The Hoyle State - the universe is either finely tuned for life or . . .

[[DHT]Osiris]

To the contrary Musk made simulation cool again, and wannabes have been parroting it as of late.

Doesn't mean I'm one of them, and suggesting as such without knowing my mindset or knowledge level is damaging to open dialogue.

Adding computers to Plato's cave doesn't make it any more science.

It doesn't. But if we are considering ourselves the ones chained in the cave, we're permitted to speculate on whatever reality is. If we wish to expand our thoughts and consider other possibilities, logic dictates we should consider whatever possibilities we can come up with (assuming we can make an argument for them). Odds are good none of our early considerations will be accurate, but at least we're trying.

Also, your comment didn't actually address my query of 'how is it more or less of an explanation', it just dismisses it as being wrong, presumably because of your perceived source (a parrot repeating Elon). So I ask again, how is it any less of an explanation than a hypothetical higher being, or hypothetical multiverse?

 

[agent00f]

Doesn't mean I'm one of them, and suggesting as such without knowing my mindset or knowledge level is damaging to open dialogue.

It doesn't. But if we are considering ourselves the ones chained in the cave, we're permitted to speculate on whatever reality is. If we wish to expand our thoughts and consider other possibilities, logic dictates we should consider whatever possibilities we can come up with (assuming we can make an argument for them). Odds are good none of our early considerations will be accurate, but at least we're trying.

Also, your comment didn't actually address my query of 'how is it more or less of an explanation', it just dismisses it as being wrong, presumably because of your perceived source (a parrot repeating Elon). So I ask again, how is it any less of an explanation than a hypothetical higher being, or hypothetical multiverse?

"Because god computers" isn't an explanation in the same way science theories are, even if someone can rhetorically conflate the word that way; and if they couldn't recognize this difference they certainly aren't following the uncool technical lit.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

"Because god computers" isn't an explanation in the same way science theories are, even if someone can rhetorically conflate the word that way; and if they couldn't recognize this difference they certainly aren't following the uncool technical lit.

Well of course it isn't, it's navel-gazing which is what 99% of 'what is our reality' is at this point in time. Just as you pointed out regarding math, we can create astounding un-testable theories for all sorts of stuff, multiverse included (and definitely higher being included).

For what it's worth, I try to follow the 'uncool technical lit' when I can, even if I don't have as much time available to me as I used to.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Why not?

Because there is no conceivable evidence that could refute it. Please educate yourself about falsifiability

How is the possibility of this thing we interpret as 'reality' being a simulation any more or less of an explanation than it being a 'real' thing that was tuned/defined/created by a higher being, or that we exist in an infinite multiverse?

To the best of my knowledge, the Everett interpretation is falsifiable in principle, which distinguishes it from the others.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Because there is no conceivable evidence that could refute it. Please educate yourself about falsifiability

I'm quite aware of falsifiability, this thread started by including a higher power so I figured we were tossing that out the window for purposes of this thread. If not, fine, let's stick to only falsifiable theories.

Is this section of the forums always so snotty?

To the best of my knowledge, the Everett interpretation is falsifiable in principle, which distinguishes it from the others.

Superb, that floats it to the top of the milk bucket. I'll freely state that I'm not up to par (by some measure of par) on my quantum physics, but the all-knowing wiki states that Everett considered it falsifiable as it's linked to QD, which I guess counts. If it itself isn't falsifiable though, QD can be right and it can be wrong, which kinda places it right back into navel-gazing territory.

 

[agent00f]

Well of course it isn't, it's navel-gazing which is what 99% of 'what is our reality' is at this point in time. Just as you pointed out regarding math, we can create astounding un-testable theories for all sorts of stuff, multiverse included (and definitely higher being included).

For what it's worth, I try to follow the 'uncool technical lit' when I can, even if I don't have as much time available to me as I used to.

Allegory of the cave is a philosophical device useful for epistemological wonderment. Merely replacing the light and wall with computers adds nothing interesting to its arguments, and nothing interesting about computers either. That's why the only academic material on it is by bored philosophers who don't understand computers very well, followed by laymen who think that's profound.

 

[Charmonium]

Superb, that floats it to the top of the milk bucket. I'll freely state that I'm not up to par (by some measure of par) on my quantum physics, but the all-knowing wiki states that Everett considered it falsifiable as it's linked to QD, which I guess counts. If it itself isn't falsifiable though, QD can be right and it can be wrong, which kinda places it right back into navel-gazing territory.

I'd like to know how you could possibly validate or falsify the multiverse. Superficially, it seems that by definition it would be beyond any type of inspection but in a video I think that was linked earlier in the thread there was a passing reference to evidence for the multiverse. If anyone knows more about actual evidence for that I'd be interested even if it's technically off topic.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It got me wondering, when thinking of multiuniverses... There could be a way to go back in time.
If you want to go back into time in this universe, you have to revert the entire universe back to a state that existed in the moment that you want to go to. Relatively, time has reversed but in absolute notion, time still moves forward. That is kind of a problem. You can create a bubble where only in a small section of the universe everything up to the smallest quantum level is reverted back to be as it was at that moment. That sound easy, but is not. It would require a level of control and power that i cannot imagine how much is needed.

Let say that time is a quantification of change. The thing is that for every possible state and combination of states all the particles in the universe can be in(thus a different from before, a change), is a moment in time. If every moment in time, meaning every combination of all those particles are described as being actually a different universe, one would get an close to infinite number of possible universes. And time travel merely is a matter of getting from this moment in this universe where all particles are in a given state to getting into another universe where all particles are in a state that represent for example a universe 4 days ago. Particles in a state can mean a moment where a bomb on a ferry did not explode yet and the people did not die...
The higher the resolution that time can be measured, the higher the number of possible universes gets...
Of course, i have no idea how to get into another universe...

No, i have not been smoking the good stuff... I just watched a good movie called deja vu and it got me thinking.