I’m Cave Johnson, here to personally thank you for volunteering to test Aperture Science’s brand new long range spacetime displacement device. Before we begin, there’s 2 things I need to mention.
First off, there is a non-zero percent, closer to 90, chance that you will end up being a just a random arrangement of atoms after the test. Not in a philosophical way. Just an absolutely random heap of atoms sprawled across the testing chamber floor.
Second, I need to remind you that the waiver you signed is iron clad. You can thank the suits in legal for that.
Why not? Even if it we’re meant to be important why can it not be by action rather than by birth, see how narcissistic it is to think we’re supposed to be here?
I didn’t say we were important or supposed to be here. Just that we aren’t random. The initial state of the cosmos may have been random but everything after that is following a trajectory based on physics.
It’s always the worst people who believe this too. The only interpretation of Simulation Theory that I will even remotely entertain is the one that we’re all information stuck on the surface of a black hole, because it’s the only one that isn’t just there to feed tech bros’ god complex.
Counterpoint: we’re in an educational program. The program is about the horrors of the 21st century, including climate change, greed, the rise of AI in a capitalist society, COVID, the return of fascism, the fall of the west and god knows what else. The tech bros, billionaires, politicians, etc aren’t actually real, it’s everyone else who is. Why? Those positions are too comfy and your students might learn the wrong lessons if you let them participate as trump or musk.
On one hand, the belief in a god doesn’t just end there. There are beliefs in what that god does and what he has control over. So it’s completely logical to believe that there’s no god (although, as someone else pointed out, it’s also not random arrangements of atoms).
On the other hand, simulation theory is a logical theory to rationalize the “purpose” of why we exist. It’s not a belief. The simulation doesn’t respond to prayers or requests. It’s simply conjecture or hypothesis to explain the “why” of the universe. No one who talks about simulation theory (much less who “believes” in it) pretends that the creator of the simulation is uniquely interested in them and responds to their requests and tells them how to live their life. In fact, that would go against the entire concept of simulation theory.
Religion and religious belief have specific definitions. This feels just as dishonest as people claiming that LGBTQ ideology is a religion or that evolution is a “belief”.
You’re assuming belief in the Abrahamic God to make your argument easier. But not all theists subscribe to such a position. And belief in a disinterested god who created the universe seems just as plausible as believing in a disinterested programmer who wrote a simulation.
I’m not assuming anything. The image shown in the OP is an image of the god of Abraham and the initial premise is wrong. If there was a sizeable population of theists who believed in a disinterested god, we’d have somewhere to start a discussion.
I don’t know what you’d consider “sizable” but a lot of people these days are spiritual without being religious. Which is unsurprising. Atheism/agnosticism are on the rise, so it makes sense that people who believe in a god but don’t subscribe to a particular religion are also on the rise.
People who believe in a god but aren’t part of a religion would have to dictate the parameters for their god in order for it to be meaningful in any way. As stated before, the OP didn’t make the initial idea that nebulous. They were pretty specific.
God got bored lol. Yeah nah I’m spiritual, but I’m not much a of a theist.
I just trust that many that don’t believe in a higher power also often believe that they’re very important and therefore “above”. Essentially most old school religion is like a dam that withholds personal narcissism from overtaking society.
I think their point is belief versus theory. One requires faith, the other thought.
It’s why it’s simulation theory and not Simulationism. People acknowledge it, but don’t follow it, nor believe it, since belief requires clearing unknown gaps with leaps of faith to reach an unknown destination. Theory seeks answers of the unknown with “could be this, could not be this” whereas belief is “it be this”.
This always points back to the paradox which all divinity falls into. The moment we know of a god to be real, it is old news and no longer divine. The next scientific step is “What made it so?” and moves right along to bigger things whether theists are on board or not.
Of the few words ending with -ism and -ist in science or theory, none have belief or faith.
Even the most apparent, such as the Big Bang Theory, are still marked a theory, after all. Believing in them—convinction without 100% knowledge—is foolish and closes doors of what may actually be truth.
The purpose is to observe our behavior and how we react to stimuli. And it’s not that it’s “correct”, it’s just that it requires no intervention. If it’s “real”, then it was started by an outside force and is being observed like a Petri dish amongst other simulations.
If it’s truly meant as a simulation, then intervening in any way would go against the purpose of the simulation.
Just think about how we run our simulations. We give the computer parameters about the “real” world because we’re interested in the results. If our entire world is a simulation, amongst other simulations, then intervening would ruin the simulation.
You don’t rerun everything from scratch. Especially weather simulations can be checkpointed at places you have high certainty, and keep running forks after that point with different parameters. This is extremely common with for example trying to predict wind patterns during forest fires, you simulate multiple branches of possible developments in wind direction, humidity, temperature, etc. If the parameters you test don’t cover every scenario that is plausible you might sometimes engineer it into the simulation just to see the worst case scenario, for example.
And in medicine, especially computational biochemistry you modify damn near everything
You’re confusing simulations of specific events with a simulation environment. If our universe is simulated, then it’s unlikely that the creators of the simulation would be interested in the individual occurrences you’re describing. The universe is what’s being studied, not the happenings inside of it.
Simulations of boats in water don’t care about what’s happening to the water much of the time yet it needs to be there, you seem to be way too confident in your conclusions
You’re still confusing a simulation of a specific event with a simulation of a universe. If you’re simulating a boat in the water, you need the water but you don’t need to build an entire ocean with fish and land near the water and buildings on the land. You just build what you need to simulate. We are clearly in a much larger simulation than one that would simulate an event.
If you don’t know what they’re testing that could certainly seem excessive. But failure of imagination doesn’t prove it’s impossible, although you can argue it’s unlikely
Check out Ancestral simulationIn a nutshell, it says that humans are living in far future and we are just a simulation from scratch so that they can study their origin, how they come to be etc
What is religion, if not conjecture about the origin of mankind (and by extension the universe) that people believe without evidence?
I don’t think that religion is predicated on the answering of prayers, or in a Creator who takes a special interest in some particular human.
Also, I don’t think that either of those go against simulation theory; what if you’re a sim in some alien version of The Sims, and they’re going around fuckin with your life, removing ladders from your pools, etc.
What is religion, if not conjecture about the origin of mankind (and by extension the universe) that people believe without evidence?
Religion identifies the simulator and insists that its intermediaries can offer a liaison between you and them, and also that if you don’t believe in their particular simulator, you will be punished. It has been used for centuries to control the populace and to take their money.
A proponent of simulation theory isn’t likely to tell you that it solves any philosophical problems, or that they now understand the universe wholly. I’ve never heard anyone talking about it claim that they know who/what is behind the simulation.
So IMO the distinction between the two couldn’t be more clear.
I imagine there’s at least a couple wacko groups out of there trying to twist simulation theory into a purely religious endeavor, but that wouldn’t represent the mainstream conversation about it.
That’s an exceptionally narrow view of religion. There are plenty of religions that don’t threaten damnation for disbelief. They do what ST does and explain why humans exist (in this case because a simulation was set up such that they’d be created, intentionally or not).
And why can’t ST be used to scam people from money, like religion is?
That’s exactly where religion falls apart, though. If the Creator can interfere with their creation or directly influence it, then the idea becomes inconsistent based on what we directly observe as happening. The answering of prayers was just an example since the image in the OP is an image of the god of the Bible that people do believe answers their individual prayers (and that some people believe they can speak to and through).
Simulation theory doesn’t really allow for that kind of intervention so your Sims example isn’t relevant. Ladders in pools and whatnot don’t disappear before your eyes.
But how you’re describing ST isn’t incompatible with religion, only some religions. Nothing about religion itself says that the creators or some higher power need to be an active participant in the human experience.
And how doesn’t simulation theory allow for the simulation creator/admin to interfere with the simulation? You don’t have scientific equipment recording data on everything, everywhere, for everyone, and people claim to see wild shit all the time. But even ignoring the wild shit, it could be as simple as tripping someone, moving their keys, giving them some disease or disorder, or any of a million things that we can’t accurately predict even when explicitly looking for it.
In this instance it doesn’t. But in this universe almost every industry using simulations run many different ones with different parameters. It doesn’t make sense to assume simulation theory with only a single simulation without interventions, because that assumes the simulator already knew that what the simulation would produce would fit what they wanted and that’s not a guarantee (just for information theory reasons alone!)
Personally I sometimes wonder if the truth is hybrid. We’re a simulation and “god” is someone on the outside interacting with our simulation. Might also explain why god seems to be missing nowadays. Maybe he grew up, maybe he got bored, maybe he’s doing exams, maybe our simulation is owned by a company that went out of business and is only running because the electricity is still on and the backup generators still have fuel. Maybe we live in a forgotten universe.
I also sometimes wonder if we live in an educational simulation. Maybe we’re college students learning about the horrors of the 21st century in a fully immersive VR program.
It’s possible but the interaction part is what makes it unlikely. There’s neither evidence nor logic that would explain a god that was able to interact with the world they created with any kind of consistency.
Even more importantly: God is omnipotent, which means they don’t make mistakes. A simulation doesn’t imply a higher power that is perfect in every way.
God is omnipotent, which means they don’t make mistakes.
Actually, no - the dictionary definition of omnipotent is literally being able to do anything. God being faultless is a different thing entirely and depending on how you interpret scripture, that is a false statement. He regrets making humans, so you could argue he sees humans as his own mistake - which is an entirely different kind of fucked-up for another day’s topic.
So whomever is running the simulation would be omnipotent, because they are literally making whatever happens in our universe happen by running a simulation of a universe.
EDIT: meant “everything” instead of “anything” but fuck it
Actually, yes. If they’re able to do anything then they’re also able to correct their mistakes. That’s not something that can be assumed about the creator of a simulation. Just look at the current state of our simulations.
I mean, the creator of a simulated universe isn’t omnipotent though, for two reasons: first, there are plenty of things that they cannot do in their own universe, being just some regular person there, but more importantly, there must be limits on what they can do in the simulation, because that simulation has to exist on a computer which presumably has finite hardware limitations. “Framerate” or equivalent won’t matter as much because time doesn’t have to pass at the same rate, but the computer still is only going to have so much storage and memory space, or whatever equivalent the technology involved uses, and so nothing that would exceed those limitations can be done in the sim.
The simulation doesn’t respond to prayers or requests.
How do you know? What if the guy running the simulation actually monitors what we think and reacts to it? What if the personally decides to give people cancer or cure it? What if he copies our minds to simulation of hell after we die? What if 2000 years ago he copied himself into the simulation to get crucified?
I know because that’s not part of the theory. Simulation theory doesn’t offer any kind of mechanism for that and it would go against the entire idea of simulation.
On top of that, even if that was the case, then the person running the simulation would be acting inconsistently in a way that prevents us from understanding their intent. That would mean that it’s illogical and that there’s no way for us to actually infer anything about the world we’re in yet we are able to do exactly that.
Why does testing numerous different circumstances and consequences violate the idea is simulation? A sufficiently capable simulation engine could literally be used for social experiments
I think you misunderstood. Testing numerous circumstances doesn’t violate it. The simulation is likely only one amongst an entire series. Interfering with the simulation and changing parameters while it’s going is what violates the point. For one, we’d notice things changing without cause. For another, simulations test conditions based on parameters. There would be no reason to change parameters midway when another simulation with those changes can just be spun up.
To the simulated object there’s no difference between a fork of a simulation with different parameters vs directly changing parameters in a running simulation.
For one, we’d notice things changing without cause.
Maybe those reactions are part of the test? Or doesn’t affect it. Or they abandon instances where it was noticed and the test derailed.
There’s no “maybe”. We don’t observe things changing in our world without cause. Therefore, it can’t be part of the test. Our perception is unbroken. And if you want to make the argument that those simulations where we did are ended, which is what I think you’re implying, then, as before, it’s meaningless to discuss since there’s no way we could know that.
How are they not logically justified? You and I live in the world that is claimed to be a simulation. It’s entirely logically justified simply by virtue of the fact that we can verify these things. Again, to borrow your example, if parameters and material items are being changed and modified while the simulation is running then we’d have to observe those things happening in at least some instances. We don’t have any evidence of anything changing without cause. If those changes can be done without us knowing about them in every case, then it’s just as pointless as debating the idea that every person alive is only 1 day old.
I’m not arguing any specific purpose of controlling a simulation in these ways, just that the arguments saying it wouldn’t happen are too weak. A multipurpose simulation (imagine one shared by many different teams of simulation researchers) could plausibly be used like this where they mess with just about anything and then reset. Doesn’t mean it’s likely, just that it’s unreasonable to exclude the possibility
It’s not unreasonable to exclude that possibility if there’s no way for us to ever know that. The same logic applies to scenarios like the one I mentioned before where everyone is only 1 day old.
You can’t prove that everyone alive isn’t one day old and simply born with memories of previous events. It’s a silly example but it’s the same argument as what you’re suggesting. If it gets reset in way that no one can possibly know, then, logically, the only option is to exclude it because you could never prove or falsify it either way.
You’re conflating things. We have no reason to argue those are true with any certainty, but we still can’t exclude the possibility. It’s the difference of “justified belief” vs coherent theory. Physics have had a ton of theories postulated without evidence where decades later one option was proven true and many others proven false. Under your assumption you shouldn’t have made that theory before it could be tested.
We can exclude that possibility because it’s a possibility that we can’t observe by any means. If what you’re suggesting is true, that a higher being is interfering and modifying our reality, then we should be able to test that assumption. Anything that can have a physical effect in our world is testable in our world. Since we don’t observe that happening, and according to you can’t observe it since doing so would end the simulation, it’s a possibility we don’t have to consider because it’s impossible to prove it or test it or, most importantly, to falsify it.
Again, it’s the exact same argument as the one day old suggestion. It’s ultimately meaningless.
By this same logic we can exclude the possibility of simulation theory, no? By your own logic it’s not a stretch to “exclude the possibility” of something “because it’s a possibility that we can’t observe by any means”. I believe goes back to the point of the meme: self proclaimed logical actors believing in something unprovable and thus proving themselves to be hypocrites…
It’s not unprovable, though. That’s where you’re wrong. A simulation can be provable so long as functions in line with its own internally consistent rules and what we observe about it.
For the sake of argument (this is an oversimplification but the point is the same), imagine that this simulation was running on a computer with 8MB of memory. Within the simulation (as in inside of it), we would be able to observe situations where things are not internally consistent as a result of, for example, running out of memory. Other observations we could make that would support the theory and be internally inconsistent would be things disappearing, as mentioned before, or moving without cause. Details could be internally inconsistent.
The only reason to exclude simulation theory completely would be if we have to assume that the simulation is perfect and, therefore, not distinguishably different from reality. This was the premise of the movie “The Matrix” in its initial concept when humans were used as computer brains to run the simulation rather than giant batteries (which makes no sense as our bodies are terrible energy storage mediums).
So, yes, there are situations where simulation theory could be excluded by the same premise but nothing that has been presented so far that would allow for the changes described to our current reality that would go unnoticed. The difference is that there is evidence (although not admittedly strong) that makes simulation theory more probable than any religion. It’s not hypocritical to accept the possibility of something based on some objective evidence rather than something meant to be accepted without any evidence at all.
But by this same logic anything can be “proven”. If I see evidence of an abrhamic god, then I can prove its existence. This is not a novel or sufficient observation to meet the criteria that imperical based science is held to. The claim must also be falsifiable, just how a metaphysical God can always escape attempts to disprove it by relying on the imperical nature of science i.e. we can’t really prove or disprove anything objectively, the counter effect is that it can’t be proven under the scientific imperical framework either. I will admit I’m not well versed in the evidence for ST which you have referenced, but how would it be falsifiable? It seems any attempt can always be handwaved away as it’s simply too complex a simulation… God works in mysterious ways right. To me this puts it squarely in the metaphysical realm, which isn’t a bad thing per say, but again speaks to the intent of the meme.
How do you draw the conclusion that anything can be proven by that logic? The entire issue with religious gods is that there is no evidence nor logic which can be used to prove or falsify the hypothesis of their existence. You can’t see evidence of an abrahamic god because it doesn’t exist. If it did, he wouldn’t be a religious god, he would be empirically proven to be god because there would be evidence that he exists that people could see or otherwise observe with their senses.
I don’t understand your line of reasoning when you’ve just confirmed how metaphysical gods can escape any attempt to falsify them. If we live in a simulation, then that wouldn’t be the case. We’d be able to prove we are in a simulation by exploiting the limits of the simulation. If it doesn’t have any limits, then it’s a moot point since it’s perfect and we wouldn’t have the capacity to distinguish that from any other layer of abstraction of simulation. What if we’re living in a simulation that’s being run inside of another simulation? What if this reality is a simulation running in a VM running on a host machine? At some point, if we can’t objectively tell a difference then it’s a moot point as I would compare it, yet again, to the one day old world hypothesis. If we can’t tell the difference (meaning we are unable to or incapable of distinguishing), then it doesn’t matter how many layers of abstraction there are. If we have the ability to know that and just haven’t observed it yet, that still makes the other options impossible since our very existence predicates a simulation that is still ongoing and that we are a part of.
You’re conflating “possible” with “probable”, and refusing to address possibilities you don’t have proof of.
When higgs bosons were predicted they were untestable. When gravity waves were predicted they were untestable. When black hole rings were predicted they were untestable.
Then we discovered how to build the sensors and instruments to test them.
You’re saying those scientists should’ve dropped their ideas because at that point it was still impossible to test or falsify.
What scientists do instead is to develop many different alternative theories, then design tests and experiments, and then once data is in then they decide what do believe about the theories based on what the could prove or not.
Edit: why are people like this so aggressively wrong in the dumbest ways… Not only did they pick only one of 3 examples of mine to attack and ignoring the rest, they also did so maximally incorrectly all while failing to understand the consequences of their own policy of rejecting anything you don’t know how to test.
The core of my argument is really just “sometimes scientists works on stuff nobody knows how to test, because maybe they’ll find out how in the future”, and this dude’s argument is essentially “if you don’t know how to test something it’s literally impossible for it to be true and therefore it shall be rejected, but also scientists always knows the path forward and therefore I don’t have to reevaluate my understanding of science”
No, I’m not. I’m really not understanding what this straw man is that you’re arguing.
When bosons were predicted, the method by which they would be measured was also predicted. Just because it took 40 years to do that doesn’t mean that they were untestable. “Unobserved” is not the same as “untestable” which is exactly the distinction that you’re missing with the simulation idea.
I’m not saying anything of the sort. You suggested that it is possible for our reality to be a simulation where the creator of said simulation is actively making changes. Those changes would have to be observable by the people inside the simulation. You then retreated to the idea that the creators are perfect and simply stop the simulations where those changes are detected. Epistemologically, that idea is both untestable and unobservable because, according to you, any simulation where either of those things were true would have been stopped. That makes it impossible for our current reality to be one of those because it has not stopped and, again, any simulation that is indistinguishable from physical reality is pointless to discuss because it’s non-falsifiable. It’s just like the one day old example I’ve given several times now that you keep ignoring and never addressing.
Besides the fact that it wasn’t actually known if those tests would work, there’s also hypothetical tests for simulation theory (eg. testing for pixelated resolution of spacetime, plus endless “consistency tests”) so doesn’t that make it all the same thing anyway? You’re making much too strong assumptions.
What do you mean? They knew, at the time that the particle was predicted, that if it did exist it would have to be within a certain range of mass and would have to be the result of particle collisions where decay or exchange cause the particle to be emitted. Saying that it wasn’t known if those tests would work just isn’t true. The tests would only work if their theories were correct. It wasn’t the testing that was the issue. It was the very rare, specific conditions under which the particle could be observed that was the issue. If they were right, the tests would allow them to observe the particle and they knew this when they theorized its existence.
Doesn’t what make it all the same thing? You’re the one that said these beings could be changing things mid-simulation. If the boiling point of water was suddenly changed, we’d be able to tell. If the structure of carbon changed, we’d know. Then you walked that back and said that they’d just stop the simulation if we noticed these things. But they haven’t because you and I are still here discussing that. So the only options left over, if we assume they can make changes, is that either they haven’t done that or the simulation is perfect and so the distinction between a simulation and a real, physical world is a moot point.
We should perhaps finish our paper with an apology and a caution. We apologize to experimentalists for having no idea what is the mass of the Higgs boson, …, and for not being sure of its couplings to other particles, except that they are probably all very small. For these reasons, we do not want to encourage big experimental searches for the Higgs boson, but we do feel that people doing experiments vulnerable to the Higgs boson should know how it may turn up.
— John R. Ellis, Mary K. Gaillard, and Dimitri V. Nanopoulos,
One of the problems was that at the time there was almost no clue to the mass of the Higgs boson. Theoretical considerations left open a very wide range somewhere between 10 GeV/c2[13] and 1000 GeV/c2[14] with no real indication where to look.[1]
So you’re literally as wrong as you could be. It wasn’t until what once was a wild hypothesis had been explored more that they could start to make better predictions around where it might be, decades later, and after tests narrowing down where it wasn’t.
I didn’t “walk back” either. Exploring multiple possibilities is called hedging, not walking back (since that means you retracted something which I didn’t do), and scientists does it too. I didn’t say either one option is more likely, I told you there are many possibilities and then you insisted on calling several of them impossible not because any mechanics exclude it’s possibility but because you can’t see it. That’s plainly wrong. You can definitely argue it’s improbable, but you don’t get to call it impossible without proving it impossible.
LOL. Are you seriously trying to claim that you disproved my point by providing a citation that literally proves what I said? You just provided a range of masses within which they knew the Highs Boson particle would be. They predicted that range and they were right. How is that an example of “no idea”?
Direct quote from CERN, where they both predicted and discovered the boson (emphasis mine):
Since every particle can be represented as a wave in a quantum field, introducing a new field into the theory means that a particle associated with this field should also exist.
Most properties of this particle are predicted by the theory, so if a particle matching the description would be found, it provides strong evidence for the BEH mechanism – otherwise we have no means of probing for the existence of the Higgs field.
The properties they were looking for were predicted by Higgs’ initial theory. The only unknown property was the specific mass but, as I’ve mentioned and you confirmed, they knew a range. Every other property of it was already known. If he was wrong, they wouldn’t have found anything. They knew what tests they needed to do because they knew what properties they were looking for. In this case, a boson with a large mass, within a large range, that quickly decays. The only reason it took so long to observe using these tests was because the lifetime of the particle is so short which means it cannot be found in nature.
You did walk it back. You’ve walked back your original statement and are misrepresenting what I said. I never said that it’s impossible because you can’t see it. I said that your suggestion that they’re changing parameters mid-simulation is impossible because we’d be able to observe those changes. That doesn’t mean we can’t see them. It means we can’t measure them or detect them using any of our senses. Then you moved the goalposts to them removing or ending any simulations where we did observe these things which makes that a meaningless scenario that is unfalsifiable.
I’ve only been making one point. You’re the one that keeps moving the goalposts and changing the argument.
Physicists tends to work with precision in decimals, not multiple orders of magnitude. They didn’t know it would be there either, all they knew is the theory they had would be simpler if it was there than not.
Your quote from the website is a bad attempt at backdating current knowledge from very recent research and experiments to the original discoverers
They had thousands of different predictions and couldn’t know which were right until the data was in.
If, due to its mass, they could only observe the interplay between the Higgs boson on one hand and the W and Z bosons on the other, the puzzle of the fermion masses would remain unsolved. Discovering the particle at a convenient mass was an unexpected kindness from nature. If it were slightly more massive, above 180 GeV or so, the options to study it at the time of its discovery would have been more limited.
The variety of available transformation products means that data from the individual channels can be combined together through sophisticated techniques to build up a greater understanding of the particle. “Doing so is not trivial,” says Giovanni Petrucciani, co-convener of the Higgs analysis group in CMS. “You have to treat the uncertainties similarly across all the individual analyses and interpret the results carefully, once you have applied complicated statistical machinery.” Combining data from the transformation of the Higgs boson to pairs of Z bosons and pairs of photons allowed ATLAS and CMS to discover the Higgs boson in 2012.
It was legitimately not known if we could find it. It could have been big enough that LHC would’ve failed, and then it could have taken us 50 more years to build a collider large enough (mostly due to cost, but still)
In fact they’re only mostly sure still
Yet, the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism remains among the least-understood phenomena in the Standard Model. Indeed, while scientists have dropped the “-like” suffix and have understood the Higgs boson remarkably since its discovery, they still do not know if what was observed is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model.
You don’t even understand what I’m saying, how can you accuse me of walking back?
You keep making unjustified claims even now. What if a simulator knows what you’re looking at and simply don’t mess with that? Clearly not impossible. Implausible? Absolutely, AND I KEEP SAYING SO, there’s no reason to believe it’s happening, and yet it’s possible. Your inability to comprehend doesn’t change the meaning of my statements.
Your persistence in calling it meaningless because it’s unfalsifiable with no further context is equivalent to you calling most theoretical physics meaningless. A ton of theories like string theory is by your standard equally unfalsifiable and therefore we shall declare it impossible and stop investigating.
Instead we develop endless hypothetical scenarios specifically so we can look for evidence when new tools for investigating fundamental physics become available.
How could it be backdating current knowledge when those properties are literally in his paper where he posited the theory to begin with! You’re either being disingenuous or intentionally misleading. The reason he didn’t expect to find it in his lifetime was because the chances of observing the particle were infinitesimally small because of its short lifetime and the fact that it decays into other common bosons. It is not found in nature and can only be produced in a lab.
I really don’t know how much clearer you can be about their ability to predict what they were looking for other than repeating the quote and linking the paper:
Most properties of this particle are predicted by the theory
Are you saying CERN is lying on their Highs Boson page?
And you’re also wrong about the idea of “variants” that you’re claiming. The variants they’re referring to are the byproducts of the decay. Since the Higgs Boson decays into the same products as normal Z and W bosons and photons.
Every type of particle is characterized by a set of properties: mass, electrical charge, lifetime etc. For the Higgs boson, mass was the only unknown. For a known mass, all the other properties can be calculated from theory. Measuring them experimentally and comparing them with the result of these calculations allows scientists to verify that they have really found the Higgs boson.
You’re mischaracterizing what they’re saying and arguing that what they are saying, and what I’ve quoted directly from their website where it says that all the properties except the mass were known, is not true. You’re also confusing us having the capabilities, using technology available at the time, with the ideas underpinning how it would be observed and what would have been observed based on the theory associated with it. They knew what they were looking for but being able to observe a particle that decays immediately isn’t easy. Your chart and quote are talking about the variations of interactions with other bosons and photons. How am I supposed to take any of your replies seriously?
I’m not making unjustified claims. You keep moving the goalposts away from the initial statement and are now arguing probability instead of the actual argument. The fact is that it is impossible for us to be in a simulation where the creators can change conditions if they end any simulations where we’d notice them. It’s not improbable. It’s impossible. You can keep making more straw men all you want. It doesn’t change the initial argument.
On the other hand, simulation theory is a logical theory to rationalize the “purpose” of why we exist.
Now see. I think simulation theory is one of the possible explanations for our existence. But, I would disagree that it gives any credence to a purpose to our existence.
It also doesn't really answer the core question of how things began, it just defers them upwards to another civilisation. Unless you want to say it's simulations all the way down, there needs to be be a root real existence somewhere and there the origins pose the same questions.
I've not yet heard any explanation as to how our universe came to be that I truly believe. All explanations are problematic. But even if simulation theory were true, I'd still be bugged by the fact that we still don't get any closer to the answer of how it all began. It just explains how the universe as we know it exists.
It doesn’t need to answer the question of how things began any more than our own understanding of our world answers that. The “Big Bang” is just the start of the simulation.
And I think you’re wrong to disagree about the purpose of our existence because the entire point of a simulation is to get information and data about the “real” world by running the options in a simulation. If we are indeed in a simulation, then the purpose is to give the creators of the simulation more information about their own world.
Ironically enough, it would also infer that these beings created us in their own image. Otherwise, it wouldn’t really be useful to them.
It does bring up the interesting conundrum: is there one “base” universe? Then how did that start? Makes no sense. Is it turtles all the way down? That also doesn’t make any sense. And yet those are the only 2 possibilities (assuming a few intuitive things about logic and reality, which is a whole 'nother thing…).
Hypothetically, isn’t there also a third option that one eventually gets to a base universe, but that base universe has existed for an infinite amount of time and has no beginning?
But at that point, isn’t that no different than just saying the universe isn’t a simulation? If there is a base universe than that is the “actual” universe, and who cares about all the simulations beyond what we would care about a simulation we created? For this to be the case, I feel like there would need to be some additional features or complexities about this base universe that can’t be simulated and thus that allows those in it to prove that they are not a simulation. The issue the simulation universes have is that if they could create a simulation of their own universe they are immediately confronted with the conundrum that they themselves are probably not the first one to do this. But this theoretical base universe would have some characteristic about it that precluded them from this issue. Or maybe they don’t, maybe they think they’re simulation too but they’re not and have no way to prove otherwise, they just happen to be the base. However, if that is the case, then you can make that same argument for this universe can’t you?
I don’t personally suspect that anyone could truly create a simulation of their own universe at all. You could absolutely simulate a universe, but simulating your own universe (presumably your own universe at a point in the past since that’s what context the simulation argument generally gets made in) would have to have some kind of deviation from the real universe, be it that not all of the universe is simulated, or it’s only simulated to a certain level of detail or “resolution” and any physics on a smaller scale is simplified, or time runs slower or something. Because if you can simulate a perfect copy of your universe, or a universe of equivalent complexity and speed, then you can build a computer in that simulation equivalent to the one running it, and since that simulated computer doesn’t use all the resources of it’s simulated universe presumably, you can build several of them and get more processing power than you started with, which makes no sense. And if every “layer” of simulation inheritly has dramatically less possible complexity to it than the layer above, you should eventually (and I suspect rather rapidly) reach a level where further nested simulations are not possible
I know it's a few days later now. But I'm agnostic and not explicitly atheist and the reason is that, one of the few scenarios that made sense to me, I never thought of as simulation theory.
It was that the big bang doesn't remove the possibility of a God. That God could just be an alien that exists outside our concept of time and created this universe with the concept of time as an experiment.
I suppose this could be a simulation too. That is, that alien outside our concept of time creates a simulation of a universe with a linear time.
Im an atheist myself, though I’ll agree, the universe having a beginning does not preclude the possibility that it was created by an intelligent entity of some kind, a simulation is one way this can occur, but not the only one. I dont think such a creator likely, but I cant rule the option out. However, I dont think that an entity like this is really deserving of the title of god, because a simulator (or someone who has some kind of weird tech to mess with spacetime such as to create a new physical universe artificially) is still just as fallible as any other limited entity inside their own universe. Conceivably, if someone discovered a way to cure aging or something within the next few decades, its not impossible tho probably very unlikely that you or I might someday see the technology to create such a simulated universe developed, but if I were to create one, that would not really change what I am at all, or give me limitless knowledge or make me deserving of worship. This might be because I was raised in a family mostly full of Christians and therefore interpret the word the way Abrahamic religions do, but I dont think I could really consider anything less than an actually Omnipotent, Omniscient and therefore limitless and infallible being to be a god, and as I also believe that omnipotence is a logically impossible and self-disproving concept, and therefore, that it cannot exist in any reality no matter what rules may govern it, I feel as certain as I can be of anything that no such thing exists.
Your comment added nothing to the discussion and provided no counters to what was said. What was the point of writing it?
It’s not a belief because there’s not an absence of evidence. There’s quite a bit of evidence for it. Whether you agree that it’s compelling is another story. Also, no one “believes” in simulation theory. It’s simply a theory to explain our current understanding of the world. In the same way that no one “believes” in the theory of gravity. It’s just a possible explanation of what we observe.
No. That’s why it’s not called “simulation hypothesis”. It’s called “simulation theory”. The hypothesis is the original, untested idea. The theory is the idea after it has been tested that fits as a valid explanation. It has been tested.
To be fair, though, the actual idea is called “simulation hypothesis” in the real world for that reason but it’s not a hypothesis because it can’t come to a falsifiable conclusion. There’s literally no way of knowing whether we are or aren’t in a simulation.
It’s the same idea as a god that controls everything but doesn’t intervene at all, is invisible, and unknowable. It could be true but it’s a moot point since we could never know.
I’m not being dishonest. You are, however, being dismissive and rude.
If you find dismissal of your inability to coherently explain the concept you brought up rude, that’s your prerogative.
You’ve said enough to demonstrate you don’t understand basic empiricism, have not done sufficient reading on the topic that - again - you brought up, and have contradicted yourself in your own comment.
You are dishonest, and we’re pretty much done here.
I’m not dishonest and I haven’t said anything that suggests I’m not arguing in good faith. I’ve sufficiently explained the concept and the idea that our observations can only extend to what we’re capable of. I also don’t see where I’ve contradicted myself but I’m sure you’ll point that out instead of being nebulous and ignoring the points actually demonstrated…
I completely agree that’s what this basically boils down too. ST was an interesting concept I read about once and only briefly recalled twice since. Nothing more. This could be a valid criticism of individuals putting more stock into the idea but for anyone else it’s a reach.
The belief system built around God affects me every single day of my life. I have family that are hardcore Christians that pester me about it regularly. Approximately half of the political ideologies being pushed in my country center around Christian dogma.
Honorable mentions: Foreign and domestic terrorism threat and future wars being incited.
DUHHH CRINGE!!!! DUHHH BRINGE!!???!!1 CRINGE!!!!! IS THAT ALL YOU SHITPOSTING FUCKS CAN SAY!!??? DURR BASED BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE CRINGE BASED CRINGE
I FEEL LIKE IM IN A FUCKING ASYLUM FULL OF DEMENTIA RIDDEN OLD PEOPLE THAT CAN DO NOTHING BUT REPEAT THE SAME FUCKING WORDS ON LOOP LIKE A FUCKING BROKEN RECORD!!!!!
CRINGE CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE ONIONS ONIONS ONIONS SNOYY ONIONS LOL ONIONS!!! CRINGE!!!1 BOOMER!! LE ZOOMER!!!! I AM BOOMER!!!! NO ZOOM ZOOM ZOOMIES!!!!!!!! ZOOMER GOING ZOOMIES!!!!
AHGHGH
I FUCKING HATE THE INTERNET SO GODDAMN MUCH
FUCK
YOU SHITPOST I HONEST TO GOD HOPE YOUR MOTHER CHOKES ON HER OWN FECES IN HELL YOU COCKSUCKER!!!!!
BUT OHHH I KNOW MY POST IS CRINGE ISNT IT??
CRINGE CRINGE CRINGR CRINGEY BASED CRINGE BASED LERMY LEMMR CRINGE ZOOM CRINGE ONIONS LEMMYR BASED BASED AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I don’t think there’s a significant number of people who believe in a specific simulation scenario the way so many people believe in a specific religion.
Sure, some dumb tech bros believe “i think we live in like, a simulation, dude”, which would correspond to “there must be some higher power out there for sure”. Both beliefs are irrational, but more likely than “the Matrix is real, just like in the movies” or “this specific codex got it all right and we should live our lives after the thousands of unclear moral teachings that can be extrapolated from it by untrustworthy human preachers”
I use the same estimation on the likelihood of vampires or the Norse gods, it’s an interesting thought and I can’t prove those things don’t exist (nor do I have to due to the burden of proof) but since we have no good reason to believe they’re true I don’t have to entertain the ideas.
That which is brought forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Ok, so you also don’t believe there’s any extraterrestrial life in the universe, right? And it’s as likely to exists as Norse gods? I mean, there’s no proof for it after all.
Aliens aren’t gods. If they exist, they’re life forms in some capacity similar to us. We know life can exist, since we do, so it stands to reason that since life exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about aliens conceptually requires anything that we don’t already have a scientific method for studying.
Now compare that to gods. Do we have visible or verifiable gods on earth? No, we have a lot of conflicting claims about gods from various belief systems. If we don’t have supernatural creatures/entities on earth, then there’s no reason to believe they exist anywhere else. Whether that’s Pluto or five galaxies away.
You made the exactly same false equivalence between gods and computer simulations. That was my point.
"We know simulations can exist, since we simulate things, so it stands to reason that since simulations exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about simulations conceptually requires anything that we don’t already have a scientific method for. "
Simulating entire world only requites different computational scale which we also know is possible because we keep improving our computational capabilities.
“We know simulations can exist, since we simulate things, so it stands to reason that since simulations exists on earth that it could exist somewhere else. Nothing about simulations conceptually requires anything that we don’t already have a scientific method for.”
This is still a false equivalence. The only way this argument works as a foil to mine is if we had already created a computer simulated universe where simulated individuals were convinced it was the real world. Under those circumstances we would have to accept that ours is possibly the same. Since we have no such technology we can’t say for sure if it’s even possible to emulate a sapient being in a computer, it’s not just “time and computational power” as you suggest.
Meanwhile the animals that prove life can exist on at least one world are walking through my apartment right now and give direct observable and testable evidence that life can evolve. Under that assessment based on observation and the knowledge of how many other worlds there are, we have no additional leaps in logic to believe in alien life. No further technology or understanding is required.
However, you have to assume that it’s possible to emulate a feeling, thinking entity as computer code to make your claim. We don’t know if that’s even possible, which is why it’s the same as suggesting a god of some variety. You’re basing your entire argument on something we haven’t yet proven to be real, and your claim that it’s “just a matter of time and computer resources” is flimsy as hell.
Come back when Alicization from Sword Art Online exists, and then we’ll talk.
Yes, I agree but you see the difference between computer simulation of a single planet (you don’t have to simulate the entire universe to simulate our civilization) and Norse Gods, right? You see how one is fairly reasonable extrapolation of our current capabilities and the other is fantasy? Of course we don’t know if it’s possible to create a conscious, intelligent being in a computer but we also don’t know what actually makes as conscious and intelligent so we can’t say it’s definitely not possible. Similarly we don’t know exactly how life on earth originated (complex life even less so) so we don’t know how probable it it’s it exists in other places. Simulation theory is definitely more similar to extraterrestrial life than Norse Gods. And when it comes to it’s probability we simply don’t know.
We have no evidence about either and both are non-falsifiable
Living in a simulation is one idea. Each individual religion is a whole bunch of assumptions rolled into one system.
Therefore “we live in a simulation” is just as likely as “there’s some higher power”, while “the Matrix is a documentary, everything will happen exactly like in the movie” is as likely as “the Christian god is real, just as described in the bible”.
We have plenty of evidence that were just a “random” assortment of atoms following natural laws. We see those laws around us everywhere. We manipulate them to build crazy things. We have no evidence were anything BUT that.
One is obviously made-up by ancient peoples who knew fuck-all about the world, but insists it’s eternal truth beyond debate. Even the parts that contradict the other parts.
The other is an openly hypothetical idea based on what we expect is just beyond our current capabilities… and it relies on that we’re-just-atoms materialism.
Makes me miss my old roommate, who didn’t believe in God but believed this all could be a simulation. Hope you’re doing well buddy, wherever the fuck you’ve wandered!
Add comment