3 ms·
No, speculation and arguing for something are fundamentally different. Also, theorizing an entity beyond our understanding is fundamentally different from theo
by erikpukinskis 10y ago
No, 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.