(December 15, 2012 at 12:29 pm)Ben Davis Wrote:

(December 15, 2012 at 11:13 am)TaraJo Wrote: http://www.inquisitr.com/437451/our-univ...ew-theory/

Erm... I think I'm reading it wrong. Did they really say that 'if we can simulate our universe then our universe must be a simulation, itself'?

It would increase the odds that our universe is a simulation, since we will know it is possible for our universe to be a simulation, but it won't mean our universe is necessarily a simulation.

It occurs to me that there must be a lower boundary to iterations of simulated universes, due to computing power not being unlimited, and that the last iteration would not be able to simulate a universe with sufficient fidelity to be 'as real' as their own, so not being able to simulate a universe would not signify that we are not ourselves in a simulated universe.

---

(December 16, 2012 at 4:39 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No we are not a computer simulation. I really hate this crap. What the fuck bothers humans about nature not needing a cognitive hand?

Star Trek superstition is no fucking different than God/Allah/Yahweh crap.

This postulation is simply new age woo in the same stupid anthropomorphism as the superstitious crap in the past.

If our universe is simulated, that does no imply that we are designed. We would as likely just be something that happened when someone programmed in the basic parameters and hit 'run universe'.

Not that I accept the hypothesis as likely without more evidence.

If its a testable hypothosis why not test it?
if only to rule it out.

(December 17, 2012 at 1:18 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: If its a testable hypothosis why not test it?
if only to rule it out.

I don't see it as testable because there is no falsifiability. Success of simulations on our part does not imply that our universe is simulated and the failure does not prove that it is not.

(December 17, 2012 at 1:29 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 1:18 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: If its a testable hypothosis why not test it?
if only to rule it out.

I don't see it as testable because there is no falsifiability. Success of simulations on our part does not imply that our universe is simulated and the failure does not prove that it is not.

But it may point to falsifiability.

And it would be cool.

(December 17, 2012 at 1:29 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 1:18 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: If its a testable hypothosis why not test it?
if only to rule it out.

I don't see it as testable because there is no falsifiability. Success of simulations on our part does not imply that our universe is simulated and the failure does not prove that it is not.

Holly crap, this is completely flawed logic, even when an atheist uses it.

"Prove it isn't true"

Ok

Prove to me I am not getting a hummer right now from Angelina Jolie. Since you cannot see me right now, and she is real and I am real it must be true because I claimed it.

The ability to string a sentence together doesn't prove a damned thing otherwise my example would be true.

Every simulation created with finite resources has it's limitations, for example granularity, abrupt behavioral departure, etc. If we find that our universe behave in a way that is similar to behaviors caused by resource or algorithm limitation of a simulation, and we articulate what that those limitations might be, then we might say we have evidence, not proof, that the universe could be a simulation.

I have wondered whether quantum effects are in fact the manifestation of flaws in a simulation program.

(December 17, 2012 at 1:33 pm)Chuck Wrote: Every simulation created with finite resources has it's limitations, for example granularity, abrupt behavioral departure, etc. If we find that our universe behave in a way that is similar to behaviors caused by resource or algorithm limitation of a simulation, and we articulate what that those limitations might be, then we might say we have evidence, not proof, that the universe could be a simulation.

I have wondered whether quantum effects are in fact the manifestation of flaws in a simulation program.

"simulation" IMPLIES a cognition. A COGNITION IS NOT REQUIRED for the universe to exist therefore IT CANNOT BE A SIMULATION, anymore than a hurricane is a "simulation"

Damn it this crap gives me jock itch. Why the fuck does anyone feel the need to interject any kind of "thought" being the starting point? If you seriously believe this "could be" a simulation then you might as well believe in the old myths of antiquity too. This is just the si fi version of deluded crap in the flawed perception that we need something rather being the result of a non thinking process.

(December 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "simulation" IMPLIES a cognition. A COGNITION IS NOT REQUIRED for the universe to exist therefore IT CANNOT BE A SIMULATION, anymore than a hurricane is a "simulation"

That Cognition is not KNOWN TO BE REQUIRED for the universe to exist does not mean, therefore, cognition CAN NOT actually be an agent for the existence of the part of universe we are familiar with.

(December 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "simulation" IMPLIES a cognition. A COGNITION IS NOT REQUIRED for the universe to exist therefore IT CANNOT BE A SIMULATION, anymore than a hurricane is a "simulation"

That Cognition is not KNOWN TO BE REQUIRED for the universe to exist does not mean, therefore, cognition CAN NOT actually be an agent for the existence of the part of universe we are familiar with.

BULLSHIT, please do not step into any lab with that attitude.

I can't rule out pink unicorns existing on the other side of the universe either. But I am not going to waste my time postulating it because I cant disprove it.

If ifs and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.

(December 17, 2012 at 1:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm)Chuck Wrote: That Cognition is not KNOWN TO BE REQUIRED for the universe to exist does not mean, therefore, cognition CAN NOT actually be an agent for the existence of the part of universe we are familiar with.

BULLSHIT, please do not step into any lab with that attitude.

I can't rule out pink unicorns existing on the other side of the universe either. But I am not going to waste my time postulating it because I cant disprove it.

If ifs and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.

Your cognition is inadequate for your pronouncements to be worth the bandwidth they squat upon.

Please farmilarize yourself with the difference between theory and "ifs" and "butts" before posturing didactically again.