Hacker News Reader

Hmm, I'm not sure about that logic.

'Suppose we are currently in such a simulation' - does your objection still hold?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot

My objection to the claim that we are in a perfect simulation of reality is that that's not falsifiable.

Falsifiability is a really really interesting concept. It's not particularly popular among mystics because it sort of invalidates the whole religion thing.

The claim that we are in a perfect simulation of reality isn't a scientific claim, hence falsifiability is not strictly relevant.

I think what I don't like about the "simulation of reality" proposition is it implies that death does not have its normal negative consequences and thus causes values to be not the same as they normally would be under not "simulation of reality" circumstances.

Death has the exact same empirical consequences--people you observe to die are never seen again alive. The subjective consequences of death are impossible to know whether or not reality is simulated.

>because it sort of invalidates the whole religion thing

No, it clearly demonstrates that religion is outside of the realm of science as many other things are as well (Philosophy, for instance. Or do you care to argue that Philosophy has no value?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com