I hold the philosophical position that if two things are indistinguishable, their difference is irrelevant.
"What if we live in a simulation?" -- irrelevant
"What if you couldn't tell the difference between taking to a computer and a real person?" -- irrelevant
But more precisely, it's begging the question to say "imagine something was indistinguishable, now how would you treat it differently???"
@hplisiecki if a tool exists to differentiate the indifferentiable, for example a microscope, I would treat the situations differently.
@nomi My toot related to the possibility of making such a tool. Its existence would have meant mean that it was differentiable already.
@hplisiecki hmm... I don't think it matters whether it is a possibility or not, only whether the tool has been built, calibrated, used, and understood. I'm tossing those extra words on after "built" because I think at the bottom, the nature of the difference is incredibly more important than the existence of a difference
@nomi Except that in order to buld, calibrate and so on, you first need the motivation to do it. That motivation has to stem from recognizing the relevance of the sought distinction and wanting to find out.
@hplisiecki generally agree. Small quibble: it comes from the belief a difference can be identified. Sometimes the belief ends up being true (higgs boson exists), sometimes not (aether doesn't).
@nomi *if not