Re: NYT (Op-Ed) on Multiverse Theory

From: Hal Finney <hal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:44:12 -0700

Eric Hawthorne writes, regarding the question of whether we might
be living in a simulation:
> Whoa there. 80% of Americans (or something) believe the world was
> created by some bearded guy
> in six days. Never confuse popularity with truth.

What Davies wrote was:

   Far from doing away with a transcendent Creator, the multiverse
   theory actually injects that very concept at almost every level of
   its logical structure. Gods and worlds, creators and creatures, lie
   embedded in each other, forming an infinite regress in unbounded space.

   This reductio ad absurdum of the multiverse theory reveals what a
   very slippery slope it is indeed.

This is not a true example of a reductio ad absurdum in the logical or
mathematical sense. There is no contradiction here. Rather, Davies'
argument is an appeal to pure prejudice, deriving a supposedly outlandish
conclusion which is intended to cast doubt on the multiverse premise.

In that sense it is proper to ask whether in fact the belief that we
live inside a created simulation is indeed viewed as absurd. That was
the point of my citation of the Wired poll, not to say that it is true,
but rather that a substantial percentage of the respondents don't see
the possibility as so outrageous.

Of course, the demographics of a typical New York Times reader
are probably quite different from someone who reads Wired magazine.
So Davies' argument may well have some rhetorical weight in the forum
where it was presented. But among the readers of Wired, probably younger
and more in touch with popular culture, the multiverse concept is becoming
relatively acceptable. Davies' appeal to the prejudice of his readers
is not as effective as he probably thinks it is, and will probably become
even less so as new ideas continue to percolate through the social strata.

Hal Finney
Received on Wed Apr 16 2003 - 13:47:07 PDT