4 ms·

These people are closet creationists. The thought of there being no reason for the universe is probably quite frightful for them.

knodi 14y ago
I love the notion of "no reason for the universe". I find it to be very pleasing.
- robertk 14y ago
  The ultimate sandbox. Deterministic, free will-less sandbox. :(
  - Permit 14y ago
    How can it be deterministic if there are elements of randomness in our universe? I mean true randomness such as electron movement and nuclear decay.
    - domlebo70 14y ago
      How do you know they are truly random, and not just simulated?
    - thaumaturgy 14y ago
      Because so far it appears that the non-randomness falls off sharply at macro levels. i.e., so far there seems to be no support for the idea that the universe is actually chaotic in the mathematical sense from the quantum level to the relativistic one; Brownian motion doesn't change the weather. (I'm speaking specifically about the laws of physics in our geological era; the physics a few microseconds after the Big Bang would likely be different in this regard.)
    - akoumjian 14y ago
      Instantaneous nonlocal action does not make it nondeterministic, it just makes it unpredictable.
      - Permit 14y ago
        I am not a physicist, so I'm speaking outside my realm of expertise. On the topic, Hawking suggests the following: "Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty." It's an interesting idea, because to me it suggests that if one were to rewind time and play events out again without changing anything, subtle things may occur differently. This would lead to larger time changes over a larger period of time. The idea seems strange, but then, so do many things on the quantum level as they are completely outside our traditional experiences. Apparently no consensus has been reached on this topic by experts in the field. I won't try and convince you, just present my interpretation.
baddox 14y ago
Presumably most of them still think there's a top level universe that is not being simulated by a computer, and I doubt many of them believe that universe was created by a personal deity.
pjscott 14y ago
Of the people I've run into who consider the simulation hypothesis plausible, I don't think I've seen any who considered it less frightening and inhuman than a non-simulated universe. Your speculation sounds plausible, but is empirically false.

knodi 14y ago

I love the notion of "no reason for the universe". I find it to be very pleasing.

robertk 14y ago
The ultimate sandbox. Deterministic, free will-less sandbox. :(
- Permit 14y ago
  How can it be deterministic if there are elements of randomness in our universe? I mean true randomness such as electron movement and nuclear decay.
  - domlebo70 14y ago
    How do you know they are truly random, and not just simulated?
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    Because so far it appears that the non-randomness falls off sharply at macro levels. i.e., so far there seems to be no support for the idea that the universe is actually chaotic in the mathematical sense from the quantum level to the relativistic one; Brownian motion doesn't change the weather. (I'm speaking specifically about the laws of physics in our geological era; the physics a few microseconds after the Big Bang would likely be different in this regard.)
  - akoumjian 14y ago
    Instantaneous nonlocal action does not make it nondeterministic, it just makes it unpredictable.
    - Permit 14y ago
      I am not a physicist, so I'm speaking outside my realm of expertise. On the topic, Hawking suggests the following: "Quantum physics might seem to undermine the idea that nature is governed by laws, but that is not the case. Instead it leads us to accept a new form of determinism: Given the state of a system at some time, the laws of nature determine the probabilities of various futures and pasts rather than determining the future and past with certainty." It's an interesting idea, because to me it suggests that if one were to rewind time and play events out again without changing anything, subtle things may occur differently. This would lead to larger time changes over a larger period of time. The idea seems strange, but then, so do many things on the quantum level as they are completely outside our traditional experiences. Apparently no consensus has been reached on this topic by experts in the field. I won't try and convince you, just present my interpretation.

baddox 14y ago

Presumably most of them still think there's a top level universe that is not being simulated by a computer, and I doubt many of them believe that universe was created by a personal deity.

pjscott 14y ago

Of the people I've run into who consider the simulation hypothesis plausible, I don't think I've seen any who considered it less frightening and inhuman than a non-simulated universe. Your speculation sounds plausible, but is empirically false.