It’s wise to treat any talk about The Simulation™ like talk of God and the afterlife. An interesting concept, but absolutely unverifiable, and therefore unscientific and of no relevance to your day to day life. Unless you want to believe, but then it’s a religion.
A perfect simulation is inherently unverifiable. A limited scope simulation could be.
E.g. some gravity wave detectors have detected interesting effects, just above the noise floor. They are consistent with the sensitivity approaching plank length limitations. However, it should be FAR above the plank length. Interestingly, if the universe was holographic in nature (a 3D projection of a 2D object). Then the effective plank length would be a lot higher, potentially consistent with what we see. If that were the case, our universe would be a simulation. The question then becomes if it is natural or artificial, and what we can learn about the higher state reality.
Fyi, physics was thought to be a “solved” thing. That was until a young scientist discovered a line didn’t go quite through 0,0 on a graph. It is now known as the photoelectric effect, and it was the crack that led to the discovery of quantum mechanics.
that’s partly why I care about making the distinction between science and non-science.
To be scientific, a theory needs to be, first and foremost, falsifiable. That sounds counterintuitive, but you need to propose experiments that could prove you wrong. And then if they fail, you got a good indication you might be on to something.
A (good enough, as you said) simulation is per definition unfalsifiable. It’s also a wild assumption that “the real world” obeys the same laws of physics ours does, and I consider any statistical argument based on that assumption to be pretty unconvincing.
Ultimately, the simulation theory is a nice thought experiment and a great setpiece for sci-fi, but not much more. It’s kinda similar to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, actually. Cool to think about, not at all relevant for us.
Thought experiments, while useless for direct science, are an excellent tool for mental processing. It can often lead to falsifiable experiments, that helps tease out the nature of reality.
The amount of good science that comes out of stupid “what if” type games/discussions/thought experiments would unnerve many people. The catch is that it needs to be backed up by old fashioned slog work.
As for the many worlds Vs Copenhagen interpretation, in most ways they are impossible to separate, they look at the same data, and create the same conclusion. There are still cracks that can be pried at, however. Most will lead to nothing, a few can help understand QM better, and find its flaws. Ultimately, however, the maths and measurements win. Any understanding method must conform to those. The model just helps envisage future paths.
Exactly! I’m by no means against these thought experiments, I think they’re super interesting and might lead to new insights down the road. I’m just irked out by people staying these things as fact, using Elon Musk level popscience arguments.
It’s wise to treat any talk about The Simulation™ like talk of God and the afterlife. An interesting concept, but absolutely unverifiable, and therefore unscientific and of no relevance to your day to day life. Unless you want to believe, but then it’s a religion.
Newton’s flaming laser sword
“If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.”
see also falsifiability
well, the afterlife is the real world, and we’re in a sim and we get there by dying. kinda no difference at all.
A perfect simulation is inherently unverifiable. A limited scope simulation could be.
E.g. some gravity wave detectors have detected interesting effects, just above the noise floor. They are consistent with the sensitivity approaching plank length limitations. However, it should be FAR above the plank length. Interestingly, if the universe was holographic in nature (a 3D projection of a 2D object). Then the effective plank length would be a lot higher, potentially consistent with what we see. If that were the case, our universe would be a simulation. The question then becomes if it is natural or artificial, and what we can learn about the higher state reality.
Fyi, physics was thought to be a “solved” thing. That was until a young scientist discovered a line didn’t go quite through 0,0 on a graph. It is now known as the photoelectric effect, and it was the crack that led to the discovery of quantum mechanics.
I actually study physics :D
that’s partly why I care about making the distinction between science and non-science. To be scientific, a theory needs to be, first and foremost, falsifiable. That sounds counterintuitive, but you need to propose experiments that could prove you wrong. And then if they fail, you got a good indication you might be on to something.
A (good enough, as you said) simulation is per definition unfalsifiable. It’s also a wild assumption that “the real world” obeys the same laws of physics ours does, and I consider any statistical argument based on that assumption to be pretty unconvincing.
Ultimately, the simulation theory is a nice thought experiment and a great setpiece for sci-fi, but not much more. It’s kinda similar to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, actually. Cool to think about, not at all relevant for us.
Thought experiments, while useless for direct science, are an excellent tool for mental processing. It can often lead to falsifiable experiments, that helps tease out the nature of reality.
The amount of good science that comes out of stupid “what if” type games/discussions/thought experiments would unnerve many people. The catch is that it needs to be backed up by old fashioned slog work.
As for the many worlds Vs Copenhagen interpretation, in most ways they are impossible to separate, they look at the same data, and create the same conclusion. There are still cracks that can be pried at, however. Most will lead to nothing, a few can help understand QM better, and find its flaws. Ultimately, however, the maths and measurements win. Any understanding method must conform to those. The model just helps envisage future paths.
Exactly! I’m by no means against these thought experiments, I think they’re super interesting and might lead to new insights down the road. I’m just irked out by people staying these things as fact, using Elon Musk level popscience arguments.