I include in this post parts of a chapter from a book I wrote in 2002 but I never published because I thought it was early for it. A have made some editions to the original material.
This post is a very brief introduction to the intelligent design hypothesis.
If we are living in a computer simulation, as Nick Bostrom has argued is a possibility, maybe this is not just an ancestor simulation but an interactive computer game. In this game, some of its creators, or participants, assume various roles, such as country leaders or scientists who make remarkable discoveries, and some even cause conflict and wars. Maybe the main objective is entertainment or it may be something else we do not understand and in this context some fundamental questions arise.
Computer scientists often make unfounded bold statements in an effort to elevate their profession to the status of physics and maybe share some of the glory of that field. This is understandable but it becomes ludicrous when they equate their ability to model complex problems and arrive at a solution to that of physical reality in arriving at the same solution. It is troublesome that the educational establishment not only tolerates this type of behavior but also promotes it and rewards it.
I am not talking about straw man arguments in this case because the subject of the paper by Karakostas is not his invention. Specifically, the concept of reality in philosophy is as old as Parmenides. However, deductions based on hidden premises can be problematic, especially when they deal with the nature of reality.
While I am agnostic about of the bold intelligent design hypothesis, I believe that using straw man arguments and being fanatical is not just a non-scientific way of opposing it but instead reinforces it in the minds of laymen because such efforts often demonstrate insecurity about the fate of evolution theory.
A substantial part of philosophy of science has devoted itself to the production of straw man arguments in the absence of any real breakthrough and substantial contribution. Especially troublesome are attempts to question the validity of empirically confirmed physical laws, such as the law of conservation of energy in mechanics, by applying them arbitrarily and without any reality check to absurd thought experiments involving the concept of infinity and point masses.
Another epistemological shock from a paper in the junk archive that confuses symbols with their values and that knowing if the limit of a sequence exists does not imply knowing its value.