Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Futurism)   Physicist says simulation theory is really just religion by a different name, no matter how many big names support it. Looking at you, Neil   (wordpress.futurism.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Scientific method, Simulation theory, Physics, Science, video game, Theory, physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, Religion  
•       •       •

557 clicks; posted to STEM » on 24 Feb 2021 at 12:50 PM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



57 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-02-24 11:41:20 AM  
Stick to physics, Physicist Person, leave there metaphysics to working philosophers. I demand my name is Vroomfondle.

If humans create a strong, immersive, examinable simulation, that in itself would put simulation theory per Bostrom up as a viable contender for Model of Ultimate Reality sweepstakes.

however...

If we don't reside in a simulation that can be probed internally (heh... He said probed) with physics to make that determination, then yeah, it can never be science, even if we have overwhelming examples of generated human-built simulations in the future.

What can and can't be simulated is conjecture. Especially given that digital simulations are not constrained to running in objective real-time. Given enough processing power and clock cycles this universe could be a Turing Machine of some sort.

But to call simulation theory a religion? Something that's worshipped? I guess for someone out there, but aside from conspiracy-spouting ditto heads, it's hard for me to imagine that being a faith. It's another notch on my existential dread belt for sure. But worshipping it like God? Why bother?

Switch decaf in the meantime, Physicist Person. It ain't your fight -at the moment.
 
2021-02-24 12:06:33 PM  
So, God created the universe, but God is aliens.  That is stupid.
 
2021-02-24 12:07:52 PM  
I'm sure they'll be finding those glitches in the matrix soon <eyeroll>

I do "real" simulation work. If we're in a simulation they've managed to get all the bugs out, which I find highly unlikely.

It is a bunch of nonsense. Occam's razor applies. It does belong in the religious category. Why wouldn't it? It's non-falsifiable so far as I can tell (the simulation is so good there is no chance we can detect it). It is very much deus ex machina for describing reality.

It also has a very "everything has been pre-determined hence there is no free will" vibe where we're just pawns in the game of life. Mongo no like.
 
2021-02-24 1:00:37 PM  
media.pitchfork.comView Full Size
 
2021-02-24 1:11:38 PM  
If Elon Musk and NDT share a vision for the purpose of the universe, Ima take a hard pass.
 
2021-02-24 1:20:30 PM  
She's not wrong when it comes to the science.  This is a question for metaphysics and philosophers.  Peter Sjostedt-H Discusses some of this stuff in his work.
 
2021-02-24 1:30:44 PM  
Just take Thomist doctrine, replace all instances of 'God' with 'A Computer,' and you have the arguments for reality being a simulation.
 
2021-02-24 1:30:53 PM  
Most, including Neil Degrasse Tyson build models where the math matches observations. Actually claiming everything is a simulation is another matter.
 
2021-02-24 1:31:58 PM  
Her physics videos on YT are excellent.
 
2021-02-24 1:33:40 PM  
Don't be silly, our universe is particle in alien Hardon Collider
 
2021-02-24 1:50:12 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-02-24 2:19:53 PM  
If we're in a simulation, why would it simulate stuff that sucks? fark that.
 
2021-02-24 2:23:54 PM  

yohohogreengiant: Stick to physics, Physicist Person, leave there metaphysics to working philosophers. I demand my name is Vroomfondle.

If humans create a strong, immersive, examinable simulation, that in itself would put simulation theory per Bostrom up as a viable contender for Model of Ultimate Reality sweepstakes.

however...

If we don't reside in a simulation that can be probed internally (heh... He said probed) with physics to make that determination, then yeah, it can never be science, even if we have overwhelming examples of generated human-built simulations in the future.

What can and can't be simulated is conjecture. Especially given that digital simulations are not constrained to running in objective real-time. Given enough processing power and clock cycles this universe could be a Turing Machine of some sort.


Metaphysics or not, "We live in an advanced simulation" is not a valid hypothesis, and cannot be a valid hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable, which is one of the most basic rules for creating a hypothesis. 

But to call simulation theory a religion? Something that's worshipped? I guess for someone out there, but aside from conspiracy-spouting ditto heads, it's hard for me to imagine that being a faith. It's another notch on my existential dread belt for sure. But worshipping it like God? Why bother?

"Religion," in this case, is short-hand for "something that is taken on faith without the least shred of evidence to justify any level of belief." You believe something with absolutely no evidentiary support, and with no possibility of evidentiary support. You accept as fact something that is not, and cannot, be a fact. Belief in imaginary things that cannot be proven or disproven is often called a "religion." You are, for all intents and purposes, a "conspiracy-spouting ditto head." And calling it "metaphysics" or whatever aggrandizing term you want doesn't in the least diminish that belief in simulation theory is exactly as stupid as believing in unicorns, leprechauns, the Judeo-Christian god, or that the election was stolen. Actually, the last one is less stupid, because at least that's a valid hypothesis in that it can be disproved.
 
2021-02-24 2:24:30 PM  
The universe is an entropy-reduction trainer.
 
2021-02-24 2:36:36 PM  

yohohogreengiant: Stick to physics, Physicist Person, leave there metaphysics to working philosophers. I demand my name is Vroomfondle.

If humans create a strong, immersive, examinable simulation, that in itself would put simulation theory per Bostrom up as a viable contender for Model of Ultimate Reality sweepstakes.

however...

If we don't reside in a simulation that can be probed internally (heh... He said probed) with physics to make that determination, then yeah, it can never be science, even if we have overwhelming examples of generated human-built simulations in the future.

What can and can't be simulated is conjecture. Especially given that digital simulations are not constrained to running in objective real-time. Given enough processing power and clock cycles this universe could be a Turing Machine of some sort.

But to call simulation theory a religion? Something that's worshipped? I guess for someone out there, but aside from conspiracy-spouting ditto heads, it's hard for me to imagine that being a faith. It's another notch on my existential dread belt for sure. But worshipping it like God? Why bother?

Switch decaf in the meantime, Physicist Person. It ain't your fight -at the moment.


So what about her statement is in anyway wrong, unfair or misleading?

As far as I am aware, this is just a wild idea.  It may be true, but until there is evidence for it, it's just a hypothesis, if that.  It mostly sounds like he smoked too much dope while playing Sims.

What is the difference between metaphysics and religion anyway?
 
2021-02-24 2:38:19 PM  

Lusiphur: yohohogreengiant: Stick to physics, Physicist Person, leave there metaphysics to working philosophers. I demand my name is Vroomfondle.

If humans create a strong, immersive, examinable simulation, that in itself would put simulation theory per Bostrom up as a viable contender for Model of Ultimate Reality sweepstakes.

however...

If we don't reside in a simulation that can be probed internally (heh... He said probed) with physics to make that determination, then yeah, it can never be science, even if we have overwhelming examples of generated human-built simulations in the future.

What can and can't be simulated is conjecture. Especially given that digital simulations are not constrained to running in objective real-time. Given enough processing power and clock cycles this universe could be a Turing Machine of some sort.

Metaphysics or not, "We live in an advanced simulation" is not a valid hypothesis, and cannot be a valid hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable, which is one of the most basic rules for creating a hypothesis. 

But to call simulation theory a religion? Something that's worshipped? I guess for someone out there, but aside from conspiracy-spouting ditto heads, it's hard for me to imagine that being a faith. It's another notch on my existential dread belt for sure. But worshipping it like God? Why bother?

"Religion," in this case, is short-hand for "something that is taken on faith without the least shred of evidence to justify any level of belief." You believe something with absolutely no evidentiary support, and with no possibility of evidentiary support. You accept as fact something that is not, and cannot, be a fact. Belief in imaginary things that cannot be proven or disproven is often called a "religion." You are, for all intents and purposes, a "conspiracy-spouting ditto head." And calling it "metaphysics" or whatever aggrandizing term you want doesn't in the least diminish that belief in simulation theory is exactly as stupid as believing ...


I know a few super-stoners who use simulation theory as a kind of crutch. They talk about their other multiverse selves, and how much better they must be doing, but it doesn't matter we suck because this isn't the real world. It's the one we have boys, make the best of it. Even if it's a simulation, do you really want to be simulated crap? They're as bad as MAGA about refusing to live in base reality.
 
2021-02-24 2:38:22 PM  

Lusiphur: Metaphysics or not, "We live in an advanced simulation" is not a valid hypothesis, and cannot be a valid hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable, which is one of the most basic rules for creating a hypothesis.


well yeah. it's metaphysics. it's philosophy. of course it's not a scientific hypothesis
 
2021-02-24 2:52:26 PM  
There's some real truth to the idea that we take simulations too seriously.  WAY too seriously.  To the point that some people start treating the results like religious edicts.Having said that, they are really useful for design guidance. Well-known laws of physics can be tested quickly, and research can re-direct based on results.  The simulation output has to then be compared to the experimental results, to see if it was a good indicator for that particular variable and objective.  Even if it does, the experiment still has to happen, but the fine tuning can be done more quickly.  When you are studying something new and can't even begin to try a DoE, you can knock variables down with simulation into something manageable, and move forward with your experiments.  But mixing weighted variables (especially if there are equations involved with embedded secondary variables), you end up with a lot of risk in your DoE being invalidated pretty quickly.

Having said that, politicians and media sources use them completely inappropriately, which contributes nearly 100% of the problem with some people treating the results like religious edicts.

We are not in a simulation in the traditional sense, either.  That is obvious, and scientists just need to stop saying those words.  Not even in a metaphorical sense.  When high level scientists say this, they aren't talking about set variables with limits at all.  This gets confused about as badly as the multiverse does.

The best written explanation I've seen came from a book called "Outland."  It's a decent book, but the most valuable part was the way quantum is described.  But then he runs right off into the wrong kind of multiverse almost instantly, chasing the fun kind instead.  The quantum he describes in the book would match with general relativity fairly well, and I expect someday this will be the solution.  We need a few more physicists focused on that type of quantum, and a few more that also really understand general relativity as well as Greene, and I think we might have a shot at getting that resolved.

Oh well.  Rambling over.
 
2021-02-24 2:55:15 PM  
Well, he's basically correct.

Science is based on skepticism and formulation of hypotheses in such a way that they can be verified by empirical, experimental results.  Strict accounting for possible errors in methodology is required, and preferably, experimental support for a hypothesis should be done by multiple independent researchers using differing methodologies.

'Simulation Theory', while fascinating, must have some way to be tested by empirical experimentation.  (Perhaps finding some sort of verifiable discontinuity in the simulation that cannot be explained *without* Simulation Theory would help?)

Absent this, it seems *very* easy for Simulation Theory to degrade into an 'Accept-this-on-faith-with-no-proof' proposition, or in other words, Religion with a new coat of paint.
 
2021-02-24 3:01:29 PM  

aungen: There's some real truth to the idea that we take simulations too seriously.  WAY too seriously.  To the point that some people start treating the results like religious edicts.


When I hear people talk about doing research via simulation, my first questions are 'Where are you getting the data needed to build the model?' and 'Where are you getting the data to *plug into* the model once it's built?'

All too often, they assume that the data will be brought down from heaven on a stone tablet by an archangel.

Idiots.
 
2021-02-24 3:02:45 PM  

webron: yohohogreengiant: Stick to physics, Physicist Person, leave there metaphysics to working philosophers. I demand my name is Vroomfondle.

If humans create a strong, immersive, examinable simulation, that in itself would put simulation theory per Bostrom up as a viable contender for Model of Ultimate Reality sweepstakes.

however...

If we don't reside in a simulation that can be probed internally (heh... He said probed) with physics to make that determination, then yeah, it can never be science, even if we have overwhelming examples of generated human-built simulations in the future.

What can and can't be simulated is conjecture. Especially given that digital simulations are not constrained to running in objective real-time. Given enough processing power and clock cycles this universe could be a Turing Machine of some sort.

But to call simulation theory a religion? Something that's worshipped? I guess for someone out there, but aside from conspiracy-spouting ditto heads, it's hard for me to imagine that being a faith. It's another notch on my existential dread belt for sure. But worshipping it like God? Why bother?

Switch decaf in the meantime, Physicist Person. It ain't your fight -at the moment.

So what about her statement is in anyway wrong, unfair or misleading?

As far as I am aware, this is just a wild idea.  It may be true, but until there is evidence for it, it's just a hypothesis, if that.  It mostly sounds like he smoked too much dope while playing Sims.

What is the difference between metaphysics and religion anyway?


Quite a bit.  Metaphysics has to do with the nature of reality and human consciousness.  At this point in our understanding,  science cannot answer some of these fundamental questions.  It may never.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_​p​roblem_of_consciousness
 
2021-02-24 3:06:10 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Well, he's basically correct.

Science is based on skepticism and formulation of hypotheses in such a way that they can be verified by empirical, experimental results.  Strict accounting for possible errors in methodology is required, and preferably, experimental support for a hypothesis should be done by multiple independent researchers using differing methodologies.

'Simulation Theory', while fascinating, must have some way to be tested by empirical experimentation.  (Perhaps finding some sort of verifiable discontinuity in the simulation that cannot be explained *without* Simulation Theory would help?)

Absent this, it seems *very* easy for Simulation Theory to degrade into an 'Accept-this-on-faith-with-no-proof' proposition, or in other words, Religion with a new coat of paint.


I see this happen every day.  But mostly it's new management that honestly make that mistake.  Or media groups or cults or religions who need outdated science to spin into their story.
 
2021-02-24 3:10:58 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: aungen: There's some real truth to the idea that we take simulations too seriously.  WAY too seriously.  To the point that some people start treating the results like religious edicts.

When I hear people talk about doing research via simulation, my first questions are 'Where are you getting the data needed to build the model?' and 'Where are you getting the data to *plug into* the model once it's built?'

All too often, they assume that the data will be brought down from heaven on a stone tablet by an archangel.

Idiots.


My favorite conversation is with bean counters who want to know why a simulation expert needs to run a REAL experiment to test a material for material properties.

"Garbage in, garbage out," is why.  Assuming you can use polyamide material properties instead of actually testing the aerogel is silly.
 
2021-02-24 3:11:19 PM  

b0rscht: I'm sure they'll be finding those glitches in the matrix soon <eyeroll>

I do "real" simulation work. If we're in a simulation they've managed to get all the bugs out, which I find highly unlikely.

It is a bunch of nonsense. Occam's razor applies. It does belong in the religious category. Why wouldn't it? It's non-falsifiable so far as I can tell (the simulation is so good there is no chance we can detect it). It is very much deus ex machina for describing reality.

It also has a very "everything has been pre-determined hence there is no free will" vibe where we're just pawns in the game of life. Mongo no like.


Bugs in the system :

Bermuda Triangle
Fatima
Losing streak of Toronto Maple Leafs
Trump
 
2021-02-24 3:14:03 PM  

Marcos P: If we're in a simulation, why would it simulate stuff that sucks? fark that.


This universe is full of PC and NPC.

Must of us here on fark are NPCs.

Gates, Musk and Jobs before he was canned for hacking the game are PCs
 
2021-02-24 3:21:48 PM  

aungen: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: aungen: There's some real truth to the idea that we take simulations too seriously.  WAY too seriously.  To the point that some people start treating the results like religious edicts.

When I hear people talk about doing research via simulation, my first questions are 'Where are you getting the data needed to build the model?' and 'Where are you getting the data to *plug into* the model once it's built?'

All too often, they assume that the data will be brought down from heaven on a stone tablet by an archangel.

Idiots.

My favorite conversation is with bean counters who want to know why a simulation expert needs to run a REAL experiment to test a material for material properties.

"Garbage in, garbage out," is why.  Assuming you can use polyamide material properties instead of actually testing the aerogel is silly.


Or people who say "We should never test anything on animals!  It should all be done via simulation!"

And I ask them where they get the numbers to simulate a rabbit, a rat, or a monkey.  The *really* awake ones are the ones who get a 'deer in the headlights' look when they think about it.
 
2021-02-24 3:29:17 PM  
What's sad is when you can't even trust the test.  And that happens a lot.

I had a batch of metal that was tested, and we got really strange results.  So we checked the history on that chunk of metal, traced it back to where it was mixed (and how), then back to its individual components, and found one of them had been 'substituted.'

But we didn't mandate the material had to meet the material standards when we bought the chunk for testing, so we ate the cost of the old chunk, the cost of the new chunk, and the wasted work on the old chunk.  However, we kept the data, because now we know what happens when you swap that component material.

And sometimes when that mistake happens, you get incredible results.
 
2021-02-24 3:44:19 PM  

New Farkin User Name: Lusiphur: Metaphysics or not, "We live in an advanced simulation" is not a valid hypothesis, and cannot be a valid hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable, which is one of the most basic rules for creating a hypothesis.

well yeah. it's metaphysics. it's philosophy. of course it's not a scientific hypothesis


First, then don't call it a "hypothesis." Second, philosophy and metaphysics is not devoid of rules or formal analysis, either. There's a world of difference between "deep thoughts you had when you got really stoned that one time in high school," and actual metaphysics.

Also, philosophy is actionable. It provides some tangible benefits if put into practice. If it doesn't, it's not philosophy, it's masturbation. So how does believing that we're living in a simulation create tangible value for your or my life?
 
2021-02-24 4:23:03 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Well, he's basically correct.

Science is based on skepticism and formulation of hypotheses in such a way that they can be verified by empirical, experimental results.  Strict accounting for possible errors in methodology is required, and preferably, experimental support for a hypothesis should be done by multiple independent researchers using differing methodologies.

'Simulation Theory', while fascinating, must have some way to be tested by empirical experimentation.  (Perhaps finding some sort of verifiable discontinuity in the simulation that cannot be explained *without* Simulation Theory would help?)

Absent this, it seems *very* easy for Simulation Theory to degrade into an 'Accept-this-on-faith-with-no-proof' proposition, or in other words, Religion with a new coat of paint.


As far as I'm concerned, the double slit test is proof reality is not as 'real' as people think.

Just by observing electrons shot thru two slits you physically alter where electrons end up. Turn your back on them and again, you alter where they end up.

Your altering the physical universe with your mind.
 
2021-02-24 4:41:09 PM  

Lusiphur: New Farkin User Name: Lusiphur: Metaphysics or not, "We live in an advanced simulation" is not a valid hypothesis, and cannot be a valid hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable, which is one of the most basic rules for creating a hypothesis.

well yeah. it's metaphysics. it's philosophy. of course it's not a scientific hypothesis

First, then don't call it a "hypothesis." Second, philosophy and metaphysics is not devoid of rules or formal analysis, either. There's a world of difference between "deep thoughts you had when you got really stoned that one time in high school," and actual metaphysics.

Also, philosophy is actionable. It provides some tangible benefits if put into practice. If it doesn't, it's not philosophy, it's masturbation. So how does believing that we're living in a simulation create tangible value for your or my life?


Your first point was exactly what I was thinking, and I imagine this was the author's point, although she picked a rather awkward comparision in my opinion. Maybe she's just trying to grab some attention, who knows. However, your comments on philosophy and metaphysics are skewed.

You're conflating items from your own personal belief system and/or viewpoint (e.g., masturbation) with consensus reality and empirical observation, which is only something done by philosophers or theologians. You can't paint the picture if you're inside the frame.

You begin with your own idea of "tangible value" and build on that concept. But what exactly is tangible value? I see no mathematical or scientific proof to support your claim. How do you measure it? How can you create or destroy it? Electromagnetism is not tangible per se, but it has huge scientific value.

Additionally, it appears that you require tangibility as a core requirement of the thing you call value. Why the false limitation? Humankind's history has proven time and again that there is value to be found in non-tangible things.
 
2021-02-24 4:56:17 PM  
Science is a philosophical tool.  Strict materialism isn't the only potential point of view, but it the only one that can be 100% verified by strict physics experiments, so it makes sense scientists would like it. There's other ways to grok things however, and there's value to be had in broader thoughts.

But all these "It's a computer simulation."  people  today need to get OFF DESCARTES' MFING LAWN. It's actually an idea that's been tossed around probably since prehistoric times even. If you aren't looking into the various philosophers who've already tangled with a virtual world and just saying "It's a computer simulation." like that means a damn thing and stopping, that's neither science nor religion. That's just giving up on understanding.

If it IS a giant computer, hack it. I want godly armor of the whale and millions of gp.
 
2021-02-24 5:01:45 PM  

New Farkin User Name: Lusiphur: Metaphysics or not, "We live in an advanced simulation" is not a valid hypothesis, and cannot be a valid hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable, which is one of the most basic rules for creating a hypothesis.

well yeah. it's metaphysics. it's philosophy. of course it's not a scientific hypothesis


Some folks here are having a hard moment with philosophy, which speaks to both empiricism (hence science) and metaphysics (in the abstract, like not God)

Right now simulation theory is not falsifiable, hence not science.

It may be we are in a simulation that can be internally probed. If we conduct such an experiment then it will become science.

Right now it's somewhere on the falsifiable spectrum near string theory. Not science now but not logically self contradictory, so possible and possibly falsifiable later. Or not.

I don't know anyone who worships string theory either. But at the moment it isn't science in the same way simulation theory isn't, but with more arcane math.
 
2021-02-24 5:26:24 PM  

Wing Kong Exchange Day Trader:

What is the difference between metaphysics and religion anyway?

Quite a bit.  Metaphysics has to do with the nature of reality and human consciousness.  At this point in our understanding,  science cannot answer some of these fundamental questions.  It may never.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_p​roblem_of_consciousness


That's making a LOT of assumptions, chief among them is that "the hard problem of consciousness" actually exists, and that answering these questions actually matters. Metaphysics as a whole seeks to answer "the fundamental why of existence," and not only is that question unanswerable unless a creator figure comes out of the sky and says "This is why I did things this way," these fundamental questions are completely useless because they have no predictive, prescriptive, or descriptive value. It frankly doesn't matter why we experience conciousness in our special unique way, only how we were able to accomplish it and how we can modify or recreate it.

Stephen_Falken: You're conflating items from your own personal belief system and/or viewpoint (e.g., masturbation) with consensus reality and empirical observation, which is only something done by philosophers or theologians. You can't paint the picture if you're inside the frame.


No, I'm telling you that throughout the entire history of philosophy as a formal discipline and field of study, the consensus has come out to be "if it isn't applicable and doesn't do something to meaningfully improve life, or even touch on our lives, it's not worthwhile because then you're just in the range of bad science fiction."

But what exactly is tangible value?

Anything that can measurably improve the human condition. So for example, take the idea of the Zen koan like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" The idea of the Zen koan provides tangible benefit as a focusing and stretching exercise for thought. By meditating on an unanswerable question, you learn to examine the abstract in ways that then are applicable towards problem solving and examining the concrete.

Electromagnetism is not tangible per se, but it has huge scientific value.

I'm sorry, are you for real???!!!??!!? Electromagnitism is "not tangible"? Do you have a lighbulb in your house? Ever seen the sun? Used the radio? Interacted with something solid? Or liquid, orgasseous? All touches on "electromagnitism."


This isn't philosophy, what you are doing. This is sophomoric navel-gazing of the kind indulged-in by people who enter their Philosophy 101 course thinking it's going to be an easy A because they've had a lot of discussions with their stoner friends.
 
2021-02-24 5:45:06 PM  
This thread could have been interesting, but it appears a lot of very dogmatic farkers decided to drop by.

I'm glad you all have it figured out.  Must be nice.
 
2021-02-24 5:57:39 PM  

Lusiphur: No, I'm telling you that throughout the entire history of philosophy as a formal discipline and field of study, the consensus has come out to be "if it isn't applicable and doesn't do something to meaningfully improve life, or even touch on our lives, it's not worthwhile because then you're just in the range of bad science fiction."


Philosophy reached a consensus on something?
 
2021-02-24 6:02:17 PM  

Lusiphur: I'm sorry, are you for real???!!!??!!? Electromagnitism is "not tangible"? Do you have a lighbulb in your house? Ever seen the sun? Used the radio? Interacted with something solid? Or liquid, orgasseous? All touches on "electromagnitism."


This isn't philosophy, what you are doing. This is sophomoric navel-gazing of the kind indulged-in by people who enter their Philosophy 101 course thinking it's going to be an easy A because they've had a lot of discussions with their stoner friends.


I would argue that a bit differently.  The weak nuclear force has meant nothing to anyone for almost the entirely of the existence of mankind, despite being very specific, and mandatory for our existence.  We just didn't know it, and couldn't do anything about it.

Basic research usually looks like navel gazing to people who don't know enough to say anything about it, but are upset because something they care about is underfunded.  The long-term benefit to humans may be extremely difficult to see, but building the foundations of comprehension is very different from an unanswerable question.  But as mentioned, meditation on such a thing can lead to ideas about how to progress on building that foundation.  An example would be discovery of your own ability to discern ways to separate what can be poked & prodded, vs what is unavailable at this time for experimentation.  The location of this separation line is moving as you (or others), make progress, so you do have to sit down and contemplate that, again and again.

Hmm.
 
2021-02-24 6:02:52 PM  

Wing Kong Exchange Day Trader: This thread could have been interesting, but it appears a lot of very dogmatic farkers decided to drop by.

I'm glad you all have it figured out.  Must be nice.


I figured it all out.  They are just posting what I tell them to.  It is nice.  Also, thank you for posting what I asked you to post.
 
2021-02-24 6:09:52 PM  

aungen: Wing Kong Exchange Day Trader: This thread could have been interesting, but it appears a lot of very dogmatic farkers decided to drop by.

I'm glad you all have it figured out.  Must be nice.

I figured it all out.  They are just posting what I tell them to.  It is nice.  Also, thank you for posting what I asked you to post.


Free will is overrated.
 
2021-02-24 6:20:07 PM  

mcreadyblue: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: Well, he's basically correct.

Science is based on skepticism and formulation of hypotheses in such a way that they can be verified by empirical, experimental results.  Strict accounting for possible errors in methodology is required, and preferably, experimental support for a hypothesis should be done by multiple independent researchers using differing methodologies.

'Simulation Theory', while fascinating, must have some way to be tested by empirical experimentation.  (Perhaps finding some sort of verifiable discontinuity in the simulation that cannot be explained *without* Simulation Theory would help?)

Absent this, it seems *very* easy for Simulation Theory to degrade into an 'Accept-this-on-faith-with-no-proof' proposition, or in other words, Religion with a new coat of paint.

As far as I'm concerned, the double slit test is proof reality is not as 'real' as people think.

Just by observing electrons shot thru two slits you physically alter where electrons end up. Turn your back on them and again, you alter where they end up.

Your altering the physical universe with your mind.


Nobel Prize winning Mathematician/Physicist Roger Penrose's Orch OR ideas are along these lines
 
2021-02-24 6:57:12 PM  
'Theory'. This simulation nonsense is almost as coherent as Roko's bloody Basilisk.
 
2021-02-24 7:11:24 PM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Lusiphur: No, I'm telling you that throughout the entire history of philosophy as a formal discipline and field of study, the consensus has come out to be "if it isn't applicable and doesn't do something to meaningfully improve life, or even touch on our lives, it's not worthwhile because then you're just in the range of bad science fiction."

Philosophy reached a consensus on something?


Largely? Yes. Not in the same way that science reaches consensus - "consensus is the closest we have to the truth" - but in a "if we expect this field to be taken seriously, we should take it seriously and formulate some guidelines for what is philosophy and what is inane nonsense people on the internet think it's 'really deep.'"

Which is why since authors are studied in University philosophy classes, but your buddy Phil isn't.
 
2021-02-24 7:30:30 PM  

aungen: Lusiphur: I'm sorry, are you for real???!!!??!!? Electromagnitism is "not tangible"? Do you have a lighbulb in your house? Ever seen the sun? Used the radio? Interacted with something solid? Or liquid, orgasseous? All touches on "electromagnitism."


This isn't philosophy, what you are doing. This is sophomoric navel-gazing of the kind indulged-in by people who enter their Philosophy 101 course thinking it's going to be an easy A because they've had a lot of discussions with their stoner friends.

I would argue that a bit differently.  The weak nuclear force has meant nothing to anyone for almost the entirely of the existence of mankind, despite being very specific, and mandatory for our existence.  We just didn't know it, and couldn't do anything about it.

Basic research usually looks like navel gazing to people who don't know enough to say anything about it, but are upset because something they care about is underfunded.  The long-term benefit to humans may be extremely difficult to see, but building the foundations of comprehension is very different from an unanswerable question.  But as mentioned, meditation on such a thing can lead to ideas about how to progress on building that foundation.  An example would be discovery of your own ability to discern ways to separate what can be poked & prodded, vs what is unavailable at this time for experimentation.  The location of this separation line is moving as you (or others), make progress, so you do have to sit down and contemplate that, again and again.

Hmm.


But the weak nuclear force is both predictive and descriptive, and has been since it's discovery. That is, it explains how or universe behaves and why some things happen, and you can use it to predict what will happen in certain scenarios. With more research, it can become prescriptive - the theory and the equations behind it can tell us what to do to achieve certain ends. All of these properties were known from before Fermi had proposed his initial theorem.

"Simulation Theory" does none of this. It doesn't describe anything about how our universe is in any meaningful sense, in that it's at such a high and abstract level that knowing we're in a simulation doesn't change our understanding of the universe at all. It's not predictive, since we can't use it to make any inferences about our universe. And it will never be predictive unless you think that it'll help us overrun a buffer and escape our simulation.

It has as much validity and value, and it's just as valid and accurate, as saying we're all living in Donald Trump's dream and will disappear as soon as he wakes up.
 
2021-02-24 7:37:46 PM  

Lusiphur: aungen: Lusiphur: I'm sorry, are you for real???!!!??!!? Electromagnitism is "not tangible"? Do you have a lighbulb in your house? Ever seen the sun? Used the radio? Interacted with something solid? Or liquid, orgasseous? All touches on "electromagnitism."


This isn't philosophy, what you are doing. This is sophomoric navel-gazing of the kind indulged-in by people who enter their Philosophy 101 course thinking it's going to be an easy A because they've had a lot of discussions with their stoner friends.

I would argue that a bit differently.  The weak nuclear force has meant nothing to anyone for almost the entirely of the existence of mankind, despite being very specific, and mandatory for our existence.  We just didn't know it, and couldn't do anything about it.

Basic research usually looks like navel gazing to people who don't know enough to say anything about it, but are upset because something they care about is underfunded.  The long-term benefit to humans may be extremely difficult to see, but building the foundations of comprehension is very different from an unanswerable question.  But as mentioned, meditation on such a thing can lead to ideas about how to progress on building that foundation.  An example would be discovery of your own ability to discern ways to separate what can be poked & prodded, vs what is unavailable at this time for experimentation.  The location of this separation line is moving as you (or others), make progress, so you do have to sit down and contemplate that, again and again.

Hmm.

But the weak nuclear force is both predictive and descriptive, and has been since it's discovery. That is, it explains how or universe behaves and why some things happen, and you can use it to predict what will happen in certain scenarios. With more research, it can become prescriptive - the theory and the equations behind it can tell us what to do to achieve certain ends. All of these properties were known from before Fermi had proposed his initial theorem.

"Simulation Theory" does none of this. It doesn't describe anything about how our universe is in any meaningful sense, in that it's at such a high and abstract level that knowing we're in a simulation doesn't change our understanding of the universe at all. It's not predictive, since we can't use it to make any inferences about our universe. And it will never be predictive unless you think that it'll help us overrun a buffer and escape our simulation.

It has as much validity and value, and it's just as valid and accurate, as saying we're all living in Donald Trump's dream and will disappear as soon as he wakes up.


If we figure it out and learn how to glitch the simulation, the Line has moved again.  The problem with dismissing it outright is

1 - usually people talking about simulation and don't mean the same thing as what's being discussed at high levels

2 - as we become more capable, the line moves. The strong force was meaningless and useless and didn't describe anything till it had an environment to click into.  And it's still hoist a human thought construct to describe something less tangible and more integrated than 'strong force.'

The line moves.
 
2021-02-24 7:39:45 PM  

Lusiphur: Olympic Trolling Judge: Lusiphur: No, I'm telling you that throughout the entire history of philosophy as a formal discipline and field of study, the consensus has come out to be "if it isn't applicable and doesn't do something to meaningfully improve life, or even touch on our lives, it's not worthwhile because then you're just in the range of bad science fiction."

Philosophy reached a consensus on something?

Largely? Yes. Not in the same way that science reaches consensus - "consensus is the closest we have to the truth" - but in a "if we expect this field to be taken seriously, we should take it seriously and formulate some guidelines for what is philosophy and what is inane nonsense people on the internet think it's 'really deep.'"

Which is why since authors are studied in University philosophy classes, but your buddy Phil isn't.


You are obviously a Very bright guy, but it appears to me you are not interested in some of the BIG questions. And that's ok, but to describe the BIG questions as pointless is kinda arrogant and condescending.  So I'll ask you, Explain to me where a thought comes from? A materialist, which it seems you are, will say it's a bunch of chemical and electrical reactions in the brain.  Can you prove that? Sure, you can take a scan of the brain, but you can't prove causality.
Explain to me why theorems and maths seem to be embedded in the structure of the universe AFTER they have been discovered in pure mathematics?

I'm just a librarian. And I don't claim to understand everything. But I did Work at MIT for a few years and met a lot of VERY smart people who where open minded about some of these BIG questions.
 
2021-02-24 7:59:59 PM  

Lusiphur: yohohogreengiant: Stick to physics, Physicist Person, leave there metaphysics to working philosophers. I demand my name is Vroomfondle.

If humans create a strong, immersive, examinable simulation, that in itself would put simulation theory per Bostrom up as a viable contender for Model of Ultimate Reality sweepstakes.

however...

If we don't reside in a simulation that can be probed internally (heh... He said probed) with physics to make that determination, then yeah, it can never be science, even if we have overwhelming examples of generated human-built simulations in the future.

What can and can't be simulated is conjecture. Especially given that digital simulations are not constrained to running in objective real-time. Given enough processing power and clock cycles this universe could be a Turing Machine of some sort.

Metaphysics or not, "We live in an advanced simulation" is not a valid hypothesis, and cannot be a valid hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable, which is one of the most basic rules for creating a hypothesis. 

But to call simulation theory a religion? Something that's worshipped? I guess for someone out there, but aside from conspiracy-spouting ditto heads, it's hard for me to imagine that being a faith. It's another notch on my existential dread belt for sure. But worshipping it like God? Why bother?

"Religion," in this case, is short-hand for "something that is taken on faith without the least shred of evidence to justify any level of belief." You believe something with absolutely no evidentiary support, and with no possibility of evidentiary support. You accept as fact something that is not, and cannot, be a fact. Belief in imaginary things that cannot be proven or disproven is often called a "religion." You are, for all intents and purposes, a "conspiracy-spouting ditto head." And calling it "metaphysics" or whatever aggrandizing term you want doesn't in the least diminish that belief in simulation theory is exactly as stupid as believing in unicorns, leprechauns, the Judeo-Christian god, or that the election was stolen. Actually, the last one is less stupid, because at least that's a valid hypothesis in that it can be disproved.


Um. I don't believe in anything except I believe I'll have another beer. There's other stuff like ethics and morality... I guess you could accuse me of "believing" in them, the same way I believe in oil changes and the postal service I guess.
You're swinging at something in your own head , not mine.

I don't know where you're driving at but Religion is something different. Metaphysics and Religion is a subset of philosophy. So is science (empiricism and logic). Philosophy is useful to leading a good life and rejecting absurdities that sometimes science cannot get its teeth around for want of repetition, measurement, or falsifiability.

If you want to say people who Believe simulation theory is real without proof, sure, you can shorthand that I guess. My understanding of religion is that it takes a few more steps and at some point often requires faith in an impossibility.

Which simulation theory doesn't.

So Physicist Person is all triggered people believe in something without proof. Ok. Sure.

Should we stop thinking about it? Why? Does it make you uncomfortable? Hell if I knew more of the math I'd probably also think about string theory which at the moment is as falsifiable experimentally as simulation theory, while also both being self consistent, logical constructions.

I don't worship it or Believe in it. Nor would I be particularly surprised if an experiment or probe were conducted that produces tangible evidence that we do reside in a construct.

In the meantime I (try my farking best with all the shiatty chaos these days) to live in the wysiwyg universe that the various sciences have modeled as being consistent with relatable observation.

I'm not getting the concern. Whatever.
 
2021-02-24 11:40:59 PM  

b0rscht: I'm sure they'll be finding those glitches in the matrix soon <eyeroll>

I do "real" simulation work. If we're in a simulation they've managed to get all the bugs out, which I find highly unlikely.

It is a bunch of nonsense. Occam's razor applies. It does belong in the religious category. Why wouldn't it? It's non-falsifiable so far as I can tell (the simulation is so good there is no chance we can detect it). It is very much deus ex machina for describing reality.

It also has a very "everything has been pre-determined hence there is no free will" vibe where we're just pawns in the game of life. Mongo no like.


It really is along the lines of "aliens are watching us all the time but they judge us as very naughty and so they will never interact with us or share their advanced secrets of ultimate happiness and they are undetectable by our primitive brains."
 
2021-02-24 11:48:18 PM  

aungen: Lusiphur: aungen: Lusiphur: I'm sorry, are you for real???!!!??!!? Electromagnitism is "not tangible"? Do you have a lighbulb in your house? Ever seen the sun? Used the radio? Interacted with something solid? Or liquid, orgasseous? All touches on "electromagnitism."


This isn't philosophy, what you are doing. This is sophomoric navel-gazing of the kind indulged-in by people who enter their Philosophy 101 course thinking it's going to be an easy A because they've had a lot of discussions with their stoner friends.

I would argue that a bit differently.  The weak nuclear force has meant nothing to anyone for almost the entirely of the existence of mankind, despite being very specific, and mandatory for our existence.  We just didn't know it, and couldn't do anything about it.

Basic research usually looks like navel gazing to people who don't know enough to say anything about it, but are upset because something they care about is underfunded.  The long-term benefit to humans may be extremely difficult to see, but building the foundations of comprehension is very different from an unanswerable question.  But as mentioned, meditation on such a thing can lead to ideas about how to progress on building that foundation.  An example would be discovery of your own ability to discern ways to separate what can be poked & prodded, vs what is unavailable at this time for experimentation.  The location of this separation line is moving as you (or others), make progress, so you do have to sit down and contemplate that, again and again.

Hmm.

But the weak nuclear force is both predictive and descriptive, and has been since it's discovery. That is, it explains how or universe behaves and why some things happen, and you can use it to predict what will happen in certain scenarios. With more research, it can become prescriptive - the theory and the equations behind it can tell us what to do to achieve certain ends. All of these properties were known from before Fermi had proposed his initial theorem.

"Simulation Theory" does none of this. It doesn't describe anything about how our universe is in any meaningful sense, in that it's at such a high and abstract level that knowing we're in a simulation doesn't change our understanding of the universe at all. It's not predictive, since we can't use it to make any inferences about our universe. And it will never be predictive unless you think that it'll help us overrun a buffer and escape our simulation.

It has as much validity and value, and it's just as valid and accurate, as saying we're all living in Donald Trump's dream and will disappear as soon as he wakes up.

If we figure it out and learn how to glitch the simulation, the Line has moved again.  The problem with dismissing it outright is

1 - usually people talking about simulation and don't mean the same thing as what's being discussed at high levels

2 - as we become more capable, the line moves. The strong force was meaningless and useless and didn't describe anything till it had an environment to click into.  And it's still hoist a human thought construct to describe something less tangible and more integrated than 'strong force.'

The line moves.


Turtles, turtles all the way down
 
2021-02-24 11:59:04 PM  

Fano: Turtles, turtles all the way down


... There's also a turtle at the bottom.
 
2021-02-25 12:29:09 AM  

Wing Kong Exchange Day Trader: Lusiphur: Olympic Trolling Judge: Lusiphur: No, I'm telling you that throughout the entire history of philosophy as a formal discipline and field of study, the consensus has come out to be "if it isn't applicable and doesn't do something to meaningfully improve life, or even touch on our lives, it's not worthwhile because then you're just in the range of bad science fiction."

Philosophy reached a consensus on something?

Largely? Yes. Not in the same way that science reaches consensus - "consensus is the closest we have to the truth" - but in a "if we expect this field to be taken seriously, we should take it seriously and formulate some guidelines for what is philosophy and what is inane nonsense people on the internet think it's 'really deep.'"

Which is why since authors are studied in University philosophy classes, but your buddy Phil isn't.

You are obviously a Very bright guy, but it appears to me you are not interested in some of the BIG questions. And that's ok, but to describe the BIG questions as pointless is kinda arrogant and condescending.  So I'll ask you, Explain to me where a thought comes from? A materialist, which it seems you are, will say it's a bunch of chemical and electrical reactions in the brain.  Can you prove that? Sure, you can take a scan of the brain, but you can't prove causality.
Explain to me why theorems and maths seem to be embedded in the structure of the universe AFTER they have been discovered in pure mathematics?

I'm just a librarian. And I don't claim to understand everything. But I did Work at MIT for a few years and met a lot of VERY smart people who where open minded about some of these BIG questions.

You are obviously a Very bright guy, but it appears to me you are not interested in some of the BIG questions. And that's ok, but to describe the BIG questions as pointless is kinda arrogant and condescending.


No, I'm very interested in the big questions. What I'm arguing is that the questions you consider to be the "big questions" aren't actually big, or important, and are mostly just distractions for the terminally bored who desperately need something to take on faith.

So I'll ask you, Explain to me where a thought comes from? A materialist, which it seems you are, will say it's a bunch of chemical and electrical reactions in the brain. Can you prove that? Sure, you can take a scan of the brain, but you can't prove causality.

One of the problems with having discussions with internet philosophers is that you're coming at this from such a place of ignorance and misinformation that we aren't even speaking the same language. Take this statement: we can't even discuss it because you never bothered to define and clarify basic terms.

What do you mean by "a thought"? Are you taking about the experience of having a thought? Are you talking about a specific thought? What kind? They come in different varieties, and different varieties come from different places. They are experienced differently. They affect us differently. Some are very well understood, others less so.

What do you mean by "causality"? We have a pretty good idea of what causes a great number of thoughts, and there's a large body of proof for how certain thoughts are "caused." And once you understand, or even suspect, a pathway you can easily prove causality, in a "this is the mechanism that causes this type of thought you be created."

Explain to me why theorems and maths seem to be embedded in the structure of the universe AFTER they have been discovered in pure mathematics?

Because our entire basis for mathematics is based on our observations of the natural world. It would be far more surprising, and far more likely to lead to amorphous navel-gazing, if pure mathamatics WASN'T found everywhere in nature. This is like being shocked, after analyzing a birthday cake, that so baby of it's ingredients are found in other things. Of course they are. We got to math by describing nature.

I'm just a librarian. And I don't claim to understand everything. But I did Work at MIT for a few years and met a lot of VERY smart people who where open minded about some of these BIG questions.

People who are very smart are not immune to magical thinking, wild flights of fancy, or the desire to find meaning outside themselves. One of the smartest statisticians I know plays the lottery every week. She knows it's stupid and a total waste of money, but she does it anyway, because someone is bound to win and it may as well be her. Other very smart friends insist that aliens are real and regularly visit the earth. A shocking number of engineers believe in intelligent design. Being smart doesn't validate every single one of your beliefs. And embracing unprovable nonsense just because you want something bigger than yourself to believe in is a terrible way to go through life. The universe is amazing and mysterious and infinitely big and wonderful as it is. You don't need a magical simulation, invisible sky wizard, or leprechauns to find wonder in it. You just need to start appreciating what's there instead of constantly thinking about what else may possibly be somewhere else.
 
2021-02-25 12:46:16 AM  

Lusiphur: Wing Kong Exchange Day Trader:

What is the difference between metaphysics and religion anyway?

Quite a bit.  Metaphysics has to do with the nature of reality and human consciousness.  At this point in our understanding,  science cannot answer some of these fundamental questions.  It may never.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_p​roblem_of_consciousness

That's making a LOT of assumptions, chief among them is that "the hard problem of consciousness" actually exists, and that answering these questions actually matters. Metaphysics as a whole seeks to answer "the fundamental why of existence," and not only is that question unanswerable unless a creator figure comes out of the sky and says "This is why I did things this way," these fundamental questions are completely useless because they have no predictive, prescriptive, or descriptive value. It frankly doesn't matter why we experience conciousness in our special unique way, only how we were able to accomplish it and how we can modify or recreate it.

Stephen_Falken: You're conflating items from your own personal belief system and/or viewpoint (e.g., masturbation) with consensus reality and empirical observation, which is only something done by philosophers or theologians. You can't paint the picture if you're inside the frame.

No, I'm telling you that throughout the entire history of philosophy as a formal discipline and field of study, the consensus has come out to be "if it isn't applicable and doesn't do something to meaningfully improve life, or even touch on our lives, it's not worthwhile because then you're just in the range of bad science fiction."

But what exactly is tangible value?

Anything that can measurably improve the human condition. So for example, take the idea of the Zen koan like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" The idea of the Zen koan provides tangible benefit as a focusing and stretching exercise for thought. By meditating on an unanswerable question, you learn to examine the abs ...


The fact that you've spammed the sh*t out of this thread is proof enough that you, like the rest of us, are just full of sh*t and f*cking around for the hell of it. That's okay. This is Fark. Peace out, knowitall.
 
Displayed 50 of 57 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.