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.
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
There’s an argument that because some of the physical limits we see around entropy density (due to singularities) are proportional to the area of a sphere around the volume, together with math indicating it’s possible to translate physics in a 3D volume to a 2D surface, the whole universe might be a projection from the 2D surface of a sphere
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 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.
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”
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!)
EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something...
But it doesn’t necessarily show if they have common sense. If you have many low complexity problems then maybe, but it can’t predict the best performers
Or IPFS. The issue in this context is that bittorrent would treat each version as a unique collection of files and you can’t combine seeding of redundant files. IPFS has much better means to handle updates.
Even with standard components, you’re still dealing with a wide variety of different sized city blocks with different types of buildings and industries, different grid layouts, etc. You also have to plan for potential future changes in load. Even if you have a large part you can copy-paste you still need to check all requirements and design the interconnections
Without predictions and without tangible models you don’t have falsifiability. You unintentionally acknowledged my point without understanding it. The field isn’t a science, just philosophy trying to explain the results from actual sciences, but didn’t itself have any kind of proof of validity.
Your example is much more closely related to neurology and neuropsychology.
alt textFirst panel: [blank white space with black text] Jogging from the perspective of animals Second panel: Wolf by a tree looking at a man jogging. “What are you running from, apex predator” Third panel: Wolf: “Are you chasing prey?” “You need to conserve energy” Last panel: [second wolf peeking in] “The hell...
It doesn’t make you anonymous. Torrent protocol wasn’t designed with anonymity in mind and there are a million ways you’re going to leak your actual IP address....
Your scenario would specifically require the cops to ask their techs for a detailed report and then deliberately lie about it’s conclusions to attack completely random people, and just FYI the last few rounds of this happened when public WiFi was new and the cops kept losing so badly in courts that this doesn’t really happen much anymore. You don’t even need a great lawyer, just an average one who can find the precedence.
There’s no “additional fingerprints” of relevance binding any node in a tunnel to the communications in the tunnel. It uses PFS and multiple layers of encryption (tunnels within tunnels). They need to run a debugger against their node to have any chance to really argue that a specific packet came from a specific node, which also would ironically simultaneously prove that node didn’t actually know and was just a blind relay (just like how mailmen aren’t liable for content of packages they deliver).
Your argument is literally being used to argue that nobody should have privacy because those who don’t break laws don’t need it, yet you yourself are arguing for why we still need privacy if we haven’t broken laws. The collateral damage when such tools aren’t available is so much greater than when privacy tools are available. One of the greatest successes of Signal is how its popularity makes each of its users part of a “haystack” (large anonymity set) and targeting individual users just for using it is infeasible, protecting endless numbers of minorities and other at-risk individuals.
In addition, it’s extremely rare that mass surveillance like spying on network traffic leads to prosecutions. It’s usually infiltration that works, so you running an I2P node will make zero difference.
Eminem concert (lemmy.world)
Ancient wisdom often sounds like common sense now that it is commomly taught. What is some ancient wisdom that we no longer teach because it was wrong?
This question inspired by this post..
What is a nifty little feature modern gadgets have lost? (lemmy.world)
For me it’s the notification light you used to find on older phones, was particularly good to know if your phone was charged without picking it up
Both beliefs are fine, but please realize the hypocrisy (sh.itjust.works)
What is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?
EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something...
The state of open source SMS messagers
With simple messager selling out & qksms no longer being actively worked on. What’s our options for open source sms messagers?...
India blocks GitHub, after lobbying done by copyright trolls (torrentfreak.com)
Who cares if nobody can work, the important is that those illegal streams are blocked
Henry Kissinger, America’s Most Notorious War Criminal, Dies At 100 (www.huffpost.com)
Everytime (lemmy.ml)
Those of you with lesser-known types of jobs...what do you do?
Also, how did you get into it, and what sort of education or certifications (if any) did you need?...
Heh (sh.itjust.works)
Get gud (lemmy.zip)
"Jogging From the Perspective of Animals" by Jake Likes Onions (files.mastodon.social)
alt textFirst panel: [blank white space with black text] Jogging from the perspective of animals Second panel: Wolf by a tree looking at a man jogging. “What are you running from, apex predator” Third panel: Wolf: “Are you chasing prey?” “You need to conserve energy” Last panel: [second wolf peeking in] “The hell...
qBittorrent 4.6 launches with I2P support - gHacks Tech News (www.ghacks.net)
PSA: Don't torrent over TOR (tor.stackexchange.com)
It doesn’t make you anonymous. Torrent protocol wasn’t designed with anonymity in mind and there are a million ways you’re going to leak your actual IP address....