5 Answers

  1. For those who are too lazy to find out what Gorny meant: Hoffman defends the position that natural selection is aimed at selection based on utility, and utility does not always correlate with truth, if a fallacy is useful, selection will support it.

    This is a plausible argument, but when Hoffman tries to draw conclusions from it, he leaves the territory of science and finds himself in the space of philosophy. Therefore, none of his conclusions can be taken as scientifically proven. But you can deduce something from his position.

    The claim that evolution selects those who are adequate to reality, and adequacy means the perception of reality as it is, is at the heart of the materialistic epistemological approach, attempts to explain how knowledge and truth are possible through evolution. If we undermine this claim with Hoffman's arguments, it turns out that this epistemological approach is insufficiently justified. The problem is, but it doesn't matter, alternative approaches are in a slightly better position.

    In addition, the argument for the existence of objective reality suffers, but here everything is much simpler, the idea that we live in virtual reality is perfectly cut off by Occam's razor, since it does not add any empirical or even ethical content to the world.

    But the validity of this approach served as a serious argument for the uselessness of the figure of God, and Hoffman's argument, thus, allows us to repel the attack on the religious picture of the world. Which, by the way, is used by theologians, for example, Platinga. To repel, but not to go on the offensive, rather just somewhat equalize the chances, because religion is not able to offer a more convincing alternative.

    The problem is that while Hoffman's argument conceals religion from epistemology, it also lays a different mine under the foundation of theology : if selection supports utility rather than truth, it is impossible to justify belief in God on the basis that it has been selected and established everywhere in the human population – this could just be a useful mistake.

  2. In principle, it is impossible to prove that we live in virtual reality. Just like refute. So here, as usual, is a question of faith. I don't believe it, do you?

  3. Philosophers and writers have given their answer to this topic for a long time. Hoffman is just a PR guy. Read, for example, S. Lem's short story ” How Trurl's own perfection led to trouble.” I noticed that Western scientists generally tend to give all sorts of false sensational, scandalous outdated myths a slightly updated interpretation and revive them in a new way. Brawlers in search of fame and money. A typical member of this tribe, Eloh Mask, for example, travels the galaxy almost every year on a loosely suspended broomstick.

  4. Yes, we are in an artificially created laboratory of androids by a civilization with a high level of developed consciousness, here various types of interaction of relations of various types of life forms, consciousness of beings are being worked out. From the most primitive to the highest we can imagine.

  5. This is not proof. Just one of the many arguments “for VR cosmogony”.

    https://proza.ru/2003/07/22-23

    VR, all these simulations-emulations have their own characteristics that distinguish them from others… opportunities. First, the principle of least computations, saving computing system resources (by reference). And-funnily enough! – physicists have known for almost a century that in the absence of an observer, our reality works (is calculated) according to economical statistical laws.

    Second, saving a VR developer's time is a more modern coding principle.

    Third, manual control and patches – while VR is actively supported. In particular, supported VR resists hackers both passively and actively. It resists better today than it resisted yesterday.

Leave a Reply