Hypothesis discrimination?

[QuantumT]

Is science scientific, when it favors one hypothesis over another, even if they have an equal "lack of evidence"?

If we take the example of sting theory. It has gained the title 'theory', despite the lack of evidence, and it's discussed widely and openly in the scientific community.

But a hypothesis saying we are simulated is frowned upon, and any discussion is quickly silenced, by demanding evidence.
Evidence that is not demanded from string "theory"!
When such evidence is presented, it is dismissed as moot.

Is the scientific community discriminating between hypotheses, and thereby abandoning its core principles in favor of physicalism?
Are most scientists cowards, clinging to a physical reality?

[John Cuthber]

It is perfectly reasonable for science to favour a hypothesis which has (potentially) predictive utility and is testable.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, QuantumT said:

But a hypothesis saying we are simulated is frowned upon, and any discussion is quickly silenced, by demanding evidence.
Evidence that is not demanded from string "theory"!
When such evidence is presented, it is dismissed as moot.

I don’t think it is frowned upon particularly. I have seen a few scientific papers on the subject. 

I don’t know what evidence you think there is, or could be, for it. 

As far as I can see, it is unfalsifiable by definition. Arguments in favour of it have all started with an assumption of what a simulated universe would be like. In other words, they rely on the fallacy of begging the question. 

You might as well waste your time on Last Thursdayism or solipsism. 

[StringJunky]

11 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Is science scientific, when it favors one hypothesis over another, even if they have an equal "lack of evidence"?

If we take the example of sting theory. It has gained the title 'theory', despite the lack of evidence, and it's discussed widely and openly in the scientific community.

But a hypothesis saying we are simulated is frowned upon, and any discussion is quickly silenced, by demanding evidence.
Evidence that is not demanded from string "theory"!
When such evidence is presented, it is dismissed as moot.

Is the scientific community discriminating between hypotheses, and thereby abandoning its core principles in favor of physicalism?
Are most scientists cowards, clinging to a physical reality?

As Strange says, simulation is not falsifiable. ST is an act of faith, it seems, atm but it is falsifiable. The simple fact is, ST has brains like Edward Witten on it, which gives it some creedence by virtue of their solid reputation in other endeavors in the field that were successful. It's bleeding edge stuff. They'll drop it if it looks like it won't come up with the goods.

Edited August 21, 2019 by StringJunky

[MigL]

String theory is an attempt at modelling our reality as per the scientific method, and is subject to all the constraints of said method.

In simulation, however, our reality IS the model in someone else's reality.
IOW you could call simulation a theory in that other reality, but not in ours.
We ( and our reality ) would simply be the model.

IE not the same thing at all.

Edited August 21, 2019 by MigL

[Sensei]

15 hours ago, QuantumT said:

But a hypothesis saying we are simulated is frowned upon, and any discussion is quickly silenced, by demanding evidence.

Let me check the source code. Oh, it is because of these lines of code:

if( person.think.equals( "world is simulation" ) && !person.isGodMode() ) {
   person.think.inject( "world is not simulation" );
   person.think.inject( "reject" );
}

 

[QuantumT]

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It is perfectly reasonable for science to favour a hypothesis which has (potentially) predictive utility and is testable.

Since when is ST testable, and when has it predicted anything?

9 hours ago, Strange said:

I don’t know what evidence you think there is, or could be, for it. 

It depends on how you choose to look at the evidence. If you are biased against the concept, you will always choose to interpret the evidence as moot or invalid.

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

As Strange says, simulation is not falsifiable.

I would argue that evidence of a mirror universe (or a multiverse) is as good as disproving a simulated reality. So it's not completely unfalsifiable.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

In simulation, however, our reality IS the model in someone else's reality.

I respectfully disagree. In someone else's reality we are nothing but a gimmick.
The goal of science is to understand our reality. Not any higher reality, just ours.

 

I can see that some people has downvoted my OP. I find that sad and disturbing.
Isn't science about scrutiny and skepticism? Isn't it the scientific method to criticize?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Isn't it the scientific method to criticize?

No, it's to question and you aren't...

 

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, it's to question and you aren't...

Criticize and question are synonyms. It looks like you are making this personal, by attacking my approach, for no good reason.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Criticize and question are synonyms.

In what universe?

[Sensei]

Just now, QuantumT said:

Criticize and question are synonyms. It looks like you are making this personal, by attacking my approach, for no good reason.

In the OP, you called scientists "cowards", when you could downgrade it to "scientists are afraid of losing respect of colleagues and end up as crackpot scientist".. Like everybody else, they want their career to grow up, and want to be famous in scientific community. Controversial hypothesis and theories could stop their career.

[swansont]

16 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Is science scientific, when it favors one hypothesis over another, even if they have an equal "lack of evidence"?

If we take the example of sting theory. It has gained the title 'theory', despite the lack of evidence, and it's discussed widely and openly in the scientific community.

There's an adage that anything that attaches "theory" to the end isn't actually a theory.

Anyway, over what hypothesis is string theory being favored? 

16 hours ago, QuantumT said:

But a hypothesis saying we are simulated is frowned upon, and any discussion is quickly silenced, by demanding evidence.

Is that anywhere close to being on the same level of model as string theory?

 

16 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Evidence that is not demanded from string "theory"!
When such evidence is presented, it is dismissed as moot.

Evidence is demanded. The inability to test string theory is one of the biggest objections to it.

 

16 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Is the scientific community discriminating between hypotheses, and thereby abandoning its core principles in favor of physicalism?

Is either one of these considered mainstream, as in "it's being taught as solutions to fundamental issues of physics in university textbooks"?

 

16 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Are most scientists cowards, clinging to a physical reality?

Betteridge's Law of Headlines is still holding.

47 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I would argue that evidence of a mirror universe (or a multiverse) is as good as disproving a simulated reality. So it's not completely unfalsifiable.

Why would one be unable to simulate them, if one assumes we are in a simulation?

[Phi for All]

59 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I can see that some people has downvoted my OP. I find that sad and disturbing.
Isn't science about scrutiny and skepticism? Isn't it the scientific method to criticize?

 I found it sad and disturbing and really hypocritical that you called a whole group of people "cowards", right after criticizing their objectivity and adherence to the scientific method. I don't know about the other downvote you got, but mine was because you made your criticism personal.

45 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

It looks like you are making this personal, by attacking my approach, for no good reason.

Maybe it's just me, but when I find myself using the words "for no good reason", it means I didn't bother to look very hard for one.

[QuantumT]

47 minutes ago, Sensei said:

In the OP, you called scientists "cowards", when you could downgrade it to "scientists are afraid of losing respect of colleagues and end up as crackpot scientist".. Like everybody else, they want their career to grow up, and want to be famous in scientific community. Controversial hypothesis and theories could stop their career.

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 I found it sad and disturbing and really hypocritical that you called a whole group of people "cowards", right after criticizing their objectivity and adherence to the scientific method. I don't know about the other downvote you got, but mine was because you made your criticism personal.

You are right. My choice of word could have been better.

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is that anywhere close to being on the same level of model as string theory?

It is, if you take the dive and fully investigate it seriously.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why would one be unable to simulate them, if one assumes we are in a simulation?

It's not a question of ability, but of necessity. It would be totally unnecessary, and make no sense.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

I would argue that evidence of a mirror universe (or a multiverse) is as good as disproving a simulated reality. So it's not completely unfalsifiable.

 

ST and multiverse theories are attempts to solve problems of the day. Simulated reality solves nothing at this point in time. Simulated reality implies a reality outside of our own and god-like consciousness to create/control it. It's essentially a religious concept with modern details..

Edited August 21, 2019 by StringJunky

[QuantumT]

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

ST and multiverse theories are attempts to solve problems of the day. Simulated reality solves nothing at this point in time.

In my humble opinion it solves a lot, including:

- "universe from nothing".
- duality and nonlocality.
- the arrow of time.
- the dimensionless constants.
- dark matter and energy.

Edited August 21, 2019 by QuantumT

[Strange]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

It depends on how you choose to look at the evidence. If you are biased against the concept, you will always choose to interpret the evidence as moot or invalid.

Then it isn’t objective (scientific) evidence. 

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I would argue that evidence of a mirror universe (or a multiverse) is as good as disproving a simulated reality. So it's not completely unfalsifiable.

Why? There is no reason to assume the simulation would not include them. 

You can invent whatever rules you want for the simulation so that any piece of “evidence” either confirms or contradicts it. 

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Controversial hypothesis and theories could stop their career.

Or make it. 

59 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

It's not a question of ability, but of necessity. It would be totally unnecessary, and make no sense.

No sense to you. But perhaps perfect sense to the simulators. 

If you are going to use that argument, then I might say it makes little sense to simulate a universe that relies on quantum effects or even relativity. Why not simulate a classical, Newtonian universe. 

18 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

In my humble opinion it solves a lot, including:

- "universe from nothing".
- duality and nonlocality.
- the arrow of time.
- the dimensionless constants.
- dark matter and energy.

It only solves them by saying “why do these things exist?” “Because the simulators wanted it that way”. So not really any better than creationism (“goddidit”).

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Since when is ST testable, and when has it predicted anything?

Since January 2014

https://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

It depends on how you choose to look at the evidence. If you are biased against the concept, you will always choose to interpret the evidence as moot or invalid.

Can you give an example? This is exactly the sort of thing the scientific method would rule out in peer review. Personal bias is pretty easy to spot, and evidence usually doesn't have a lot of leeway in its interpretation.

[QuantumT]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It only solves them by saying “why do these things exist?” “Because the simulators wanted it that way”. So not really any better than creationism (“goddidit”).

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Can you give an example? This is exactly the sort of thing the scientific method would rule out in peer review. Personal bias is pretty easy to spot, and evidence usually doesn't have a lot of leeway in its interpretation.

Let me answer that with a thought "experiment".

Let's say duality was never discovered. No one ever thought of making the double slit experiment.
Then let's say that we did invent powerful Turing machines. Powerful enough to make "indistinguishable from life" graphics.
Then one day, a scientist suggests that reality could be run by a Turing machine, and the way to test that, would be to see if particles reacted to observation.
After many attempts they finally invent the double slit experiment, and indeed, they see that particles react to observation.

In that scenario, duality would be considered evidence of a simulated reality.

The only reason it's not, today, is because it was discovered too soon.

Edited August 21, 2019 by QuantumT

[Ghideon]

7 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Then one day, a scientist suggests that reality could be run by a Turing machine, and the way to test that, would be to see if particles reacted to observation.

Sorry, I don't follow. How would scientists be convinced that if particles are reacting to observation then that would be evidence for reality running in a Turing machine?

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Sorry, I don't follow. How would scientists be convinced that if particles are reacting to observation then that would be evidence for reality running in a Turing machine?

I'm sorry you can't see the logic in it. Scientists have many ways to test their theories. I sometimes find it hard to see their logic too.
I think it's a matter of axioms.

[Ghideon]

3 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I'm sorry you can't see the logic in it. Scientists have many ways to test their theories.

I'll try to apply your logic to see if I understand: 
Let's say around year 1900 someone comes up with a test to see if university have a creator. Computers are not invented yet so "creator" means god/designer/machine/other external party able to control reality. The proposed test is that if time is not running at the same speed for all observers in all frames of reference then that is evidence that someone else is running or controlling reality. In the scenario above evidence for special relativity must be interpreted as evidence for "god". Is this the same kind of scenario as yours?

[QuantumT]

31 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Is this the same kind of scenario as yours?

No. I just pushed the discovery of duality forward 100 years. Nothing else.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

Let me answer that with a thought "experiment". 

Let's say duality was never discovered. No one ever thought of making the double slit experiment.
Then let's say that we did invent powerful Turing machines. Powerful enough to make "indistinguishable from life" graphics.
Then one day, a scientist suggests that reality could be run by a Turing machine, and the way to test that, would be to see if particles reacted to observation.
After many attempts they finally invent the double slit experiment, and indeed, they see that particles react to observation. 

In that scenario, duality would be considered evidence of a simulated reality.

The only reason it's not, today, is because it was discovered too soon.

Simulations of particle collisions are done on daily basis at CERN. You can even download the software.

https://geant4.web.cern.ch/

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Sensei