Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9170 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,354 Year: 4,611/9,624 Month: 386/1,096 Week: 91/119 Day: 1/16 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Neil Degrasse-Tyson says we have 50-50 chance of living in a "simulation" universe
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2463
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 1 of 8 (917931)
04-19-2024 4:58 PM


He said the laws of physics could be fairly chaotic and undiscoverable in that type of universe.
He said the best argument against the simulation theory is, "why, now?" if we are just rats in a simulation.
(He accepts the Wave Function Collapse via obervation, so apparently the hypothetical alternate universes do not figure into his thoughts on this issue)
I find it interesting that an atheist seems to be placing 50-50 odds on a theory that can be used to argue for a type of God creating the Universe's laws. For one thing.
neil degrasse-tyson simulation - Google Search
Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50 | Scientific American

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-19-2024 6:11 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13075
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 2 of 8 (917932)
04-19-2024 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
04-19-2024 4:58 PM


Excellent topic. Could you add a link as a supporting reference?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-19-2024 4:58 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-19-2024 7:31 PM Admin has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2463
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3 of 8 (917933)
04-19-2024 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
04-19-2024 6:11 PM


The issue of appearance of age could be a separate thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2rJITW9viw
see 48:45 in
It has the scientific possibility of one minute equaling 1000 (of our) universe years to the species programming the universe.
Perhaps a separate thread for time issues?
I remember there used to be Young Earth Creationists here. One really disrupted the crap out of my Job 26 thread, when I was trying to discuss the primeval dragon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-19-2024 6:11 PM Admin has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2463
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 4 of 8 (917934)
04-19-2024 7:50 PM


I found a video where he said "creation" of some kid
only a 2 minute video.
God, I miss Larry King.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2463
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 5 of 8 (917935)
04-20-2024 12:29 AM


Bayesian Theory is, understandably, being appplied to this powerful theory
simulation theory bayesian - Google Search
Richard Carrier has made sure everybody interested in God and religion issues also understands Bayesian theory.
It did not take too long for this statistical tool to be employed. I take the view of Robert M Price, which is I am too stupid to understand it, but it seems like a good anchor, an I look forward to EvC confronting the analysis.
Let the thoughtful discussion being, already...

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13075
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 6 of 8 (917937)
04-20-2024 8:37 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2463
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 7 of 8 (918335)
04-26-2024 8:51 AM


David Chalmers: "I've considered myself an athiest" (Bayes Theorum challenges assumpt
The philosopher, who coined the term "The hard problem of consciousness", sees a real statistical argument for the possibility of a god. It is the methodology Richard Carrier likes most. The science of probabilities via analysis.
quote:
WIRED
Mar 9, 2022
It's been said that the simulation hypothesis is the best argument we moderns have for the existence of a godlike being. Chalmers agrees: "...the simulation hypothesis has made me take the existence of a god more seriously than I ever had before
Is this "Scientific Creationism"?
Whaaaaaaaaaat
quote:
The simulation hypothesis is perhaps attractive to a wider culture because of its nature as a cosmic-scale conspiracy theory as well as an apparently scientific version of Creationism. The inconceivably advanced alien running its simulation of our universe is indistinguishable from traditional terrestrial ideas of God: an all-powerful being who designed everything we see. But is this god the god of deism (who sets up the laws of nature but then absents himself while creation runs its course), or a more interventionist figure? If the latter, it might make sense to court their favour.
The big idea: are we living in a simulation? | Philosophy books | The Guardian
Really?
quote:
The simulation hypothesis proposes that what humans experience as the world is actually a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation in which humans themselves are constructs.[1][2] There has been much debate over this topic, ranging from philosophical discourse to practical applications in computing.
The simulation hypothesis, as formulated by Nick Bostrom,[3] is part of a long tradition of skeptical scenarios. It was presented by Bostrom as not merely a philosophical speculation, but an empirical claim with quantifiable probabilities. The hypothesis has received criticism from some physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder who has called it pseudoscience and religion,[4] and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint", and that "late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory".[5][6] Versions of the hypothesis have also been featured in science fiction, appearing as a central plot device in many stories and films, such as The Matrix.[7]
....
Bostrom claims his argument goes beyond the classical ancient "skeptical hypothesis", claiming that "... we have interesting empirical reasons to believe that a certain disjunctive claim about the world is true", the third of the three disjunctive propositions being that humans are almost certainly living in a simulation. Thus, Bostrom, and writers in agreement with Bostrom such as David Chalmers, argue there might be empirical reasons for the "simulation hypothesis", and that therefore the simulation hypothesis is not a skeptical hypothesis but rather a "metaphysical hypothesis". Bostrom states he personally sees no strong argument as to which of the three trilemma propositions is the true one: "If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one's credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3)... I note that people who hear about the simulation argument often react by saying, 'Yes, I accept the argument, and it is obvious that it is possibility #n that obtains.' But different people pick a different n. Some think it obvious that (1) is true, others that (2) is true, yet others that (3) is true."
As a corollary to the trilemma, Bostrom states that "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."[11][14][15][16]
Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia.
I always answered questions about evidence for God, by saying:
We have absolutely zero evidence, for God - none.
But we also have no evidence against.
It is totally 50-50.
I feel like I am being vindicated, when I see the most relevant scientific theory for our universe get squared into a 50-50 analysis.
I always said we did not know.
I knew I was right, all along.
(I should have known)
(I knew I did not know)
(I knew we did not know)
(I knew you did not know)
Now, stop telling me you know.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 04-26-2024 9:11 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13075
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 8 of 8 (918337)
04-26-2024 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by LamarkNewAge
04-26-2024 8:51 AM


Re: David Chalmers: "I've considered myself an athiest" (Bayes Theorum challenges assumpt
Your message had 1236 words of quoted text and 138 words of your own text, a nearly 10 to 1 ratio. The Forum Guidelines state:
  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
You've been reminded of this forum guideline on a number of occasions. By continuing to flout it you make less likely the restoration of your full privileges.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-26-2024 8:51 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024