I don't know their methodology either, but I know it's unscientific based on one principle: You can't assess what you can't access, and we can't access a hypothetical "extrasimulation", or the world(s) containing the simulation which contains us. They claim to be able to assess it. Therefore they're wrong.
We are playing a simulation of a galaxy, and real science claims the universe "could" be a simulation
- Thread starter Boff'in
- Start date
By that logic string theory is wrong. We can't access strings themselves but the internal consistancy of the mathematics infers their existence.
String theory could be wrong, and so could that study, I don't know. I also don't know if it's science or philosophy. I do find it an interesting thing to think about though.
Interesting.
I rank this right up there with the multi-verse theory, and white-holes theory.
In implausibility, maybe.
Incidentally I feel like string theory is wrong. Moreso I feel like its proponents are taking too much liberty, for similar reasons I dispute simulation claims.
There is a difference though, which is that string theory is about the universe we can access. Theories about reasons for creating simulations which include us imply understanding of things outside of the universe we know. The basic laws of such a universe may be entirely different from ours, and to assume that lifeforms of all things are similar is nerd fantasy. They're basically saying "Because we like studying anthropology, so does the thing that made our world." It's just unfounded.
Last edited:
This.
It's the reason that these discussions rarely accrue interest in the academic sphere. There's simply nothing to really discuss unless you make assumptions for the sake of argument, like a Dawkins vs. Creationism debate. It's ideological discourse where "science" and "skepticism" are basically synonymous.
Last edited:
Yeah, the simulation theory always draws a little too close to the First Cause/Kalam Cosmological Argument for me. It assumes far too much about the universe and whatever came before it. Why don't we try to figure out what consciousness is before we postulate about the ability to recreate it in silico?
Disturbing notions. Calling universe 'simulated' feels like an abuse. What is a simulated reality? What is the real world? Is there any difference? Are dreams a simulation too? From the perspective of a sleeping person dreams seem to be very real - most of the time. Universe is simulated because someone assumed it is sustained by a calculating machine similar to our earthly computers? What if our universe exists solely as a fleeting thought of a lonely brain in a jar instead? Can it be still considered a simulation? Does it make it any less real for us?
By the way, the word you are looking for is 'nesting'
'Inception' means 'genesis, origin, beginning of'. Nested realities are a possibility, but we have no basis to call them 'simulated'. Fun fact: the scientific concept of nested realities (generally with governing, superior entities) already exists in religions
Last edited:
Hmm, what is implausable and what is plausable? Those border move forward as our civilization move forward and our understanding of science grows more advanced. A flying machine to the ancient Greeks was implausible, to Leonardo Da Vinci it was plausible, and to us it is a dayli day item, broadly understood by most.
Newtonian physics ruled until quite recently, many thing indicate that the rules does not work on a Galactic scale and other things influence heavily, unfortunately most is still just theories, we just yet have not the tech to prove or disprove. It is doubtful that we might ever get a full understanding of the Universe.
Just as the old "God" question, we seek answers but none to be found. None can be dis proven and none can be proven.
There is no doubt that the thoughts of the people in the interview are a contributing factor to thinking out of the box, which is what is needed, then followed by an scientific approach to prove theories.
The big hindrance to general progress in these areas is more likely to be due to an ingrained superstition still abundant in the general populace.
It is, at the moment , as we have passed a scientific zenith, and are on the route to a New Age nadir.
The recent changes (08.11.2016) in one of the most influential countries in the world was a potent indication of this trend. Science denial is not new, it is an old phenomenon, mainly contributed by the fact that advanced science is like magic to the uninitiated.
(Thought advanced by I, Asimov in Foundation series book 3 I think)
If this mindset grabs hold, it will take some time before we get back on track.
I am perfectly aware of thinkers like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawkins and innovators like Elon Musk, jeff Bezos, but will it be enough?
(many others in fact)
Cheers Cmdr's
Newtonian physics ruled until quite recently, many thing indicate that the rules does not work on a Galactic scale and other things influence heavily, unfortunately most is still just theories, we just yet have not the tech to prove or disprove. It is doubtful that we might ever get a full understanding of the Universe.
Just as the old "God" question, we seek answers but none to be found. None can be dis proven and none can be proven.
There is no doubt that the thoughts of the people in the interview are a contributing factor to thinking out of the box, which is what is needed, then followed by an scientific approach to prove theories.
The big hindrance to general progress in these areas is more likely to be due to an ingrained superstition still abundant in the general populace.
It is, at the moment , as we have passed a scientific zenith, and are on the route to a New Age nadir.
The recent changes (08.11.2016) in one of the most influential countries in the world was a potent indication of this trend. Science denial is not new, it is an old phenomenon, mainly contributed by the fact that advanced science is like magic to the uninitiated.
(Thought advanced by I, Asimov in Foundation series book 3 I think)
If this mindset grabs hold, it will take some time before we get back on track.
I am perfectly aware of thinkers like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawkins and innovators like Elon Musk, jeff Bezos, but will it be enough?
(many others in fact)
Cheers Cmdr's
verminstar
Banned
We have only bits and pieces of information but what we know fer certain is that at some point in the early 21st century, all of mankind was united in celebration. We marvelled at our own technological genius as we gave birth to AI.
You mean artificial intelligence...
A singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines...
Have any the flat earthers turned up yet? They even more fun to argue with cos they always get triggered and lose the plot ^
You mean artificial intelligence...
A singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines...
Have any the flat earthers turned up yet? They even more fun to argue with cos they always get triggered and lose the plot ^
I have a list... Your name is now on it for the above crimes against hilarity!
If this were a simulation then the colour of our star may change at anytime for no reason other than 'science' or our planets may get re-ordered/taken away/added to depending on how the devs want it to look. Or everything could just end as some alien turns of their console at the end of the day.
If we are in a simulation, then I think it's fairly safe to say that it's not running on a version of Windows, or we'd have seen a BSOD by now. Of course, if it did BSOD, presumably the operators could rollback to a previous restore point, where everything would be fine, and we'd have no knowledge of the BSOD anyway. I mean, restore points always work, right? [yesnod]
Last edited:
Which is why string theory is not a scientific theory. A handful of dudes making aesthetically pleasing equations is a far cry from natural science. If you cant observe it, measure it or test it, it simply ain't science.
Can still be fun to think about though, nothing wrong with that.
- - - Updated - - -
Strictly speaking, you have no assurance that time itself is 'moving forward'. We may be 'stuck' in one moment for all eternity, and we just have a static memory of the past and experiencing time.
I find it ironic that these people come out with a ludicrous idea like this, then say they can be no such thing as a Creator like in the Bible.
Christ if this is a simulation I got a right tomato in control of my life.
- - - Updated - - -
Maybe there isn't any interest from the academic sphere in regards to Dawkins and creationism as there isn't anything to discuss at it's base level, The world is 7500 years old and god made it and have 0 proof for this apart from faith, Well I have this rock which is at least 2 billion years old and I can prove it, Ok God obviously left that there to try and lead us away from the path..... You can't discuss things with people like that.
- - - Updated - - -
Maybe there isn't any interest from the academic sphere in regards to Dawkins and creationism as there isn't anything to discuss at it's base level, The world is 7500 years old and god made it and have 0 proof for this apart from faith, Well I have this rock which is at least 2 billion years old and I can prove it, Ok God obviously left that there to try and lead us away from the path..... You can't discuss things with people like that.
This is a good point, however, the difference lies in the rigidness of the statements. The simulation theory is explicitly hypothetical (hence the use of the word 'likely'), in a religious context the belief in God is a dogma. It is very different to say "it is possible that something like a god exists", than to say "god exist, and he is such and such and such". While the first is stated as a possibility, that can turn out to be false, the second is presented as a fixed truth, not explicitly open to change. Religious beliefs do change, but this is never openly discussed, and this is one of the most awkward attitudes in the history of religion (the fact that dogmas change while still claiming to be eternal truths). Meanwhile, every idea in science is not scientific because of its origin, but because of its explicit aperture towards criticism and the corresponding refutation. Of course, many scientist and so called skeptics fail to acknowledge this, but that is because they often lack a proper understanding of what science really is.
Would you like to expand?
Because is fun
Last edited:
For context, the idea that our universe is a simulation is based on a theory about as sound as the alcubierre drive. It's like looking at an 80 variable equation and finding 2 variables that add up to match a hypothesis you have. It's just real enough to have some mathematical legitimacy, but just abstract enough to not be capable of testing. (Due to technological and scientific limitations).
Maybe "Real Life" is a simulation being run in ED, which is the real "real" world. That's what I tell any "family" and "friends" ED conjures up to test my faith, anyway
Of course, this would mean that DBOBE is ... God? :SIt begs the question that if we are a simulation, then to what end? What are the aims? What is its purpose? They all seem philosophical to me. Science asks questions that require firm answers. If I hit A with B then I shall find A at C (exc quantum mechanics/dynamics of course). I'm not one to argue with NdGT, but the nature of reality asks more philosophical questions than scientific. Thats not to say it doesnt ask scientific questions. It does. But the philosophical ones it asks seem to me to be the more interesting ones. Philosophy often cracks opens a door that science then shoves itself through. Plus as you say, theyre more fun. But its all a tad deterministic and now I wonder what purpose caused me to have that bacon butty earlier and whether my decision to have brown sauce rather then ketchup has some deeper meaning.
You can stream yourself on twitch playing The Sims where your sim is streaming himself playing a computer game.
Does the sim know you are watching?
Does the sim know you are controlling him?
Do you know if there is someone watching you?
Do you know if there is someone controlling you?
Does the sim know you are watching?
Does the sim know you are controlling him?
Do you know if there is someone watching you?
Do you know if there is someone controlling you?