You start with "Not even wrong" but end with: Might as well assume its false because the alternative is pointless. Which are basically opposite views.
Either you think the idea is too flawed to consider, or you can consider it and conclude we might as well assume the world is real, because if it wasn't what would we even do, but i don't understand how you can hold both positions.
When I disclaimed the patronizing nature of "not even wrong," making a value judgement on whether it is worth consideration was one of the things I wanted to avoid. I'm not really interested in telling someone what they shouldn't consider, and whether or not it is worth it I've spent some time thinking about it over the years. I do think that this question isn't really able to produce useful insights, and I wanted to state my view on that, but I don't want to apply a moral judgement on the act of considering the question. I probably would've been better off steering clear of that term.
What I mean to suggest is that, though this is often presented as a scientific hypothesis about reality (eg, sometimes people say things like, "there's a 20% chance the universe is a simulation"), it is unfalsifiable, and therefor not a scientific hypothesis. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be approached with other ways of knowing, and the argument I present is essentially a spiritual one.
Comments
You start with "Not even wrong" but end with: Might as well assume its false because the alternative is pointless. Which are basically opposite views.
Either you think the idea is too flawed to consider, or you can consider it and conclude we might as well assume the world is real, because if it wasn't what would we even do, but i don't understand how you can hold both positions.
When I disclaimed the patronizing nature of "not even wrong," making a value judgement on whether it is worth consideration was one of the things I wanted to avoid. I'm not really interested in telling someone what they shouldn't consider, and whether or not it is worth it I've spent some time thinking about it over the years. I do think that this question isn't really able to produce useful insights, and I wanted to state my view on that, but I don't want to apply a moral judgement on the act of considering the question. I probably would've been better off steering clear of that term.
What I mean to suggest is that, though this is often presented as a scientific hypothesis about reality (eg, sometimes people say things like, "there's a 20% chance the universe is a simulation"), it is unfalsifiable, and therefor not a scientific hypothesis. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be approached with other ways of knowing, and the argument I present is essentially a spiritual one.