically, I’m stating that the only thing that the simulation hypothesis gives you is the tautologies, that is statements that are true in every world/model.
My own take on the simulation argument is that it’s true, but has no implications, because you can narrow nothing down other than pure logic, so it would be a problem.
(Here, I’m focused on the most general version of the arguments I’ve seen).
Maybe. But what do you mean by, “you can narrow nothing down other than pure logic”?
I interpret the first part—”you can narrow nothing down”—to mean that the simulation argument doesn’t help us make sense of reality. But I don’t understand the second part: “other than pure logic.” Can you please clarify this statement?
Basically, I’m stating that the only thing that the simulation hypothesis gives you is the tautologies, that is statements that are true in every world/model.
More below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)