Scientific Proof that Life is Real

[Outrider]

On 11/26/2017 at 6:10 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

I want to see papers and journal articles on the nature of reality.  Otherwise all this research into space and time travel is merely research into how the sim works

Well you certainly have spent an inordinate amount of time critiquing others posts and very little discussing the articles that were asked for and were given.

Heres another. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/

Quote

And there are other reasons to think we might be virtual. For instance, the more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical laws. Perhaps that is not a given, but a function of the nature of the universe we are living in. “If I were a character in a computer game, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical,” said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “That just reflects the computer code in which it was written.”

Please let us know what you think.

Oh and just for fun heres a flash fiction story on the subject.

Everyone please read its really short and more interesting (so far) than this thread. 

http://dailysciencefiction.com/science-fiction/virtual-reality/philip-apps/the-no-sick-box

[3____344340095e33-2]

On 2017-11-29 at 10:53 AM, Silvestru said:

You just select the paragraph that you want to quote and a small option should appear "Quote this"

Hey... great.. intelligent life!  Someone who is not a jackass and knows how to tell people what they didn't know nor see on any other website!  I learned how to quote!  Can you now teach me how to date women?  I am near the end of my life, almost a grandpa and still never dated

On 2017-12-01 at 4:52 PM, Outrider said:

Well you certainly have spent an inordinate amount of time critiquing others posts and very little discussing the articles that were asked for and were given.

 

"certainly" used the way you are using it is probably a remnant of you having seen it elsewhere and is often a means of insult and passive-aggresiveness.  A less aggressive phrase would have been "have you read what was linked?".  Simple and succinct.  I haven't clicked on any links as I was hoping that the rest of you have had decades of time to peruse all of this stuff and be so well versed in it that you'd have an answer on the ready.  Kinda how after a few years in the Interent's core I can on a napkin describe to you where the oceanic underwater cables are and what boats laid them and what satelites delivered this post to North Korea.  So please do not tell me words like "inordinate" for you are being rude and a bullying person.  If you have read all of this and can explain simply, then do so.  Otherwise you are nowhere close to a scientist and are merely wasting everyone's time with your style of writing and responding.  If you ask a Calculus expert what a derivative is, they can explain in 5 minutes, instead of giving you 500 textbooks to peruse, right?

What's the answer?  I am not a scientist.  Hence me asking you the experts.  If you don't know, it's fine.  So far all I've seen is a bunch of pretentious people saying "it's impossible to prove", or "there is no answer".  But nobody has explained properly why.  So I conclude nobody has investigated properly.  At the best I didn't see any scientific peer reviewed journal links yet.  If this issue was seriously considered there should have been a thousand papers by now.  So either nobody is smart enough, or you all are either scared or really frakking oppressed.

[Silvestru]

1 hour ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

Can you now teach me how to date women?  I am near the end of my life, almost a grandpa and still never dated

From my perspective, It's pretty risky and complicated but I can give you 2 tips: You should first be aware of the female's mating season and keep your rivals away by vocalizing and sometimes resorting to aggression. You just wing it from there. 

Quote

The mating system of bears has variously been described as a form of polygyny, promiscuity and serial monogamy. During the breeding season, males take notice of females in their vicinity and females become more tolerant of males. A male bear may visit a female continuously over a period of several days or weeks, depending on the species, to test her reproductive state. During this time period, males try to prevent rivals from interacting with their mate. Courtship may be brief, although in some Asian species, courting pairs may engage in wrestling, hugging, mock fighting and vocalizing. Ovulation is induced by mating, which can last up to 30 minutes depending on the species.

Someone else should pitch in regarding women.

Also if you have doubt or if you think I am ridiculous by saying that I am a bear, please take note that you are proposing the idea that we are a computer simulation or augmented reality and that none of us are "real".  By my standards you are higher than me.   ⊂(￣(ｴ)￣)⊃

[Strange]

1 hour ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

So far all I've seen is a bunch of pretentious people saying "it's impossible to prove", or "there is no answer".  But nobody has explained properly why.

I thought you had accepted my explanation. But never mind.

But other people have posted posted information about experiments that claim to be able to answer the question. But feel free to ignore that as well.

1 hour ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

At the best I didn't see any scientific peer reviewed journal links yet.

I don't think this is a scientific question. It is a philosophical one. I don't think philosophy does peer review (I might be wrong).

1 hour ago, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

So either nobody is smart enough, or you all are either scared or really frakking oppressed.

Yeah, right. Or maybe people don't really care. Or they are pissed off that you have ignored the many helpful replies you have received, and continue to throw insults around. I dunno, man.

[Outrider]

On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

 I haven't clicked on any links

Then why did you ask for "papers and journal articles"?

 

On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

I was hoping that the rest of you have had decades of time to peruse all of this stuff 

Oh I have had decades but I chose to persue other things.

On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

If you ask a Calculus expert what a derivative is, they can explain in 5 minutes, instead of giving you 500 textbooks to peruse, right?

The difference between that and the question you asked is vast.

On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

So I conclude nobody has investigated properly.  

Yes they have the wiki page has an outstanding overview of those investigations and lots of references to scholarly articles some of which are peer reviewed. 

On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

 I haven't clicked on any links

Then why did you ask for "papers and journal articles"?

 

On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

I was hoping that the rest of you have had decades of time to peruse all of this stuff 

Oh I have had decades but I chose to persue other things.

On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

If you ask a Calculus expert what a derivative is, they can explain in 5 minutes, instead of giving you 500 textbooks to peruse, right?

The difference between that and the question you asked is vast.

On 12/4/2017 at 9:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

So I conclude nobody has investigated properly.  

Yes they have the wiki page has an outstanding overview of those investigations and lots of references to scholarly articles some of which are peer reviewed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

Go read and come back and tell us what you think. Please.

No one is going to do it for you.

[Phi for All]

On 12/4/2017 at 8:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

If you ask a Calculus expert what a derivative is, they can explain in 5 minutes, instead of giving you 500 textbooks to peruse, right?

Wrong, actually. The expert could explain it to another expert (or someone with a fairly solid mathematical education) in 5 minutes. If they gave the same explanation to someone without the requisite knowledge, it would take the same 5 minutes, plus an indeterminate amount of time for each question the expert explanation creates in the mind of the math neophyte. Does that make sense, that you need a certain amount of knowledge to be able to follow a more sophisticated argument?

[Strange]

To put that another way, they could explain it in 5 minutes but you wouldn't really understand what a derivative was. At best you might have grasped some useful (but not completely accurate) analogies and have a rough idea of why it is useful.

If you did an introductory course (over several weeks or months) you would understand a lot more (you wouldn't need 500 books, just one good one). But you still wouldn't understand everything.You could take several years doing a PhD and then do a decade of post-doc research and I suspect you still wouldn't understand it completely.

[beecee]

On 12/5/2017 at 2:41 AM, 3____344340095e33-2 said:

What's the answer?  I am not a scientist.  Hence me asking you the experts.  If you don't know, it's fine.  So far all I've seen is a bunch of pretentious people saying "it's impossible to prove", or "there is no answer".  But nobody has explained properly why.  So I conclude nobody has investigated properly.  At the best I didn't see any scientific peer reviewed journal links yet.  If this issue was seriously considered there should have been a thousand papers by now.  So either nobody is smart enough, or you all are either scared or really frakking oppressed.

Your question/s and your replies to those questions, in my opinion, illustrate why Professor Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and others are correct in their assumptions that Philosophy has had its day. In summing Krauss suggests that philosophers are threatened by real science because science is a discipline in eternal progress while philosophy appears stagnant. 

His book "A Universe from Nothing" answers one of those eternally philosophical questions quite well in my opinion, while philosophy still dithers and dathers, in my opinion of course. 

Are we a simulation? I don't believe so. Can we prove we are or are not, part of a simulation? Science observes and conducts experiments, and models accordingly. These models/theories grow in certainty and stature over time, and as they continue to make successful predictions and align with what we observe. The theory of evolution of life is of course certain. The theories of the BB, SR and GR are all near certain and still growing in that certainty...Yet none tell us the how, or the why, or any deep underlying reality or truth. Proof and deep reality are incidental in my opinion, and may never be known in actual fact, but by the same token, if our application of the scientific method, enables us to one day reveal this "deep reality" all well and good...if not, so be it. 

Apologies if my post in part seems rather philosophical.