6 ms·
This is nothing but speculation, and represents the nullification of science by providing the answer: "It's Aliens!" It is functionally equivalent to arguing fo
by teilo 10y ago
This is nothing but speculation, and represents the nullification of science by providing the answer: "It's Aliens!" It is functionally equivalent to arguing for intelligent design.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoThe title, at least, does not nullify anything. It only presents a possibility.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tbabb 10y agoNautilus' main activity seems to be dressing bullshit up as intellectual depth.
- erikpukinskis 10y agoNo, speculation and arguing for something are fundamentally different. Also, theorizing an entity beyond our understanding is fundamentally different from theorizing an entity beyond our universe.
- landryraccoon 10y agoAll simulation theories of the universe require an entity beyond our universe.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoNot if the simulation container evolved spontaneously in its own universe.
- landryraccoon 10y agoIt depends on the semantics of "universe". I consider a simulation to be its own universe, if you don't agree with that definition then it's a different universe - but it might be one with completely different physical laws.
- teilo 10y ago> Also, theorizing an entity beyond our understanding is fundamentally different from theorizing an entity beyond our universe. No, they are functionally and ontologically equivalent.
- Retra 10y agoOur language can be arbitrarily abstract and represent arbitrary information. If there is something fundamentally beyond our understanding, then it is intrinsically nonsense.
- theptip 10y agoAll science starts with speculation. The problem with the intelligent design 'hypothesis' from a scientific perspective is that it's not a testable hypothesis, and is therefore metaphysics, not science. Dark matter as intelligence substrate is a testable hypothesis (though not to our present instruments), although there is no evidence to support the theory right now. These two propositions are quite different, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of idle speculation, as long as one keeps in mind that it is unlikely to accrue evidence either way in our lifetimes. (Though I suppose inasmuch as our physical theories gain understanding of dark matter as a strictly physical process, that does reduce space for the 'dark matter as information-substrate' hypothesis even further).
- Cyph0n 10y agoEdit Disclaimer: I am no expert on either ID or evolution theory. Most of my info comes from reading Meyer and Dembski, who are both pioneers of ID, so I'm clearly biased. Please take anything I say with a grain of salt. Original comment: Oh, and when did evolution theory come up with a "testable hypothesis" (not a simulation) for stuff like protein evolution, the Cambrian explosion, and DGRNs? Because until evolutionists can fully explain and demonstrate how and why the above don't contradict with the current model, evolution theory also reduces to metaphysics. You can't claim that your theory is "proven" when there are aspects of biology that don't fit with your theory. It's like saying gravitation is true when there is 1 m^2 of area on Earth where gravity breaks down.
- marcofloriano 10y agoIt's a trip. "What if ..." (now we fly). But i believe that if we can imagine something (like he's doing), this thing existed, exist or will. The article is amazing, and remember us to be humble, because we don't have all the answers and there's a lot yet to be seen. So there's no answers in the article: only questions.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoIt doesn't represent the nullification of science; it only tries to question the basic axiom of physics that the laws of nature are the same everywhere, have always been and will always be. If you drop that axiom, consequences are interesting. If you allow for the ability of future more advanced humans to actually change some observable properties of the universe (like speed of light), then you have to allow for the possibility of past alien civilizations doing just that. And then it may turn out that what we're observing today is a universe that is not in a "virgin" state, but was affected by life in the past already. This is a legitimate scientific question but - since we have pretty much zero evidence suggesting this has happened, we have to assume we're studying a "virgin" universe. But if physics was somehow manipulated by aliens, science should be capable of eventually figuring this out too - at the very least just because if you have a capability of doing something, then it's easier to notice evidence of someone else doing that thing in the past.
- vorg 10y ago> change some observable properties of the universe (like speed of light) In your other comment: > Could the speed of light have changed because of aliens weaponizing physics in past wars? Because the speed of light is a dimensional constant, it doesn't make sense to say it could have changed in the past. Only dimensionless constants, like the fine structure constant, can hypothetically be different at other points in space and/or time. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_physical_constan...
- TeMPOraL 10y agoAccording to this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light the idea had some pretty serious consideration of serious scientists though. As for dimensionless constants, the way I see it, it simply suggests that something else must be changed to get a meaningfully different c.
- posterboy 10y agoThat is not a physical axiom, but a logical consequence of the principle of explosion, ex contradiction sequitur quodlibet. The fallacy here is in the assumption we had a complete idea of an immutable theory of physics, the universe and everything, when that is clearly not the case. It's the same handwavery as from theologists, as dear as it might be, that many physicists aren't or weren't free of, as well.
- pmoriarty 10y ago"This is nothing but speculation" Wasn't there some quote which went something like: "A good scientist gives the right answers. A great scientist asks the right questions."
- snippet22 10y agoNo he was right because science makes hypothesis and then predictions. Aliens gives us books and movies.
- redeemedfadi 10y agoHere's what the ID community thinks: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/11/alien_physics_s103300.html http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/11/alien_physics_s103300.h...