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



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2021-02-24 1:50:12 PM  
4 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-02-24 5:45:06 PM  
3 votes:
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 7:39:45 PM  
2 votes:

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 1:30:44 PM  
2 votes:
Just take Thomist doctrine, replace all instances of 'God' with 'A Computer,' and you have the arguments for reality being a simulation.
 
2021-02-25 9:28:33 AM  
1 vote:

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?


If philosophy doesn't provide tangible benefits, consult doctor
 
2021-02-25 6:26:29 AM  
1 vote:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-02-25 6:10:17 AM  
1 vote:
Of course one difference between simulation theory and religion is: In a simulation there is no 'good' and 'evil', nor souls.

In short, it would remove a lot of the bullshiat religious people spout.
 
2021-02-24 7:59:59 PM  
1 vote:

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 7:11:24 PM  
1 vote:

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 6:09:52 PM  
1 vote:

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 4:23:03 PM  
1 vote:

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 3:11:19 PM  
1 vote:

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 1:33:40 PM  
1 vote:
Don't be silly, our universe is particle in alien Hardon Collider
 
2021-02-24 11:41:20 AM  
1 vote:
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.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

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.