Is our world a simulation?

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#301  Postby hackenslash » Nov 10, 2019 12:28 pm

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 thinking that the fine structure constant is fundamental, or that it's a number when, in reality it's a function. The permeability and permissivity of the vacuum is dependent on energy, according to QED, which is the field from which the fine structure constant is derived.

This tells us exactly nothing about whether the universe is a simulation.

Perhaps learn some physics.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21440
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is our world a simulation?

#302  Postby hackenslash » Nov 10, 2019 12:34 pm

User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21440
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#303  Postby newolder » Nov 10, 2019 12:41 pm

aufbahrung wrote:I'm not a fan of absoluteness in regards of reality. No evidence for that whatsover and never could be.

Those that simulate us are themselves simulants? And it's simulations all the way up?
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.

:???: Nope. Neither logical nor grammatical sense here.
The entire history of human ideas is giving them up by dying out rather than admitting being wrong in the lifetime given.

It's precisely because you are not trained as a scientist that you have no experience in disproving an hypothesis and carrying on to the next.
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.

And here endeth the bullshit - for now.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#304  Postby felltoearth » Nov 10, 2019 1:28 pm

aufbahrung wrote:
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.

Wait. You have this strongly held belief based on no ecidence and allowed people to post about it for 16 pages but you haven’t “thought it through?”

Colour me surprised.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14006
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#305  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 10, 2019 1:37 pm

aufbahrung wrote:
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.



Hey, take an extra week and work out what's wrong with your 'holes in space' while you're at it.

Didn't you spend more than 3 weeks thinking about all this before? Sorry to let you know, but it's apparent.

Before dismissing the edifice of scientific discovery, perhaps learn some?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#306  Postby aufbahrung » Nov 10, 2019 3:24 pm

Pushing it to call science a edifice of discovery from the vantage point of a insignificant rock in the outer-reaches of nowhere. Mostly there is a edifice of engineering behind any science but science geeks are so self-obsessed with status they forget to complement the folks making their paltry explorations and discordant discoveries possible. It is like a fish in a fish bowl kept in a darkened room saying the same thing. I don't dismiss scientific discovery but don't reckon it to be up for much compared with plausible discoveries waiting out in the cosmos, or within the world here.
ship struck the rocks yesterday, and the worst is yet to be....
User avatar
aufbahrung
 
Name: Your Real Name
Posts: 1411

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#307  Postby Thommo » Nov 10, 2019 3:32 pm

However meagre the discoveries of science may seem, their relative merit compared to any one of us as individuals or to an unsupported contention like the crude presentation of the simulation hypothesis laid out here remains unchanged. If our world is an insignificant rock, we are not even microbes, and that applies to your ideas as much as anyone else's.

Trashtalking a game that isn't going your way has been likened to being a pigeon playing chess.

ETA: Perhaps a clearer way of explaining this point is to identify it as the fallacy of irrelevance: ...instead of proving that ‘this person has committed an atrocious fraud’, you prove that ‘this fraud he is accused of is atrocious;’".

Instead of (attempting) proving that the simulation hypothesis is true, you asserted that if the simulation hypothesis is true science is a very modest endeavour.
Last edited by Thommo on Nov 10, 2019 3:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is our world a simulation?

#308  Postby newolder » Nov 10, 2019 3:34 pm

aufbahrung wrote:Pushing it to call science a edifice of discovery from the vantage point of a insignificant rock in the outer-reaches of nowhere.

...snip...

I don't dismiss scientific discovery but don't reckon it to be up for much compared with plausible discoveries waiting out in the cosmos, or within the world here.


Again, the last sentence contradicts the first. :doh:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#309  Postby The_Piper » Nov 10, 2019 3:47 pm

The fact that we can turn rocks into computers and orbiting satellites means that science has taken us a long way and can take us a lot further (as long as we don't blow ourselves up first). Insignificant rocks can be made into extremely significant things.
Reality is more than fascinating enough. No need to add in simulations and gods and bibles and aliens flying across the galaxy to build stone pyramids of all things, etc.
"There are two ways to view the stars; as they really are, and as we might wish them to be." - Carl Sagan
"If an argument lasts more than five minutes, both parties are wrong" unknown
Self Taken Pictures of Wildlife
User avatar
The_Piper
 
Name: Fletch F. Fletch
Posts: 28455
Age: 46
Male

Country: Chainsaw Country
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#310  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 10, 2019 5:50 pm

aufbahrung wrote:Pushing it to call science a edifice of discovery from the vantage point of a insignificant rock in the outer-reaches of nowhere.


Sorry but because you say so?

When a group of ground apes just a few millennia from being impressed with how far they can sling their own poo can read and manipulate the building blocks of life, when they can walk on and send robots to another body in space, when they discover the structure and scope of space and can detail the initial expansion of the universe through reading background radiation... that's an edifice of knowledge regardless of whether you can bring yourself to acknowledge it or not. Don't worry - you can garner all the benefits riding on its coat-tails while lazily indulging yourself in some woolly notion you fancy just like all the other religionists, but you do make yourself look like a berk using computers and the internet to criticize empirical knowledge and its applications.


aufbahrung wrote: Mostly there is a edifice of engineering behind any science...


Complete bollocks. Once again, don't expect scientifically literate people to take instruction from somebody who talks about holes in space. And engineering is applied science anyway, residing firmly on scientific principles.


aufbahrung wrote:... but science geeks are so self-obsessed with status they forget to complement the folks making their paltry explorations and discordant discoveries possible.


Says the guy self-satisfiedly dismissing the product of scientific method. Everything else in here looks very much like projection - your ideas are so special and you're special for having them. Yes, they might not actually be your ideas, you might have borrowed them wholesale from someone else, you might not understand them at all, and you might be incapable or too lazy to actually do any relevant research or build on those ideas... but bask in their supposed reflected glory anyway.

Has it struck you yet that you might have as much comprehension of the simulation hypothesis as you do of what space is?


aufbahrung wrote: It is like a fish in a fish bowl kept in a darkened room saying the same thing.


1) Fish don't speak.
2) If you're going to pretend you have unique ideas, don't steal them and mangle the most famous and ancient ones.
3) You're rapidly emulating fundamentalist Creationists attacking science because it won't genuflect to your woolly speculation.


aufbahrung wrote: I don't dismiss scientific discovery but don't reckon it to be up for much compared with plausible discoveries waiting out in the cosmos, or within the world here.


And we're going to find those discoveries with...?

And we even know about them because...?

Yeah, thanks for playing.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#311  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 10, 2019 6:03 pm

newolder wrote:
aufbahrung wrote:Pushing it to call science a edifice of discovery from the vantage point of a insignificant rock in the outer-reaches of nowhere.

...snip...

I don't dismiss scientific discovery but don't reckon it to be up for much compared with plausible discoveries waiting out in the cosmos, or within the world here.


Again, the last sentence contradicts the first. :doh:



Incoherent - the underlying tone is what I think aufbahrung really wants to get across.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#312  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 10, 2019 6:05 pm

Thommo wrote:
Trashtalking a game that isn't going your way has been likened to being a pigeon playing chess.



Image
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#313  Postby newolder » Nov 10, 2019 6:33 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
newolder wrote:
aufbahrung wrote:Pushing it to call science a edifice of discovery from the vantage point of a insignificant rock in the outer-reaches of nowhere.

...snip...

I don't dismiss scientific discovery but don't reckon it to be up for much compared with plausible discoveries waiting out in the cosmos, or within the world here.


Again, the last sentence contradicts the first. :doh:



Incoherent - the underlying tone is what I think aufbahrung really wants to get across.


Science isn't discovery because it takes place on a small rock yet "plausible discoveries" may occur there. Is how I read it but, as ever, I could be wrong. What's a "plausible discovery" anyhoo? Shit smells?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#314  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 10, 2019 7:08 pm

newolder wrote:
Science isn't discovery because it takes place on a small rock yet "plausible discoveries" may occur there. Is how I read it but, as ever, I could be wrong. What's a "plausible discovery" anyhoo? Shit smells?



It could all be replaced with the words: salad for everyone!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#315  Postby aufbahrung » Nov 10, 2019 7:36 pm

Obviously using a word like 'salad' to dismiss a credible alternative to the common mans inderstanding of reality is the top echelon in argument if it wasn't a nirvana fallacy built on kettle logic.
ship struck the rocks yesterday, and the worst is yet to be....
User avatar
aufbahrung
 
Name: Your Real Name
Posts: 1411

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is our world a simulation?

#316  Postby Fallible » Nov 10, 2019 8:11 pm

This isn’t a credible alternative to the common man’s understanding of reality though, is it. So ‘salad’ seems a perfectly serviceable word to me.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#317  Postby Thommo » Nov 10, 2019 8:47 pm

aufbahrung wrote:Obviously using a word like 'salad' to dismiss a credible alternative to the common mans inderstanding of reality is the top echelon in argument if it wasn't a nirvana fallacy built on kettle logic.


This is a peculiar conceit. You seem to labour under the misapprehension that we all do not understand what the simulation hypothesis is. In fact we do not agree that there's evidence to support the simulation hypothesis, or persuasive reason to regard it as likely to be true. And note here - we do not say it is impossible or false as you seem to imply. Merely that there is no reason to prefer it to conventional theories like philosophical realism.

Rather than focusing on what follows from the assumption that it is true, you are being enjoined to meet the promise of your own claims by showing that it is, as you imply, likely to be true in the first place.

Many people believe incredible things. We regard them as credulous, not insightful. You are here assuming that your belief is credible, rather than trying to establish on what basis it should be so regarded.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27172

Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#318  Postby felltoearth » Nov 10, 2019 8:52 pm

Image


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14006
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is our world a simulation?

#319  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 10, 2019 8:53 pm

aufbahrung wrote:Obviously using a word like 'salad' to dismiss a credible alternative to the common mans inderstanding of reality is the top echelon in argument if it wasn't a nirvana fallacy built on kettle logic.



1) The word 'salad' was used in conjunction with your nonsensical writing style; whatever's motivating that appears also to affect your reading comprehension too.

2) What 'credible alternative'?

3) Alternative to what?

4) Quite literally all you've offered is an appeal to ignorance coupled with standard internet crackpot claptrap pretending you'll be shown right in the future. All this says is that you have no good reason for lending it credence today.

5) The simulation hypothesis is not actually an explanatory model - you've completely misunderstood it. Bostrum isn't arguing that the universe IS a simulation, he's a philosopher debating the nature of existence, not making metaphysical claims. If you're going to buy into something, at least try and understand it first.

6) If you want more coherent arguments a) come up with a better proposition and b) read all the other posts you've ignored.

7) If you want a nirvana fallacy, look no further than your wild assertion that the simulation hypothesis is going to overturn all knowledge. That's quite literally what the fallacy means.

8) Tossing out labels of fallacies doesn't establish that those fallacies actually are present. Show where I've presented arguments that are inconsistent with each other.

9) Keep deflecting. Absolutely no one here is remotely distracted by your failure to support your wild claims, but if you keep tossing out distractions, you might at least fool yourself that you're doing well.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: And Good Fucking Riddance

#320  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 10, 2019 9:03 pm

This is the sum total of 'support' you've provided for your claims:


aufbahrung wrote:Because I see the simulation hypothesis as the best explanation for the world as experienced intelligent design cannot be thrown out with the dishwater of religious creationism.


The best explanation for the world.

Question already asked: for the world what? Do you mean for the world's existence? Do you mean for the properties found in the world? Do you mean something else?

Point already made to you by numerous people: the simulation hypothesis isn't an explanation, no one who knows anything about it would suggest otherwise.

You seem to think the Matrix is a documentary.


aufbahrung wrote:Quantum computing should provide evidence. I don't know how but it should with all its computing powers. With evidence my belief will become fact.


Which reads that you have no evidence right now for believing in the simulation hypothesis. It's bad enough that you lend belief to something for which you have zero evidence, but expecting other people to treat it as credible is beyond reasonable.

Following that, all you've done is the standard Creationist tactic of attempting to undermine scientific knowledge as if calling it into question would then make your pet belief correct. That's not how it works. Even if we were to overturn all scientific knowledge overnight - something that if you understood what that involved, you'd consider inane beyond imagination - that wouldn't mean you are right any more than Creationists would be with their God Did It belief.


Attacking empirical knowledge doesn't make you special, aufbahrung, it doesn't make you cool... it makes you a crank. You're being an anti-scientific crank on a website expressly dedicated to rational skepticism - perhaps you misread the forum's title? Maybe you can found a forum entitled Irrational Make-Believe wherein tossing out knowledge in favour of confident declarations about your faith position is the expected manner of dialogue, but that's surely not the case here.

So, assuming you're going to keep failing to provide a single instance of evidence for your belief, and assuming then that no one here is going to buy into it, perhaps you want to change tack and explain why you find the simulation hypothesis so convincing when no one - not even its creator - would agree with you.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27887
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest