Why does it have to be a Truman Show conspiracy, why not a Matrix-style conspiracy? In this case there are many who are plugged into the Matrix and few (or none) who are running the conspiracy.
3.1 Even if the probability of a Matrix situation is tiny, the postulated number of people plugged in can be made arbitrarily large
Scott raised this potential rebuttal when he said that the posited number of people can be made as high as possible in order to cancel out the very low probability of a conspiracy.
You can make the posited number of people arbitrarily large, but the larger you make that number of people, the more elaborate and less probable the conspiracy would have to be.
This would not be the case for the Matrix example. Once you have everyone plugged in, the AI can breed more humans and expand the number plugged in indefinitely, raising the probability arbitrarily high if you buy SIA. I believe this was Scott's point.
I believe a similar argument has been used for the idea that we are all living in a simulation.
I think you are right but I don't see this as a huge problem. If you're in a Truman Show, that means that many of the ordinary facts you think you know about the world are wrong. For example, I think that Carson City is the capital of Nevada, but if I am in a Truman Show, that's unlikely to be true. However if I am in the Matrix, it probably IS the case that Carson City is the capital of Nevada, with the caveat that Carson City and Nevada are places in a video game (the Matrix) rather than physical places.
As a theist I think it's unlikely that God has allowed anyone to build the Matrix. But I think on atheist assumptions a Matrix or simulation scenario would be more likely for the reasons you describe.
It is a problem in that it does not refute Scott’s argument. Scotts point, if I understand it correctly, is SIA arguments work on the basis of large numbers. One imagines a low-probability scenario containing gazillions of people in it as a potential alternative of the world as we know it with a finite, comparatively tiny, number of people in it. SIA makes the case that it is more likely that we are one of those gazillions in the weird scenario than one of the relative handful in the alternative.
Scott notes that by simply increasing the gazillions to whatever level is necessary to overpower the low probability of the weird scenario, SIA can force us to accept it. That is, you can use SIA to come to any conclusion you prefer, as Benham has done for the existence of God.
No, you can’t reason from the SIA to any weird scenario; it has to be a weird scenario with many people.
There’s a huge difference between the scenario that Scott raised and the Matrix scenario. In the former, we would expect that if I traveled far from my home, I would see things that are utterly at odds with how I currently understand the world. On the Matrix scenario, we expect that when I travel far and wide, the world looks the way I currently understand it - even if there’s a caveat that we’re in the matrix or we’re all in a simulation or whatever. The former scenario undermines ordinary knowledge. The latter scenario doesn’t.
You write, in Scott's scenario "we would expect that if I traveled far from my home, I would see things that are utterly at odds with how I currently understand the world."
Well no. The Matrix is a physical embodiment of a conspiracy like the one Scott proposes. To pierce the lie being transmitted to you, you must escape the control of the conspirators (Matrix AI). In Scotts example, were you to travel to a place where you could pierce the lie, you would be escaping the control of the conspirators like Neo escaped from the Matrix.
If this were easily done, there wouldn't BE a conspiracy (or a Matrix) in the first place. The low probability for these scenarios is partly based on the likelihood they would be detected and so never exist in the first place.
What Scott says if you throw enough numbers into the scenario and deploy the SIA you can convince yourself of all sorts of things.
Why does it have to be a Truman Show conspiracy, why not a Matrix-style conspiracy? In this case there are many who are plugged into the Matrix and few (or none) who are running the conspiracy.
I suppose that might work as well.
3.1 Even if the probability of a Matrix situation is tiny, the postulated number of people plugged in can be made arbitrarily large
Scott raised this potential rebuttal when he said that the posited number of people can be made as high as possible in order to cancel out the very low probability of a conspiracy.
You can make the posited number of people arbitrarily large, but the larger you make that number of people, the more elaborate and less probable the conspiracy would have to be.
This would not be the case for the Matrix example. Once you have everyone plugged in, the AI can breed more humans and expand the number plugged in indefinitely, raising the probability arbitrarily high if you buy SIA. I believe this was Scott's point.
I believe a similar argument has been used for the idea that we are all living in a simulation.
I think you are right but I don't see this as a huge problem. If you're in a Truman Show, that means that many of the ordinary facts you think you know about the world are wrong. For example, I think that Carson City is the capital of Nevada, but if I am in a Truman Show, that's unlikely to be true. However if I am in the Matrix, it probably IS the case that Carson City is the capital of Nevada, with the caveat that Carson City and Nevada are places in a video game (the Matrix) rather than physical places.
As a theist I think it's unlikely that God has allowed anyone to build the Matrix. But I think on atheist assumptions a Matrix or simulation scenario would be more likely for the reasons you describe.
It is a problem in that it does not refute Scott’s argument. Scotts point, if I understand it correctly, is SIA arguments work on the basis of large numbers. One imagines a low-probability scenario containing gazillions of people in it as a potential alternative of the world as we know it with a finite, comparatively tiny, number of people in it. SIA makes the case that it is more likely that we are one of those gazillions in the weird scenario than one of the relative handful in the alternative.
Scott notes that by simply increasing the gazillions to whatever level is necessary to overpower the low probability of the weird scenario, SIA can force us to accept it. That is, you can use SIA to come to any conclusion you prefer, as Benham has done for the existence of God.
No, you can’t reason from the SIA to any weird scenario; it has to be a weird scenario with many people.
There’s a huge difference between the scenario that Scott raised and the Matrix scenario. In the former, we would expect that if I traveled far from my home, I would see things that are utterly at odds with how I currently understand the world. On the Matrix scenario, we expect that when I travel far and wide, the world looks the way I currently understand it - even if there’s a caveat that we’re in the matrix or we’re all in a simulation or whatever. The former scenario undermines ordinary knowledge. The latter scenario doesn’t.
You write, in Scott's scenario "we would expect that if I traveled far from my home, I would see things that are utterly at odds with how I currently understand the world."
Well no. The Matrix is a physical embodiment of a conspiracy like the one Scott proposes. To pierce the lie being transmitted to you, you must escape the control of the conspirators (Matrix AI). In Scotts example, were you to travel to a place where you could pierce the lie, you would be escaping the control of the conspirators like Neo escaped from the Matrix.
If this were easily done, there wouldn't BE a conspiracy (or a Matrix) in the first place. The low probability for these scenarios is partly based on the likelihood they would be detected and so never exist in the first place.
What Scott says if you throw enough numbers into the scenario and deploy the SIA you can convince yourself of all sorts of things.