4 ms·
>This seems like such faulty and backwards reasoning to me. It's not backwards, it's the scientific method: come up with a hypothesis (the universe is a simula
by eurleif 13y ago
>This seems like such faulty and backwards reasoning to me.
It's not backwards, it's the scientific method: come up with a hypothesis (the universe is a simulation), find a prediction made by that hypothesis (physical anomalies), then test for that prediction. Of course alternate explanations are possible, but the usefulness of the test is determined by the prior probabilities we assign to the various possible explanations; the basic form of reasoning is not backwards.
- platz 13y agoIn that frame of mind, ok, not it's backwards. But I don't think the test provides grounds for warranting this hypothesis; it does not seem to follow from the test you could deduce the hypothesis. I must admit I feel there is an alternate explanation for results/test.