Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not really that crazy from where I'm standing, and I only have the most rudimentary of knowledge when it comes to theoretical physics. Reality is fucking weird. I wonder if Toady is familiar with all of this, I know his dissertation was on (as I recall) theoretical surfaces of small objects.

[Flying Dice]

I only have a theoretical degree in physics, and it makes pretty good sense to me. If it matches our observations and doesn't have any strong contradictory evidence against it, it's certainly better than just saying, "Eh, I'unno what's going on."

[Putnam]

I remember a bit from Gödel, Escher, Bach that had an actual line from an actual arts magazine. It was hilariously opaque.

It's not really that crazy from where I'm standing, and I only have the most rudimentary of knowledge when it comes to theoretical physics. Reality is fucking weird. I wonder if Toady is familiar with all of this, I know his dissertation was on (as I recall) theoretical surfaces of small objects.

His "Flat Chains in Banach Spaces"... doesn't seem very physics-y to me.

[Mephisto]

You do know this hypothesis is by scientists

Never said it wasn't.

not that new, and actually a real contender right?

Being old, looking correct, and having people believe it doesn't make it true.

It doesn't mean anything involving machines.

Never said that either.

In any case, moot point. I skimmed the article. Going back and re-reading a second time helped.

[Putnam]

Being old, looking correct, and having people believe it doesn't make it true.

Our work's over science is useless nothing matters.

[Helgoland]

Being old, looking correct, and having people believe it doesn't make it true.

Nothing is 'true' in the sense that you mean; everything you hold to be true has merely looked correct for a long time. And, if this still looks correct in a few years, it can and will be held as true.

[scrdest]

Being old, looking correct, and having people believe it doesn't make it true.

Nothing is 'true' in the sense that you mean; everything you hold to be true has merely looked correct for a long time. And, if this still looks correct in a few years, it can and will be held as true.

That kind of hypotheses piss me off nonetheless; it seems to me that inability to discern between the map and the territory is a prerequisite to be a quantum physicist.

[Helgoland]

Being old, looking correct, and having people believe it doesn't make it true.

Nothing is 'true' in the sense that you mean; everything you hold to be true has merely looked correct for a long time. And, if this still looks correct in a few years, it can and will be held as true.

That kind of hypotheses piss me off nonetheless; it seems to me that inability to discern between the map and the territory is a prerequisite to be a quantum physicist.

So whaddya think is the territory? If all you have is a map, all you have is a map. Pretty simple, actually

[Siquo]

You do know this hypothesis is by scientists

Never said it wasn't.

Yeah you did:

Because, you know, the universe being a holographic projection is MUCH more likely than scientists being wrong.

That was you, saying in sarcasm that scientists are more right than this hypothesis.

But I get you were confused. When you get to this level of theoretical physics, the soundbites to which they are reduced to in popular science (if you can call Nature that) are eerily similar to the enormous amounts of metaphysical bullshit floating around

[Mephisto]

Because, you know, the universe being a holographic projection is MUCH more likely than scientists being wrong.

That was you, saying in sarcasm that scientists are more right than this hypothesis.

Parsing error. "Scientists" referred to the people who proposed the holographic projection theory. Basically, believe whatever scientists say because SCIENCE.

I am TRWTF. It would please me greatly if we could leave the subject of my ignorance behind.

[Dutchling]

why

[Aklyon]

It also assumes you have a cat. Clearly its terrible

[MorleyDev]

If it's possible to simulate a simplification of the universe's behaviour, you are not in the most simple universe.
If it's possible to simulate a simplification of the universe's behaviour, you are not in the most complex possible universe.
If it's possible to simulate a simplification of the universe's behaviour inside another simplification of the universe's behaviour, you are at least 2 simulations from bottom.

If we ourselves are in a simplification of the more complex universe, then this universe would demonstrate signs of simplification for computation. A minimum possible temperature, a maximum possible speed, laws that start to break down at too big or too small values...

[Karkov]

-snip-

"Avoid the leaves!"

ಠ_ಠ

[kaijyuu]

If we ourselves are in a simplification of the more complex universe, then this universe would demonstrate signs of simplification for computation. A minimum possible temperature, a maximum possible speed, laws that start to break down at too big or too small values...

I see what you did there


Since empiricism can only give us information about this universe and science relies on empiricism, science cannot give us knowledge about outside of this universe. We CAN however, make guesses and "what if"s, like what Morley said above. We can say things like "if we're in a simulation then the simulation would require x y and z". We can eliminate specific possibilities out of the infinite possibilities there are.