J.C.MacSwell Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, zapatos said: I know we are getting a bit off topic, but I'm surprised you would have called gravity waves nonsense. There was no evidence of gravity waves but there was plenty of reason to believe they might be found. I doubt anyone would have funded and built the necessary detectors if they believed gravity waves were nonsense. I know I've admitted to being 160 years old in another thread (having spent 100 years in elementary school) but I've never claimed to have lived at the time of Newton. 25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I would say yes, depending on your definition of recently, and intended context of the term "nonsense". Newton would have been correct to call it nonsense, unless he meant it as impossible.
Angelo Posted January 7, 2020 Author Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, iNow said: He’s not the author of the idea. He just suggested it’s a possibility. Do you believe it is a possibility that the blood in your veins is really 0 and 1? Oddly enough DNA is clearly a molecular code for assembling life The real problem is that Tyson fell into the same hole that the Catholic church was in when they demanded that the Earth was the center of the universe without any rational reason.
zapatos Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Angelo said: Do you think that Tyson is rational for rejecting all known science and championing the idea that everything in the universe is really a 0 or 1? I'm not sure that is an accurate description of what he is doing. I don't think it is likely we are in a simulation.
Angelo Posted January 7, 2020 Author Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I know I've admitted to being 160 years old in another thread (having spent 100 years in elementary school) but I've never claimed to have lived at the time of Newton. Which part of science explains galaxies moving at 5 times light speed as recently observed, which in my opinion births the simulation theory as there is nothing else in known science that explains this. Sad that people like Tyson believe that they know everything 1 minute ago, zapatos said: I'm not sure that is an accurate description of what he is doing. I don't think it is likely we are in a simulation. I know that there is no accurate description of what Tyson is doing, unless he is becoming a science fiction writer. Hell it worked well for George Lucas
zapatos Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Angelo said: Which part of science explains galaxies moving at 5 times light speed as recently observed, which in my opinion births the simulation theory as there is nothing else in known science that explains this. You might want to Google that one.
Angelo Posted January 7, 2020 Author Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, zapatos said: You might want to Google that one. Enlighten me as to why NASA says Einstein was wrong
J.C.MacSwell Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 22 minutes ago, Angelo said: Thank you.....! I upvoted this. Someone negated my upvote by down voting it. I think this is abuse of the system. Especially when targeted at a new member.
zapatos Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 14 minutes ago, Angelo said: I know that there is no accurate description of what Tyson is doing, unless he is becoming a science fiction writer. Hell it worked well for George Lucas Have you listened to any of his discussions and debates on the universe being a simulation or are you basing all of this on the headline?
Angelo Posted January 7, 2020 Author Posted January 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: I upvoted this. Someone negated my upvote by down voting it. I think this is abuse of the system. Especially when targeted at a new member. It's OK, Galileo was not well liked either.........................
J.C.MacSwell Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Angelo said: It's OK, Galileo was not well liked either......................... Another one of my contemporaries...
Angelo Posted January 7, 2020 Author Posted January 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, zapatos said: Have you listened to any of his discussions and debates on the universe being a simulation or are you basing all of this on the headline? Yes there is another at some science fiction symposium. The most comical part was when Tyson had to admit that his hard drive simulation needed a creator, which is the other word for God. This is not science, it is confused adults who can not accept the speeds of galaxies as now measured so to adjust they invalidate reality.
zapatos Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Angelo said: confused adults who can not accept the speeds of galaxies as now measured so to adjust they invalidate reality. Are you saying DE is simply people being confused? 20 minutes ago, Angelo said: Enlighten me as to why NASA says Einstein was wrong When did NASA do that? You've lost me.
MigL Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 As for the 'universe as a simulation' question... It is a belief and not based on fact/observation, as it can't be proven or disproven ( and actually makes no difference ). We allow people to have differing beliefs; N D Tyson is entitled to his. As for the recession speeds of distant galaxies ( And whether NASA said A Einstein was wrong ), that is off topic. But if you start a new thread, I and many others, will try to explain to you why the observations are real and predictable. No creator, hard drive, or simulated reality is involved, just science.
Danijel Gorupec Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said: "The Boltzmann brain argument suggests that it is more likely for a single brain to spontaneously and briefly form in a void (complete with a false memory of having existed in our universe) than it is for our universe to have come about in the way modern science thinks it actually did. It was first proposed as a reductio ad absurdum response to Ludwig Boltzmann's early explanation for the low-entropy state of our universe" This points out why I think that our Universe is unlikely a simulation - my argument is similar to why the Universe is unlikely a fluctuation. A rational programmer makes a minimal simulation, not a 'maximal' one.
Strange Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 5 hours ago, Angelo said: Actually you interjected without evidence of any type. That said since there is none, that is to be expected I assume ! Moderator Note This is a science forum. Unless you are able to support your claims with evidence, rather than just incredulity, then this thread will be closed. 4 hours ago, Angelo said: Which part of science explains galaxies moving at 5 times light speed as recently observed, which in my opinion births the simulation theory as there is nothing else in known science that explains this. ! Moderator Note This is off-topic. It is entirely explained by current cosmological models based on GR. If you want to discuss this, start a new thread. (Also it is not new, the idea is nearly a century old. And the evidence supporting it overwhelming.)
swansont Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 7 hours ago, Angelo said: Do you think that Tyson is rational for rejecting all known science and championing the idea that everything in the universe is really a 0 or 1? In what way is Tyson "rejecting all known science"?
Dagl1 Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) It might help, if you @Angelo would first, in an objective tone, lay out exactly what you believe Tyson's argument to be, and the steps in his reasoning (as far as they are provided and assuming they are truthful). As far as I understand the simulation hypothesis, is that it is based on chance and likelihoods coupled with some very specific assumptions; however the things you say, and the way you ask your questions and/or comment on other peoples posts, to me seems to indicate that you (at best) don't know the full reasoning behind the simulation hypothesis (or you do understand it, but are wilfully creating strawmens). Additionally, it would be great to present the strongest argument(s) for the simulation hypothesis, and not immediately assume that Tyson and other people agree on everything. If he has some illogical reasoning or assumptions you don't agree with, then it may be good to find a better version of the argument, instead of immediately disregarding the entire hypothesis. If you are really interested in understanding Tyson's and other people's point of view on this, it would help to start with a detailed summary/explanation of the hypothesis, because I could explain it (as far as I understand it), but I doubt the explanation is similar to what you think it is. And if you aren't sure on WHAT people belief, then it is very strange to already think of it as nonsense, therefore (assuming you have good reason to think of it as nonsense) it should be easy for you to explain it (in your own words, please don't just link something, that doesn't test your current understanding). Kind regards, Dagl Edited January 7, 2020 by Dagl1 grammar mistake 6
Angelo Posted January 7, 2020 Author Posted January 7, 2020 13 hours ago, zapatos said: Have you listened to any of his discussions and debates on the universe being a simulation or are you basing all of this on the headline? Yes I also listened to Tyson be forced into saying that if the universe were a simulation that there must be a creator of the simulation which means that he now believes in God after spending his entire life denying God. In other words he is a clown that does not know what he believes -2
iNow Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 Let’s assume that’s all true (it’s not, but for the sake of discussion let’s just take it as given)... Why do you care so much?
Angelo Posted January 7, 2020 Author Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, swansont said: In what way is Tyson "rejecting all known science"? If the universe is a simulation, that means that you are simulated and are along with everything else just not real but composed of 0 and 1 assuming that the creator of the simulation uses a binary code which he or they may not. Tyson is literally saying that the universe is a simulation because the current speeds of the furthest galaxies violate relativity as they are estimated at 5 times light speed in motion. When you access a computer simulation you do so from a real world, Tyson is claiming that reality is not real. How is that science? 11 minutes ago, iNow said: Let’s assume that’s all true (it’s not, but for the sake of discussion let’s just take it as given)... Why do you care so much? Why is it logical and acceptable for Tyson to say that the universe was created but not logical or acceptable for an evangelical to say EXACTLY the same thing? This is why it matters, because what Tyson is saying is exactly what religions have been saying forever. This matters 5 hours ago, Dagl1 said: It might help, if you @Angelo would first, in an objective tone, lay out exactly what you believe Tyson's argument to be, and the steps in his reasoning (as far as they are provided and assuming they are truthful). As far as I understand the simulation hypothesis, is that it is based on chance and likelihoods coupled with some very specific assumptions; however the things you say, and the way you ask your questions and/or comment on other peoples posts, to me seems to indicate that you (at best) don't know the full reasoning behind the simulation hypothesis (or you do understand it, but are wilfully creating strawmens). Additionally, it would be great to present the strongest argument(s) for the simulation hypothesis, and not immediately assume that Tyson and other people agree on everything. If he has some illogical reasoning or assumptions you don't agree with, then it may be good to find a better version of the argument, instead of immediately disregarding the entire hypothesis. If you are really interested in understanding Tyson's and other people's point of view on this, it would help to start with a detailed summary/explanation of the hypothesis, because I could explain it (as far as I understand it), but I doubt the explanation is similar to what you think it is. And if you aren't sure on WHAT people belief, then it is very strange to already think of it as nonsense, therefore (assuming you have good reason to think of it as nonsense) it should be easy for you to explain it (in your own words, please don't just link something, that doesn't test your current understanding). Kind regards, Dagl Tysons argument is that the universe was created by a far superior to humans programmer. If he thinks that he or any modern scientist created this idea he is wrong. Now I myself do not see any evidence that God created the universe, so this puts me in the role of atheist which I am not and Tyson as endorsing a creator. As Charlton Heston said in Planet of the Apes, "it's a madhouse" Edited January 7, 2020 by Angelo
Strange Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, Angelo said: If the universe is a simulation, that means that you are simulated and are along with everything else just not real but composed of 0 and 1 assuming that the creator of the simulation uses a binary code which he or they may not. Tyson is literally saying that the universe is a simulation because the current speeds of the furthest galaxies violate relativity as they are estimated at 5 times light speed in motion. When you access a computer simulation you do so from a real world, Tyson is claiming that reality is not real. How is that science? ! Moderator Note You are misrepresenting the simulation hypothesis. You are wrong about the reason (galaxies receding faster than light do not contradict relativity; they are a prediction of relativity). You have presented no rational counter-arguments other than your dislike of the idea. This thread is closed. Do no start another thread on this subject unless you can actually present a logical argument against the actual hypothesis, not your strawman version.
Recommended Posts