Non-existence

[Kyuuketsuki]

We assume that what we can detect is real, and the fact that everything holds together tends to support that assumption.

Wouldn't the same result obtain if this world was a Matrix-like simulation whose programming was thorough and consistent? Someone who held this view certainly would not "step out in front of a fast moving vehicle"—not because they're being inconsistent but, rather, because they're being consistent.

Why not? Such a world would be inherently valueless I think!

Even in the Matrix, the vehicle would critically injure them. In other words, I believe dagda's point would be, "Given that two competing conclusions are empirically equivalent (i.e., rely on the exact same empirical data), by what means can you test them for truth?"

I don't care about The Matrix ... it's a film (and the sequels are f***ing awful)!

Occam's razor will not help here; given a Matrix scenario, the only thing Occam's razor would do is keep you locked in to the simulation—i.e., it would not test for truth.

Occam's Razor very much does apply because the existence of the universe through natural cause only really begs the question how, whereas a simulation (or last Thursday-ism) begs not only the question how but who and why and as such is implicitly vastly more complex.

A scientific theory is the highest form of explanation known to science ...

Umm... I should hope so. But that does nothing to undermine dagda's argument, given the point about empirical equivalence.

Er yes ... it very much does!

Kyu