Hypothesis discrimination?

[QuantumT]

Anyway, I just needed to get this off my chest. It has bugged me for a long time, that some theories are mistreated (in particular the one mentioned in this thread).

I don't think it deserves it. That was all I was trying to say. Sorry if I stepped on some toes.

And to make it clear: I am a proponent, but not a believer! Belief is not a part of my reality.

[koti]

21 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?

String Theory is attractive to many physicists mainly because gravity emerges from it as something inevitable and not a forced feature that has to be cramped in unsuccessfuly as in other attempts which try to mary QM and GR. This is the reason physicists pursue strings despite the fact that experimental data is more or less impossible to obtain at our current state of technology. I'm not familiar with the "we are simulated" or the Simulation Theory enough for that matter, what scientifically attractive features do these offer or at least what indirect signs they are giving us that theyre worth pursuing? 

PS. Elon Musk saying in an interview that „we just gotta live in a simulation, no question about it” doesn’t exactly do it for me  

Edited August 21, 2019 by koti

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

String Theory is attractive to many physicists mainly because gravity emerges from it as something inevitable and not a forced feature that has to be cramped in unsuccessfuly as in other attempts which try to mary QM and GR. This is the reason physicists pursue strings despite the fact that experimental data is more or less impossible to obtain at our current state of technology. I'm not familiar with the "we are simulated" or the Simulation Theory enough for that matter, what scientifically attractive features do these offer or at least what indirect signs they are giving us that theyre worth pursuing? 

Doesn't QFT do a better job?

The only reason that the simulation hypothesis is worth pursuing is that it eliminates all problems in physics elegantly.
Should a hypothesis be excluded because it's "too easy"?

[koti]

3 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Doesn't QFT do a better job?

The only reason that the simulation hypothesis is worth pursuing is that it eliminates all problems in physics elegantly.
Should a hypothesis be excluded because it's "too easy"?

I know you don’t think that but...God eliminates all problems in physics too doesn’t it?

Also keep in mind that strings is an old 60’s concept revised by E. Witten in 1994 with his M Theory. QFT is a newer theory kind of working on what string theorists developed. Simulation Theory is a totally new idea.

Edited August 21, 2019 by koti

[zapatos]

I suspect that the reason you see bias is because you have a bias toward 'Simulation Theory' and it doesn't get equal time with ideas such as String Theory. Similarly, if I think Trump can do no wrong (i.e. I am biased toward him), then I will tend to feel there is a bias in the press against him, and that people are suddenly demanding to see evidence that he really is doing a good thing for this country. Doesn't mean you are wrong, but it could explain why this bugs you so much.

[QuantumT]

Just now, koti said:

I know you don’t think that but...God eliminates all problems in physics too doesn’t it?

Dammit! I hate the God concept!

God, as the religious see him, is divine and eternal, and he does not need equipment!

The simulators are nothing like that!

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I suspect that the reason you see bias is because you have a bias toward 'Simulation Theory' and it doesn't get equal time with ideas such as String Theory. Similarly, if I think Trump can do no wrong (i.e. I am biased toward him), then I will tend to feel there is a bias in the press against him, and that people are suddenly demanding to see evidence that he really is doing a good thing for this country. Doesn't mean you are wrong, but it could explain why this bugs you so much.

Logic is my compass. So if I see logic, I know evidence will follow, sooner or later. In this case probably later.
But meanwhile I advocate.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Let me answer that with a thought "experiment".

That's the trouble with this hypothesis. You can come up with a thought experiment to justify any observation being support for a simulation. Or be a contradiction of simulation. That is the trouble with post-hoc rationalisations: they are not scientific.

If you could actually predict things that (a) could only be true in the case of a simulation and (b) could be tested, then you would have a scientific hypothesis. But (a) is impossible, so ...

 

23 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

That was all I was trying to say. Sorry if I stepped on some toes.

You haven't. I don't think. (Although the Simulators might be after you. Watch out for white rabbits and black cats.)

7 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

God, as the religious see him, is divine and eternal, and he does not need equipment!

The simulators are nothing like that!

The rationalisation is identical though.

 

12 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Doesn't QFT do a better job?

Doesn't explain (or even work with) gravity.

 

13 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

The only reason that the simulation hypothesis is worth pursuing is that it eliminates all problems in physics elegantly.

It eliminates them in the same way a frustrated parent does when asked too many "but why" question by a child. "Just because."

It has no explanatory or predictive power. If you somehow confirmed the universe is simulated, it has negative predictive power because you would forever wonder if they might just arbitrarily change the rules one day.

[QuantumT]

17 minutes ago, Strange said:

That's the trouble with this hypothesis. You can come up with a thought experiment to justify any observation being support for a simulation. Or be a contradiction of simulation. That is the trouble with post-hoc rationalisations: they are not scientific.

If you could actually predict things that (a) could only be true in the case of a simulation and (b) could be tested, then you would have a scientific hypothesis. But (a) is impossible, so ..

It's easy to attack a thought experiment, but what if it really happened that way?

You say it can't predict anything? Let me at least try.

I predict that no evidence of mirror matter will be found. Because it is not needed in a simulation.
I predict that dark matter will never be detected. Because it isn't matter, it's a setting. Like gravity.
I predict that we will never get in contact with aliens, because we are alone.

Those were just off the top of my head. Did you have something else in mind?

Edited August 21, 2019 by QuantumT

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

but what if it really happened that way?

Then you would need evidence. 

What if it happened that way? What if it didn't? How do we decide. Oh yes: evidence. That is how science works. That is why it is not a scientific hypothesis: because it is impossible to come up with an objective test.

What if the universe was created last Thursday but exactly as if it were 13.8 billions years old?

16 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I predict that no evidence of mirror matter will be found. Because it is not needed in a simulation.

Or because it just doesn't exist. A simulation does not require that it doesn't exist. If it is discovered, you will say, "ah but they decided to simulate it because ..."

I predict that if the universe is simulated then tomorrow will be Thursday.

I predict that if the universe is simulated then there is no visible colour beyond red.

I predict that if the universe is simulated then black holes will have event horizons.

16 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I predict that dark matter will never be detected. Because it isn't matter, it's a setting. Like gravity.

We have already detected dark matter.

But even so,  simulation does not require that it does or doesn't exist. If the nature of dark matter is discovered, you will say, "ah but they decided to simulate it because ..."

And this highlights the complete failure of the idea as an explanatory principle. Can it answer these questions:

• Why does this "setting" exist? (Because the Simulators felt like it)
• Why does the setting have this value? (Because the Simulators felt like it)

No. It can't.

Therefore it is not a scientific explanation. Even in a simulated universe, the scientific answer to "what is dark matter?" is "we don't know (yet). But we do know a lot about it and can build models and test them against what we observe." All your hypothesis can do, for any observation, is say "well, it is what it is because that is what it is." 

Quote

I predict that we will never get in contact with aliens, because we are alone.

Again, absolutely nothing to do with simulation. A simulation could have aliens around every star. Or one in a million stars. O just one star in each gravity. Or just here on Earth. 

But so could an entirely natural universe.

None of these are predictions of simulation. They are guesses. They are non sequiturs. There is no logical connection between the premise (simulation) and the conclusion. Just sticking the word "because" in there does not make it a logical argument. 

39 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Logic is my compass. 

Apparently not.

[QuantumT]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

None of these are predictions of simulation. They are guesses. They are non sequiturs. There is no logical connection between the premise (simulation) and the conclusion. Just sticking the word "because" in there does not make it a logical argument.

Have you ever thought about being to close to something, to see it, for what it is?
You seem to take the role of judge and jury, of what is genuine science, and you question my logic.

Could we at least agree to disagree for now? Without insulting each other?

[Ghideon]

9 hours ago, QuantumT said:

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

I'll try a more general question in this context; How would a group of scientists, working according to scientific methods, come to such different conclusions because of the order of discoveries? How does it logically follow that the timing of a discovery would support very different views in the long run? I can see that various short lived conjectures and hypothesis could emerge and disappear. But fundamentally different worldviews?

Or is duality something so special that my general question above is not applicable?
 

 

[Strange]

9 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Have you ever thought about being to close to something, to see it, for what it is?
You seem to take the role of judge and jury, of what is genuine science, and you question my logic.

Logic requires that a conclusion can be derived from the premises. You know the sort of thing:

Dogs have four legs.

Fido is a dog.

Therefore Fido has four legs.

 

Your arguments are not based on logic because there is no logical connection between the premise (the universe is a simulation) and the conclusion (no dark matter). You are just dressing up your opinion (guess) as if it logically followed from the premise.

It is equally logical to say:

• If the universe is a simulation then dark matter will turn out to be something we already know about (because that minimises simulation resources).
• If the universe is a simulation then dark matter will turn out to be something new (because The Simulators have always used a different fundamental particle for each phenomenon we observe)
• If the universe is a simulation then dark matter will turn out to be both a new type of matter, normal matter and a change to the rules gravity (because, well why not)

(I can only assume you think "logic" means "it makes sense to me")

Quote

Without insulting each other?

I don't think that pointing out that you are not using logic is an insult.

 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, QuantumT said:

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

It's your claim. Provide the evidence.

16 hours ago, QuantumT said:

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

Unnecessary? Make sense? How does that qualify as an answer in this context? If we're in a simulation, we don't get to decide what's in it! You claimed that a mirror universe or multiverse would falsify the claim. Appeal to personal incredulity is not falsification.

11 hours ago, QuantumT said:

 I predict that no evidence of mirror matter will be found. Because it is not needed in a simulation.

That's not good enough. It has to not be possible. This is a fallacious argument.

[QuantumT]

13 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I'll try a more general question in this context; How would a group of scientists, working according to scientific methods, come to such different conclusions because of the order of discoveries? How does it logically follow that the timing of a discovery would support very different views in the long run? I can see that various short lived conjectures and hypothesis could emerge and disappear. But fundamentally different worldviews?

Or is duality something so special that my general question above is not applicable?

With the same logic that they are looking for mirror matter, by shooting neutrons towards an impenetrable wall, to see if some of them appear on the other side.
They have decided that that could be evidence of particles switching between mirror universes.

In my thought experiment, they decided that matter reacting to observation could prove it has a computational on-demand nature.

The result of discovering duality decades before inventing the computer, is that duality is considered as "just the way it is". They had nothing to compare it with back then, so it just became natural law.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

(I can only assume you think "logic" means "it makes sense to me")

You assume wrong.

12 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't think that pointing out that you are not using logic is an insult.

It is to me. But I blame myself for not using better arguments and examples.

 

Imagine you are driving on a highway. You then pass a sign that says:

"The city that never sleeps - 150 miles"

Later you pass a huge sign with a big apple on it, saying: "100 miles"

And finally you pass a sign saying:

"Not Old York - 50 miles"

Where are you heading? And is it logical to assume that?

I will not be online the following days, so don't think I quit, just because I don't reply.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

With the same logic that they are looking for mirror matter, by shooting neutrons towards an impenetrable wall, to see if some of them appear on the other side.
They have decided that that could be evidence of particles switching between mirror universes.

There is a direct, logical connection between the premise (it may be possible for neutrons to switch to mirror matter and back) and the conclusion (detecting neutrons in unexpected places). If you can't see the difference between this and "if the universe is simulated then<arbitrary conclusion that has no connection to simulation>" then I don't know what to say.

Also this is a measurable, objectively testable hypothesis. No neutrons implies no mirror universe (or, at least, no neutrons switching between them). Therefore it meets the scientific requirement of falsifiability.

Unlike your "predictions." If one of those were found to be wrong, you could just change your assumptions about the nature of the simulation. 

Quote

In my thought experiment, they decided that matter reacting to observation could prove it has a computational on-demand nature.

In my thought experiment they didn't.

Do you see the problem? It is just an arbitrary assumption.

16 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

The result of discovering duality decades before inventing the computer, is that duality is considered as "just the way it is". They had nothing to compare it with back then, so it just became natural law.

The computer predates quantum theory by a hundred years or more. The theory of computable functions was developed at about the same time as quantum theory.

You might be better off claiming that the fact that it is quite common for multiple people/teams to develop the same theory at the same time (eg. Darwin and Wallace both developing the theory of evolution by natural selection at exactly the same time) is evidence for simulation (new ideas are seeded into the simulation at regular intervals).

Or the fact that mathematicians or scientists doing cutting edge work often die young and in strange circumstances. Just as they might uncover the evidence of the simulation. (Someone, probably Asimov, wrote a story based on this idea.) 

So be careful where your speculation leads you!

18 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Imagine you are driving on a highway. You then pass a sign that says:

"The city that never sleeps - 150 miles"

Later you pass a huge sign with a big apple on it, saying: "100 miles"

And finally you pass a sign saying:

"Not Old York - 50 miles"

Where are you heading? And is it logical to assume that?

Another bizarre non-sequitur.

[Phi for All]

33 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Imagine you are driving on a highway. You then pass a sign that says:

"The city that never sleeps - 150 miles"

Later you pass a huge sign with a big apple on it, saying: "100 miles"

And finally you pass a sign saying:

"Not Old York - 50 miles"

Where are you heading? And is it logical to assume that?

This isn't logic, and it shows that Strange was right, that you're mistaking logic with "this makes sense to me". 

If anything, this is closer to deductive reasoning. But it's not even that, since it assumes I know about New York in the first place, as well as some of its nicknames. It also assumes the vehicle isn't going to turn in the next 50 miles, AND that New York is my destination (I could be headed to New Rochelle).

[QuantumT]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is a direct, logical connection between the premise (it may be possible for neutrons to switch to mirror matter and back) and the conclusion (detecting neutrons in unexpected places). If you can't see the difference between this and "if the universe is simulated then<arbitrary conclusion that has no connection to simulation>" then I don't know what to say.

Also this is a measurable, objectively testable hypothesis. No neutrons implies no mirror universe (or, at least, no neutrons switching between them). Therefore it meets the scientific requirement of falsifiability.

Unlike your "predictions." If one of those were found to be wrong, you could just change your assumptions about the nature of the simulation. 

In my thought experiment they didn't.

Do you see the problem? It is just an arbitrary assumption.

The computer predates quantum theory by a hundred years or more. The theory of computable functions was developed at about the same time as quantum theory.

You might be better off claiming that the fact that it is quite common for multiple people/teams to develop the same theory at the same time (eg. Darwin and Wallace both developing the theory of evolution by natural selection at exactly the same time) is evidence for simulation (new ideas are seeded into the simulation at regular intervals).

Or the fact that mathematicians or scientists doing cutting edge work often die young and in strange circumstances. Just as they might uncover the evidence of the simulation. (Someone, probably Asimov, wrote a story based on this idea.) 

So be careful where your speculation leads you!

Another bizarre non-sequitur.

In my many many many discussion online, over the years, I've argued in a similar way to what you do here.

People called that hand-waving.

[Mordred]

Let's ask a question here, how much raw data do you think it would require to simulate an entire universe with all the relevant probability functions and wave functions of every particle.

This is something that has come up before in simulated universe theories and it does have relevance

Edited August 22, 2019 by Mordred

[QuantumT]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This isn't logic, and it shows that Strange was right, that you're mistaking logic with "this makes sense to me". 

If anything, this is closer to deductive reasoning. But it's not even that, since it assumes I know about New York in the first place, as well as some of its nicknames. It also assumes the vehicle isn't going to turn in the next 50 miles, AND that New York is my destination (I could be headed to New Rochelle).

I'll have to dig deeper then. But don't give up. It always comes to me at some point.

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Let's ask a question here, how much raw data do you think it would require to simulate an entire universe with all the relevant probability functions and wave functions of every particle.

That'd be a horrible waste of processing power. You only need to process the stuff people see, hear and touch.

[Mordred]

I've seen calculations that for a single atom of iron you would need 10^80 bits of information.

So it is a relevent question.

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

You only need to process the stuff people see, hear and touch.

So why can we see galaxies that are billions of light years away? Why not simulate one galaxy? Why not just simulate one planet around one star? Those would be far more "logical" approaches in any reasonable thought experiment.

Why did they decide to have the universe expand? Why did they decide to accelerate the expansion a few billion years ago? Why did they come up with a form of gravity that requires years of post-graduate study to fully understand when they could have got almost exactly the same results with a simple force-based model?

If the rotation curve ("dark matter") is just a "setting", then why is it there? Why does it exactly mimic the presence of matter? Why not just let the stuff in the galaxy rotate assuming normal Newtonian gravity?

Why are protons and neutrons composite particles? Why do the quarks have 3 values of colour charge? Why do neutrinos exist? They don't do anything much (except act as dark matter).

Why can't gravity be quantised like the other forces? 

Why aren't space and time quantised if it is a simulation?

 

25 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

People called that hand-waving.

I can give you precise dates for the development of the computer and the theory of computable functions if you like. And compare those with the development of quantum theory. Then you can explain how that would be different if the universe were not simulated.

[Phi for All]

19 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I'll have to dig deeper then. But don't give up. It always comes to me at some point.

That's the power of making stuff up. Eventually it will come to you, and it will seem absolutely perfect. How could it not? It's based on the limited knowledge you have of the subject. It's part of the bias one has to remove as part of a rigorous methodology.

[Sensei]

52 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I've seen calculations that for a single atom of iron you would need 10^80 bits of information. So it is a relevent question.

Where did they get these values?

The only way to learn about state of an atom is continuous beam of e.g. photons and electrons toward particle at examination (aka "observation", "measurement").

If you don't observe/measure ("send electrons/photons toward it"), it can get any undefined state (i.e. randomization routine could be called, the next time somebody tries to examine it). If you can randomize almost everything, you don't have to store almost anything.

[Mordred]

An older article on the Berenstain bound. Perhaps the OP should look into it as a starting point.

[QuantumT]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

People called that hand-waving.

 

It's true. They did. But they were ignorants. I was not implying you are. Just comparing this to my experiences. Sorry if it seemed like that.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

That's the power of making stuff up. Eventually it will come to you, and it will seem absolutely perfect.

Please dont judge me based on a the bad choices I've made in this thread. You are many people arguing against me at once, so I find myself on the defense. And people on the defense often make bad choices. If I didn't feel caught between a rock and a hard place, I'd probably think more clear.

I'll leave this for now. I have a busy weekend ahead. I presume I'll be back on Tuesday, next week. Until then I wish you all a good weekend!