The errors are approaching uncountable.

They're not bugs, they're features.

Standard model of the physical universe got lots of arbitary constants and the constants are on the move from what I've read. Before we get into the numerous perceptual flaws that define human experiences.

aufbahrung wrote: the constants are on the move from what I've read.

You need to stop reading bullshit.

aufbahrung wrote:Standard model of the physical universe got lots of arbitary constants and the constants are on the move from what I've read.

Can you name one?

I would comment that "error" and "arbitrary" don't mean the same thing anyway, mind you.

Fine structure constant on the move. What is wrong with this picture?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... t-no-more/

Ok, so if you suppose that the fine structure constant may be a variable you get an alternative selection of models, which may make better or worse predictions for observation.

How do you conclude from that that it's not the models that are in "error", but that it's reality that is in "error"?

aufbahrung wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Just another godbot unable to formulate a single substantive response. But oh, so very special nevertheless.

I don't make any claim about a God.

You're appealing to one in this thread.

Oh you might not have anthropomorphized it, but it's still an ineffable creator of the universe, and you still want to appeal to it, pretend it's just a necessary inference, and then fail to provide a single shred of evidence or logic to support your belief.

You may as well just call it God.

aufbahrung wrote:There comes a point where science no longer suffices for explanation,...

Are you sure?

Or is there perhaps another rendition which reads: there comes a points where your comprehension no longer suffices, so you've inserted the first bit of baloney you found that appealed to you. It's funny how often that happens with people who reject established religion, then go about filling the gap that's left in their understanding with new-agey woo.

It's a bit hard to be taking philosophical instruction of the limitation of science from someone who was talking about 'holes in space'.

Science is just knowledge, so if something's outside the remit of knowledge... what's really the problem with just saying that you don't know? Why try and pretend no ignorance with make-believe?

aufbahrung wrote:...where philisophy is wasted and religion under its spiritual manifestation kicks in.

Its spiritual manifestation.

Are you trying to impress people with words? Are you trying to impress yourself?

You've erected an unevidenced phenomena, then explained away its lack of evidence, and now you're appealing to yet another unevident phenomena to support it. Obviously, that doesn't work. What's a 'spiritual manifestion'? The two words read together as an oxymoron to me.

There's no substance to your sentence, quite literally, as spirits are forever beyond the ken of human knowledge - and that's assuming they're not just the make-believe of ground apes hoping that when they die something of them continues on.

aufbahrung wrote:That does not mean it is the nature of this universe to by mysterious and inexplicable.

That's a non-sequitur because if spirits exist, they're beyond knowing. Of course, the universe is not mysterious and inexplicable - we have this tool that lets us interrogate it and find out actual answers which not only let us use that knowledge to achieve mastery over nature, but also provide explanations that work for everyone at all times unlike religious beliefs.

aufbahrung wrote: The spiritual can be the side of Newton that was a warlock.

Stop ranting shit and instead talk properly to another human being rather for once than trying to be so damn special all the time. Perhaps your group of rl friends finds you quaint and amusing, but silly expressions like this net you no brownie points when we're supposed to be talking about a serious topic on a board explicitly concerned with rationality and skepticism.

aufbahrung wrote: The other side of the man, the first true scientist was still there.

There were many scientists before Newton.

And Newton didn't use magic or ineffable connections with dark beings to achieve his knowledge, otherwise no one else would understand him.

aufbahrung wrote: Could one exist without the other?

Uh yes.

aufbahrung wrote: Can real breakthroughs in creative reasoning occur without the mystical element?

Questions don't work as proxies for supporting your position.

Yes, real creative breakthroughs occur all the time wholly sans magic.

aufbahrung wrote: I doubt they could,...

No, that's not doubt because you've set up a nonsensical paradigm. It's the opposite of doubt - it's belief. You believe in some kind of mystical bullshit you can't provide an ounce of support for, which is why you're spectacularly failing to do so and instead engaging in frankly juvenile nonsense.

aufbahrung wrote:albeit science is the best tool to research this.

You don't understand science: science can't research magic.

aufbahrung wrote: If we are in a simulation...

This is not an 'if' - this is meant to be you substantiating why there's any reason at all to believe in this new-age pseudo-religion you've appealed to.

aufbahrung wrote:...then some humble pie before Newton might be in order?

That has to be one of the most clownish statements I've had the misfortune to read in a long time.

Get over yourself chap... Newton's not on your team.

aufbahrung wrote: Evidence or not of the mystic(the simulation) by creative research at the boundaries of what is known?

Another question, and this one formed of words which individually all mean things, but in the way you've arranged them here fail to add anything more than the sum of their parts.

You're not used to this, are you? You're used to people ignoring you as you witter in the corner. That's no good here, aufbahrung - I am actually listening to what you say, and you're not saying anything at all.

aufbahrung wrote:If your worldview is constrained by pure maths and the dictatorship of the logic chip then you will be constrained to thinking in a box of your own making.

Ahh we're back to self-gratification about how you've got special powers arising from your rejection of empirical reality.

aufbahrung wrote: There is no way out of a universe that is self built to close its walls by higher mathematics. It is a security blanket agenda and easy to understand.

So...

1) As with all religionists - then how the fuck do you know about it?

2) It's forever beyond the ken of humans, so even if by some chance this ludicrous half-baked bullshit is true, it still remains something you cannot ever hope to establish with a thinking human being.

aufbahrung wrote: A substantial way forward might be to build 'super-refined' simulations and see if they actually can fool the mind into a false sense of reality.

So the human is the pinnacle of your creation, too?

I think you could also go and try and off-the-shelf religion, aufbahrung - they've had centuries to make shit up and shockingly, actually hold more philosophical water than your foray into nonsensical mysticism does.

aufbahrung wrote: If that can be done, then information, real information about this simulation could be gleaned?

Real information about the thing you assert exists but can't establish as existing because even with a platform to do so, you have not offered a single reason, be that logic or evidence, to lend the notion any credence at all.

Again, why do you believe it if you have zero evidence for it?

Because you're engaging in religion. Sorry, gods are silly beings - your ego and ignorance projected onto the universe. I don't need to protect my ego by pretending I know something outside of knowledge, and I am not ignorant enough of what is known to fool myself into believing this. Best go find some new-agey stoners if you want some apostles.

aufbahrung wrote:But you can. Never give up trying to find a way back. After computer constructed hyper-realism is accepted as reality more real than real (the true singularity) that experiment will have been done.

One day I will be proven right.

And on that day, I will have the last laugh.

aufbahrung wrote:Standard model of the physical universe got lots of arbitary constants and the constants are on the move from what I've read. Before we get into the numerous perceptual flaws that define human experiences.

YET another fundamental constant of nature may have changed over the last 12 billion years. If confirmed, the result could force physicists to radically rethink their theories and provide support for string theory, which predicts extra spatial dimensions.

This is not the first time such constants have been suspected of changing over the universe’s lifetime. Most famously, there has been controversy over the “fine-structure constant” alpha, which governs how light and electrons interact, with some claiming and others denying that it is changing (New Scientist, 3 July 2004, p 6).

Do you realize where the problem is here ?

aufbahrung wrote:

6321.jpg

How can it be 'more real than real'?

Real, chap, is an absolute.

It's also binary.

There's no slightly more real, or slightly less.

It either is real, or it isn't.

It isn't.

aufbahrung wrote:

Thommo wrote:Is that one of those curious religious attempts to prove that we can't tell the difference between two things, in order to immediately conclude that we can tell the difference between those two things?

Not that I'm aware of but if it floats your boat go with it. My point was that the countless errors of the everyday simulation we inhabit can be steamrollered over with some computation even now to produce a 'better preffered reality' and with technoloigical develop this should become a wrap-around experience of a 'super-reality or hyper-reality' with less flaws than the one we naturally percieve.

No, they can't.

And that's glossing over all the empty phrases you've used.

Given all that's going on here, I wouldn't think quibbling over semantics is likely to help.

If the universe is a simulation (imagine you're a character living in the Matrix) then what you think is reality, isn't. There's a true reality in which the system you perceive as reality is embedded. We lack the language to easily discuss this idea, but the idea is pretty straightforward.

The question is whether we have evidence, or other principles like parsimony, that speak for or against the proposition.

aufbahrung wrote:Fine structure constant on the move. What is wrong with this picture?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... t-no-more/

What's wrong with this picture is that it's a link to an article that consists only of a paragraph and the rest is behind a paywall.

What's wrong with this picture is that you haven't attempted to forward an argument, then supported that argument by citing a credible source that backs your claim - you've handed all that argument over to two paragraphs.

If you were sitting right here now in front of me and didn't have the opportunity to go Google it - would you be able to tell me what the term 'fine structure' means? Aside from rambling about warlocks, do you think you'd manage to even hit on one single word that is relevant to the scientific concept?

What's more likely here: there's a simulation which has been programmed on a higher stratum outside our universe to manufacture a reality so consistent and coherent as to make the creatures within it unable ever to know they're in a simulation, or that you don't have a fucking clue what you're rattling on about?

Can you guess which one I think is more likely? And by more likely, I mean it actually is.

Thommo wrote:Given all that's going on here, I wouldn't think quibbling over semantics is likely to help.

You do you Thommo - I know what I am doing.

This point of this discussion is not scientific, philosophical, or actually substantive - it is wholly semantic. It's word games all the way down.

Thommo wrote:If the universe is a simulation (imagine you're a character living in the Matrix) then what you think is reality, isn't. There's a true reality in which the system you perceive as reality is embedded. We lack the language to easily discuss this idea, but the idea is pretty straightforward.

The question is whether we have evidence, or other principles like parsimony, that speak for or against the proposition.

Not for me. The question is why we would be encouraged to believe sufficiently in a proposition in the first place without there being *any* evidence to indicate it. I'm not asking for comprehensive evidence supporting the proposition, I would be happy with simple observations justifying such an inference in the first place. Either that inference is justified, in which case we could then be in the process of looking for evidence which is fine and people can be expected to withhold disbelief, or the inference is just blagging nonsense and there's no compulsion whatsoever to go looking for support for bullshit and the idea dismisses itself.

It actually is a word game. Aufbahrung is one of those people who think that merely being able to corral words into grammatically correct (or thereabouts) sentences lends the resulting meaning validity. It's an ancient human belief in the power of words, almost as if magical, and is found in all the world's religions.

Well, my point is relatively simple - if there's evidence, let's see it. It does appear the "evidence" in question is that models sometimes get things wrong. The inference that the models are right and "reality" is wrong is where the misapprehension seems to have come in.

I think the thread is at the cusp of pinpointing this.

I'm not a fan of absoluteness in regards of reality. No evidence for that whatsover and never could be. Does seem to be more a onion within a onion within a onion, along with human tendancies to go square on the nature of reality despite evidence. The entire history of human ideas is giving them up by dying out rather than admitting being wrong in the lifetime given. So it will be with simulation theory - it will win to become the new standard model for reality by the cruel sands of time denying the naysayers any cover.

aufbahrung wrote:I'm not a fan of absoluteness in regards of reality.

Another empty phrase.

What does 'absoluteness' mean?

Reality, regardless of whether we understand it all or not, is singular. It is absolute.

aufbahrung wrote: No evidence for that whatsover and never could be.

Try logic.

aufbahrung wrote: Does seem to be more a onion within a onion within a onion,...

"Seems" based on what?

An onion is absolute.

aufbahrung wrote:... along with human tendancies to go square on the nature of reality despite evidence.

Despite what evidence?

aufbahrung wrote:The entire history of human ideas is giving them up by dying out rather than admitting being wrong in the lifetime given.

Great, so what you're saying is that with your idea that has no evidence whatsoever, not even for its inference, is not something you'll ever give up on regardless of how empty it is?

aufbahrung wrote:So it will be with simulation theory - it will win to become the new standard model for reality by the cruel sands of time denying the naysayers any cover.

Standard Internet Crackpottery - one day I will be proven right!

aufbahrung wrote:I'm not a fan of absoluteness in regards of reality. No evidence for that whatsover and never could be. Does seem to be more a onion within a onion within a onion, along with human tendancies to go square on the nature of reality despite evidence. The entire history of human ideas is giving them up by dying out rather than admitting being wrong in the lifetime given. So it will be with simulation theory - it will win to become the new standard model for reality by the cruel sands of time denying the naysayers any cover.

So, certainty based on the premise that people are too often certain.

Another classic of self contradiction.

Thommo wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:I'm not a fan of absoluteness in regards of reality. No evidence for that whatsover and never could be. Does seem to be more a onion within a onion within a onion, along with human tendancies to go square on the nature of reality despite evidence. The entire history of human ideas is giving them up by dying out rather than admitting being wrong in the lifetime given. So it will be with simulation theory - it will win to become the new standard model for reality by the cruel sands of time denying the naysayers any cover.

So, certainty based on the premise that people are too often certain.

Another classic of self contradiction.

I'll come back to this thread in three weeks when I've had time to think through my thoughts on the subject fully.