Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[The Grand Nudger]

Although to some extent we formed opinion of how reality works by classical physics, the idea of a reality that seems to abide by some of the principles of computer science (think 1s and 0s), it seems, is a relatively new one.

It's one of the newer iterations of an age old proposition, yeah.

Additionally, "a decisive refutation of any claim that our reality is computer-simulated would be the discovery of some uncomputable physics, because if reality is doing something that no computer can do, it cannot be a computer simulation.

If reality is doing something that no computer -could do-...not -can do-. No computer that we know of -can- create such a sim (so ...I suppose, refutation supplied). In the hypothetical, there's a computer beefy enough to manufacture our reality in toto (somehow). What such a refutation asks for, in effect, is an example of reality doing something that is illogical. Mostly because computers are logic abstracting machines, anything that can be handled logically is something that a computer -could do-. "Un-computable physics" does not mean that -we- are not able to compute them (any more than we're looking for what a computer can rather than could do)......but that they are fundamentally not subject to computation.

Any "decisive refutation" that rests upon ignorance or the unknown unknown is unsatisfying to me.....but an example of something non logical (or unable to be expressed as such) would definitely be a decisive refutation of a whole hell of alot - the least of which simulated reality. It all sounds incredibly non-falsifiable, and I have to ask, if we have in our hands such a refutation (the existence of something that cannot be handled by logic, by algorithm, a non-computable, the truly unknown unknowable)- why should we trust any logical argument surrounding it or expounding upon it, and more disturbingly...how would we actually "know" that we had such an example in the first place? The refutation would immediately argue against itself (ineffectively, as it argues against arguing..lol)

With all of that said, why would that have anything to do with intelligent design? The airplane/albatross claim will -have- to be made at some point...won't it?

(yeah, it happens, interests bleed over across multiple threads, I could also make the sim claim but from an entirely different angle than "intelligent design" - I'm a comp mind junkie. I'd tell you that what you perceive to be your external reality -is- a sim, created by your sensory apparatus and brain - which, at it's core, is neither intelligent - nor designed, which handily answers why sims and reality appear to share attributes even more specifically than the nature of the sims construction - ie, a sim -could be- constructed which does not have any similarity.....but it wouldn't be very useful to us, as we expect and leverage data of a particular sort - the sort that we program/build into our machine sims and the sort that our biological sim runs on to begin with.)