(September 23, 2013 at 5:04 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(September 23, 2013 at 8:57 am)Walking Void Wrote: My reasoning against a digital reality is simply from observing our own computers. Could an omniversal computer lack errors? Downtime? Our reality seems so much smoother than a digitally managed reality. While it is nice to relate, the hypothesis is not an observable fact or testable experiment.I don't even go that far.
It is just as stupid as claiming a god with the same types of problems as any naked assertion.
You have to go beyond laymen speculation first off. Secondly it would also imply a cognition to write that "simulation". And it would also have the problem of infinite regress.
(September 23, 2013 at 9:20 am)max-greece Wrote: Chill out ABBA dude.
Its not a religion and in this case it feels neither good nor bad. Its just a possibility that is being investigated. We'll know sooner or later and if the universe is analogue that's fine. If its digital there are implications is all.
Oh - and no-one's selling anything here either. Its just evaluating the universe we live in and trying to understand it. It may be a wrong turning - there have been many, but those are as interesting and useful and taking the right path, another side-street eliminated from our mapless hunt.
So? This is how all good cons start. Does anyone seriously think for example cryogenics is real science? It is garbage, just like this is garbage.
No the universe is not a computer program, period. No amount of dressing it up in si fi woo is going to make such absurd speculation true.
I was not implying that this was a simulation by a computer, but whether or not everything that I do is based in 1s and 0s, if ultimate reality was really right there all along, in something we developed ages ago, mathematics.
