Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Do we live in a self-simulating universe ?


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

I can support it, but everything I say is discredited and rejected by you and a few others.

Not with scientific evidence you can't.

 

9 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

No, I accuse You of bias, because You attack, discredit and reject an idea that You hate, in a very unscientific way. There is no real discussion going on, only ridicule and disgust from your side.

An idea that is unscientific.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It might seem like you get a hard time sometimes, but I like your posting. I don't always agree but you bring good discussion to the table.

Thanks, yours too.

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's why ID proponents tend to identify with it do well I would assume. It's their method to rely on faith.

If you're referring to Christians and other religious people, they hate the idea, because there's no room for their holy god in it.

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

One does not start with a conclusion and then look for evidence.

Maybe it's time I brought up my initial approach to this hypothesis. I did not start with a conclusion. I was looking for possible explanations to the collapse of the wave function. It was the most logical solution to that problem. I did not just pick it up, and started looking for evidence. In fact, the first six months or so, after being introduced to it, I tried all I could to debunk it.
It is still the most logical explanation to duality, if quantum mechanics is causal. And why shouldn't it be? The whole universe is causal.
In case you're wondering, how it technically fits to the hypothesis, it is equal to video rendering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would first like to apologise to you. In the course of our correspondence, I have become increasingly defensive-aggressive, and that is not who I want to be. Sorry!

 

12 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Not with scientific evidence you can't.

An idea that is unscientific.

It depends how you look at the evidence. When many physicists look at duality, they see superdeterminism. Others refuse to interpret it.
Finding graphical error correcting codes in supersymmetry equations, is harder to ignore and dismiss. Some do it anyway.
The speed-limit of the universe is also easy to dismiss, but you normally only find such limitations in a computer system.
Then there's the fine-tuned universe, as previously mentioned.
There's also the holographic principle, that leans towards it.
The Wigner's friend experiment.

It's piling up. But ok, you are entitled to your interpretation about the evidence. I just don't think it's fair, that I'm not entitled to mine.

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

It depends how you look at the evidence.

Cut the ****.  It either satisfies the scientific method or it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even the scientific method is subject to individual biases. Since how an individual will describe a hypothesis, or collect data, or analyze the data, will very by individual.

The more people involved, the more balanced any scientific activity will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Cut the ****.  It either satisfies the scientific method or it doesn't.

With the scientific method, the hypothesis is not the starting point, but a possible answer. Like the approach I had four years ago.

Let's have a look, shall we?

Observation: Wave-particle duality.
Question: Why does light and matter behave like that?
Hypothesis: Could it be superdeterminism or graphics rendering?
Experiment: Delayed choice eraser. More to come.
Analysis: Wave collapse seems to be caused by the observers.
Conclusion: Shut up and calculate. (Superdeterminism or graphics rendering are possible answers.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

With the scientific method, the hypothesis is not the starting point, but a possible answer. Like the approach I had four years ago.

Let's have a look, shall we?

Observation: Wave-particle duality.
Question: Why does light and matter behave like that?
Hypothesis: Could it be superdeterminism or graphics rendering?
Experiment: Delayed choice eraser. More to come.
Analysis: Wave collapse seems to be caused by the observers.
Conclusion: Shut up and calculate. (Superdeterminism or graphics rendering are possible answers.)

No we've already been over this, you don't even have a damn hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

No we've already been over this, you don't even have a damn hypothesis.

So you're on Team Shut-up-and-calculate? You refuse to interpret it? That's alright.

Btw - Superdeterminism is also unfalsifiable and not a hypothesis, by your standards. Yet many scientists point to it, as the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

So you're on Team Shut-up-and-calculate? You refuse to interpret it? That's alright.

Btw - Superdeterminism is also unfalsifiable and not a hypothesis, by your standards. Yet many scientists point to it, as the answer.

Still refuse to acknowledge what a scientific hypothesis is then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Still refuse to acknowledge what a scientific hypothesis is then?

I acknowledge the doctrine, but I'm not limited by it. Looks like many scientists think the same way, because using unfalsifiable proposals is part of the scientific wiggle room / debate.

Lucky for us, you're not calling the shots in science, or the community would have a lot less to discuss and investigate.

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 5/9/2020 at 12:32 PM, sci-nerd said:

I acknowledge the doctrine, but I'm not limited by it. Looks like many scientists think the same way, because using unfalsifiable proposals is part of the scientific wiggle room / debate.

Lucky for us, you're not calling the shots in science, or the community would have a lot less to discuss and investigate.

There is quite a bit of superdeterministic fundamentalism out there. It’s been an interesting observation over the years to watch how passionately the it is held on to. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.