From: d8andjo@dtek.chalmers.se (Johan Andersson)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PHIL: VR and RL: Beginning a Philosophical Consortium
Date: 2 Jan 93 10:16:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1ib835INNsgk
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu



In article <1hp62qINNdq0@shelley.u.washington.edu> the moderator
writes:

>   [MODERATOR'S NOTE:  Actually, I tend to agree that the "virtual world"
>   is more than a mere creation of the mind; perhaps it is a reflection of
>   the mind, a built-in mirror.  I don't know.  It's worth continuing
>   discussion.  But perhaps we can bridge from the philosophical to the
>   scientific and not die in the process?  It has been done before, you
>   know. -- Bob Jacobson]

To be quite frank Bob, I grasped much less percentage of the
information in this thread than I usually did when listening to the
dear Mr Evenson :-)

As always when understanding less then 20% of a debate, there are two
alternatives. Lets for politeness sake assume these folks are a lot
smarter than me... (Didnt Plato have some similar shadowy statement?)

I do agree with you though that a virtual world, even from a
scientific point of view can be said to have more than a fictional
existance. I think it was Hofstadter and Dennet in 'The Minds I' that
stated that some things 'transcends simulation'.

For example, if you simulate a rainstorm in a computer, there is no
real rain or wind, but if you simulate a 'songwriter' the music
created is real.

The same would be true for mathematics, algorithms, poetry, language.
I'm not sure if the dividing line is as simple as abstract/nonabstract
concepts.

As for the rest of the debate:

=>emote wields Occams razor.
=>emote grins evilly.
=>converse

] Statements that are undisprovable by their construction, such as the
] solipsistic argument, have no scientific value. There is an infinite
] set of such more or less complex theories. I would place a large part
] of philosophy and most religious beliefs, in this cathegory.
] 
] All these theories, if properly constructed, might be true. They can
] never be proven true because such a test could then fail and the theory
] is always constructed to eliminate such tests. The basic design goal is 
] to make it impossible to disprove.
] 
] This does not make these theories worthless or meaningless. People are 
] as we all know, not ruled by science. Most of us needs something to 
] believe in, for comfort and for social reasons. This has however nothing
] to do with scientific knowledge, it never can.
] 
] Science has made, by Occams razor, the fundamental assumption that the 
] simpler of two models is always to prefer if both explains all known data.
] All excess can be trimmed away with the razorblade.
] 
] To conclude:
] 
] You can construct any wacko theory you like. You can even make it so that
] it actually might be true. At least so that you cant be proven wrong.
] This does not make your theory correct. It does not even make it more
] believable. That a theory is not possible to prove wrong is
] NO ARGUMENT AT ALL for its likeliness to be right.

=>**

/Johan

Johan Andersson           | "You don`t have conversations with microprocessors
Chalmers, Sweden          | you tell them what to do, and then you helplessly
Email:                    | watch the disaster when they take you literally."
d8andjo@dtek.chalmers.se  |     Sah`ot in David Brins "Startide Rising"


[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  :-)  Let this be the coda.  Thank you, Johan. 
-- Bob Jacobson]