3 ms·

> It is not a theory that is, strictly speaking, falsifiable, So in what ways is it a "serious theory"?

by olavk 8y ago

jerf 8y ago
Well, along with the religion case that whatshisface points out, there's also the problem that any theory of the nature of the universe has this problem. The problem here is not with the theory of the universe per se, but the fundamental limits of science itself. Despite what seems to be a popular opinion, we are not actually obligated to curl up into a ball on the floor and cry about our inability to know anything just because science can't be definitive on some point. We just need to be aware of the limits of our knowledge. We have no choice; even in just our day-to-day lives, we are required to make all kinds of decisions for which science is either quiet, insufficiently informative, or (and this one may really hurt to think about too much) simply wrong.
- olavk 8y ago
  > Despite what seems to be a popular opinion, we are not actually obligated to curl up into a ball on the floor and cry about our inability to know anything I have no idea what you are referring to here. Can you be bit more specific about what viewpoint or philosophy you are satirizing?
rbanffy 8y ago
> So in what ways is it a "serious theory"? People defend it with a straight face?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
da_chicken 8y ago
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. It's only not falsifiable because nobody has devised a test. It's a hypothesis without an experiment. That doesn't mean that people aren't trying [0]. If it is a simulation, you're not going to clip through the wall by running against a corner and jumping for an hour. The thing is, we don't know where this line of reasoning would even lead. I mean, people used to think that light had to travel in little packets through luminiferous aether [1] and look where that investigation led: Einstein, special relativity, atomic weapons and power, nuclear medicine, etc. Let's say the universe is fundamentally indistinguishable from a computer simulation. What consequences does that have? What does that say about the types of math that can be used to describe the universe? Or, perhaps better, the types of math that shouldn't be used to describe the universe? What does that say about our ability to model a portion of the universe and therefore predict outcomes? Does it have implications for stochastic processes? Indeed, where is the stochasticism coming from? Is everything predictable or is there some fundamental randomness? On the other hand, what if we can show that the universe is distinguishable from a computer simulation. What does that mean for our understanding of the universe as it exists? Does it reveal a fundamental aspect of reality that we have missed, or a limitation of our mathematics, or a fault in our computer models or design, etc.? We're dogs learning calculus here, and the universe isn't obligated to make sense. Even if we can never find a useful test for this hypothesis, the line of thinking itself potentially leads us into new areas of discovery. [0]: https://gizmodo.com/5950832/how-to-tell-if-the-universe-is-a-computer-simulation https://gizmodo.com/5950832/how-to-tell-if-the-universe-is-a... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
- olavk 8y ago
  The problem is...you can even define what it means for the universe to be a simulation. You might as well argue like George Berkely that all sensations are signs and symbols directly from God - it is not even wrong. It is fundamentally unknowable - unless God or The Simulator choose to reveal themselves directly to us. The luminiferous ether was a falsifiable theory - indeed it was a breakthrough for physics because it was falsified (experiments failed to detect it) so new theories had to be developed. So this is completely different from unfalsifiable metaphysics.
  - freeloop10 8y ago
    It is falsifiable if you consider that a simulation would have limited resources allocated to it. The null hypothesis would be the universe runs in a way where a simulation couldn't cheat by performing a rough calculation at the hard parts, thereby spending a tiny fraction of what would be needed and produce the same observable result. The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, since a simulator could be deferring calculations on things not observed. Also, the very program this article is referring to could be considered as evidence for it, since if a rough simulation can be made where the observable result is indistinguishable from a result where every atomic element in the entire universe was simulated, then, again, a simulator with limited resources would make do. The law of conservation of energy is built the same way. There is no way we can test ways that energy is transferred that we don't yet know about, but this law is still considered true, because we have so many examples of it working.
    - olavk 8y ago
      Well I guess you can disprove particular forms of simulation - e.g. since a computer with 16GB RAM can be adequately simulated, we can reject the notion that the current universe is simulated on a computer with 16GB RAM or less. > The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, How is that evidence? Current physics can model that without relying on a simulation hypothesis. Adding a simulation hypothesis does not simplify the model, and it is unfalsifiable.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

> It is not a theory that is, strictly speaking, falsifiable, So in what ways is it a "serious theory"?

by olavk 8y ago

> It is not a theory that is, strictly speaking, falsifiable, So in what ways is it a "serious theory"?

jerf 8y ago

Well, along with the religion case that whatshisface points out, there's also the problem that any theory of the nature of the universe has this problem. The problem here is not with the theory of the universe per se, but the fundamental limits of science itself. Despite what seems to be a popular opinion, we are not actually obligated to curl up into a ball on the floor and cry about our inability to know anything just because science can't be definitive on some point. We just need to be aware of the limits of our knowledge. We have no choice; even in just our day-to-day lives, we are required to make all kinds of decisions for which science is either quiet, insufficiently informative, or (and this one may really hurt to think about too much) simply wrong.

olavk 8y ago
> Despite what seems to be a popular opinion, we are not actually obligated to curl up into a ball on the floor and cry about our inability to know anything I have no idea what you are referring to here. Can you be bit more specific about what viewpoint or philosophy you are satirizing?

rbanffy 8y ago

> So in what ways is it a "serious theory"? People defend it with a straight face?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

da_chicken 8y ago

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. It's only not falsifiable because nobody has devised a test. It's a hypothesis without an experiment. That doesn't mean that people aren't trying [0]. If it is a simulation, you're not going to clip through the wall by running against a corner and jumping for an hour. The thing is, we don't know where this line of reasoning would even lead. I mean, people used to think that light had to travel in little packets through luminiferous aether [1] and look where that investigation led: Einstein, special relativity, atomic weapons and power, nuclear medicine, etc. Let's say the universe is fundamentally indistinguishable from a computer simulation. What consequences does that have? What does that say about the types of math that can be used to describe the universe? Or, perhaps better, the types of math that shouldn't be used to describe the universe? What does that say about our ability to model a portion of the universe and therefore predict outcomes? Does it have implications for stochastic processes? Indeed, where is the stochasticism coming from? Is everything predictable or is there some fundamental randomness? On the other hand, what if we can show that the universe is distinguishable from a computer simulation. What does that mean for our understanding of the universe as it exists? Does it reveal a fundamental aspect of reality that we have missed, or a limitation of our mathematics, or a fault in our computer models or design, etc.? We're dogs learning calculus here, and the universe isn't obligated to make sense. Even if we can never find a useful test for this hypothesis, the line of thinking itself potentially leads us into new areas of discovery. [0]: https://gizmodo.com/5950832/how-to-tell-if-the-universe-is-a-computer-simulation https://gizmodo.com/5950832/how-to-tell-if-the-universe-is-a... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

olavk 8y ago
The problem is...you can even define what it means for the universe to be a simulation. You might as well argue like George Berkely that all sensations are signs and symbols directly from God - it is not even wrong. It is fundamentally unknowable - unless God or The Simulator choose to reveal themselves directly to us. The luminiferous ether was a falsifiable theory - indeed it was a breakthrough for physics because it was falsified (experiments failed to detect it) so new theories had to be developed. So this is completely different from unfalsifiable metaphysics.
- freeloop10 8y ago
  It is falsifiable if you consider that a simulation would have limited resources allocated to it. The null hypothesis would be the universe runs in a way where a simulation couldn't cheat by performing a rough calculation at the hard parts, thereby spending a tiny fraction of what would be needed and produce the same observable result. The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, since a simulator could be deferring calculations on things not observed. Also, the very program this article is referring to could be considered as evidence for it, since if a rough simulation can be made where the observable result is indistinguishable from a result where every atomic element in the entire universe was simulated, then, again, a simulator with limited resources would make do. The law of conservation of energy is built the same way. There is no way we can test ways that energy is transferred that we don't yet know about, but this law is still considered true, because we have so many examples of it working.
  - olavk 8y ago
    Well I guess you can disprove particular forms of simulation - e.g. since a computer with 16GB RAM can be adequately simulated, we can reject the notion that the current universe is simulated on a computer with 16GB RAM or less. > The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, How is that evidence? Current physics can model that without relying on a simulation hypothesis. Adding a simulation hypothesis does not simplify the model, and it is unfalsifiable.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]