• Natanael@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m not saying it happens, I’m just saying some of the arguments here aren’t logically justified

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      How are they not logically justified? You and I live in the world that is claimed to be a simulation. It’s entirely logically justified simply by virtue of the fact that we can verify these things. Again, to borrow your example, if parameters and material items are being changed and modified while the simulation is running then we’d have to observe those things happening in at least some instances. We don’t have any evidence of anything changing without cause. If those changes can be done without us knowing about them in every case, then it’s just as pointless as debating the idea that every person alive is only 1 day old.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m not arguing any specific purpose of controlling a simulation in these ways, just that the arguments saying it wouldn’t happen are too weak. A multipurpose simulation (imagine one shared by many different teams of simulation researchers) could plausibly be used like this where they mess with just about anything and then reset. Doesn’t mean it’s likely, just that it’s unreasonable to exclude the possibility

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s not unreasonable to exclude that possibility if there’s no way for us to ever know that. The same logic applies to scenarios like the one I mentioned before where everyone is only 1 day old.

          You can’t prove that everyone alive isn’t one day old and simply born with memories of previous events. It’s a silly example but it’s the same argument as what you’re suggesting. If it gets reset in way that no one can possibly know, then, logically, the only option is to exclude it because you could never prove or falsify it either way.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            You’re conflating things. We have no reason to argue those are true with any certainty, but we still can’t exclude the possibility. It’s the difference of “justified belief” vs coherent theory. Physics have had a ton of theories postulated without evidence where decades later one option was proven true and many others proven false. Under your assumption you shouldn’t have made that theory before it could be tested.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              What am I conflating?

              We can exclude that possibility because it’s a possibility that we can’t observe by any means. If what you’re suggesting is true, that a higher being is interfering and modifying our reality, then we should be able to test that assumption. Anything that can have a physical effect in our world is testable in our world. Since we don’t observe that happening, and according to you can’t observe it since doing so would end the simulation, it’s a possibility we don’t have to consider because it’s impossible to prove it or test it or, most importantly, to falsify it.

              Again, it’s the exact same argument as the one day old suggestion. It’s ultimately meaningless.

              • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                You’re conflating “possible” with “probable”, and refusing to address possibilities you don’t have proof of.

                When higgs bosons were predicted they were untestable. When gravity waves were predicted they were untestable. When black hole rings were predicted they were untestable.

                Then we discovered how to build the sensors and instruments to test them.

                You’re saying those scientists should’ve dropped their ideas because at that point it was still impossible to test or falsify.

                What scientists do instead is to develop many different alternative theories, then design tests and experiments, and then once data is in then they decide what do believe about the theories based on what the could prove or not.

                Edit: why are people like this so aggressively wrong in the dumbest ways… Not only did they pick only one of 3 examples of mine to attack and ignoring the rest, they also did so maximally incorrectly all while failing to understand the consequences of their own policy of rejecting anything you don’t know how to test.

                The core of my argument is really just “sometimes scientists works on stuff nobody knows how to test, because maybe they’ll find out how in the future”, and this dude’s argument is essentially “if you don’t know how to test something it’s literally impossible for it to be true and therefore it shall be rejected, but also scientists always knows the path forward and therefore I don’t have to reevaluate my understanding of science”

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  No, I’m not. I’m really not understanding what this straw man is that you’re arguing.

                  When bosons were predicted, the method by which they would be measured was also predicted. Just because it took 40 years to do that doesn’t mean that they were untestable. “Unobserved” is not the same as “untestable” which is exactly the distinction that you’re missing with the simulation idea.

                  I’m not saying anything of the sort. You suggested that it is possible for our reality to be a simulation where the creator of said simulation is actively making changes. Those changes would have to be observable by the people inside the simulation. You then retreated to the idea that the creators are perfect and simply stop the simulations where those changes are detected. Epistemologically, that idea is both untestable and unobservable because, according to you, any simulation where either of those things were true would have been stopped. That makes it impossible for our current reality to be one of those because it has not stopped and, again, any simulation that is indistinguishable from physical reality is pointless to discuss because it’s non-falsifiable. It’s just like the one day old example I’ve given several times now that you keep ignoring and never addressing.

                  • Natanael@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    Besides the fact that it wasn’t actually known if those tests would work, there’s also hypothetical tests for simulation theory (eg. testing for pixelated resolution of spacetime, plus endless “consistency tests”) so doesn’t that make it all the same thing anyway? You’re making much too strong assumptions.

              • sacredfire@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                By this same logic we can exclude the possibility of simulation theory, no? By your own logic it’s not a stretch to “exclude the possibility” of something “because it’s a possibility that we can’t observe by any means”. I believe goes back to the point of the meme: self proclaimed logical actors believing in something unprovable and thus proving themselves to be hypocrites…

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  It’s not unprovable, though. That’s where you’re wrong. A simulation can be provable so long as functions in line with its own internally consistent rules and what we observe about it.

                  For the sake of argument (this is an oversimplification but the point is the same), imagine that this simulation was running on a computer with 8MB of memory. Within the simulation (as in inside of it), we would be able to observe situations where things are not internally consistent as a result of, for example, running out of memory. Other observations we could make that would support the theory and be internally inconsistent would be things disappearing, as mentioned before, or moving without cause. Details could be internally inconsistent.

                  The only reason to exclude simulation theory completely would be if we have to assume that the simulation is perfect and, therefore, not distinguishably different from reality. This was the premise of the movie “The Matrix” in its initial concept when humans were used as computer brains to run the simulation rather than giant batteries (which makes no sense as our bodies are terrible energy storage mediums).

                  So, yes, there are situations where simulation theory could be excluded by the same premise but nothing that has been presented so far that would allow for the changes described to our current reality that would go unnoticed. The difference is that there is evidence (although not admittedly strong) that makes simulation theory more probable than any religion. It’s not hypocritical to accept the possibility of something based on some objective evidence rather than something meant to be accepted without any evidence at all.

                  • sacredfire@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    But by this same logic anything can be “proven”. If I see evidence of an abrhamic god, then I can prove its existence. This is not a novel or sufficient observation to meet the criteria that imperical based science is held to. The claim must also be falsifiable, just how a metaphysical God can always escape attempts to disprove it by relying on the imperical nature of science i.e. we can’t really prove or disprove anything objectively, the counter effect is that it can’t be proven under the scientific imperical framework either. I will admit I’m not well versed in the evidence for ST which you have referenced, but how would it be falsifiable? It seems any attempt can always be handwaved away as it’s simply too complex a simulation… God works in mysterious ways right. To me this puts it squarely in the metaphysical realm, which isn’t a bad thing per say, but again speaks to the intent of the meme.