/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10905274
Arguments are meaningless. Provide experimental evidence. Until then, it’s unfalsifiable hogwash

>>10905274
Isn't simulation theory just "dude god lmao" adjusted for the computer age?

>>10905280
and yet string theory is popular among scientists

>>10905284
When? In 2004? It attracts little interest outside of pop science.

>>10905280
>unfalsifiable hogwash
Cringe

>>10905282
We've reached the end of science. Speculating about what might have birthed the cosmos is all we're gonna have to talk about for millennia to come. It will be just like life was between the time of Plato and the time of Einstein. We're just going back to a more Plato-oriented time that will last just as long, if not until we die off from this god forsaken, spinning rock.

>>10905289
Just because all you know is pop science, does not mean what appears in pop science is exclusive to pop science. You don't know what you're talking about.

>>10905295
My physics professor thought very little of it, that’s all I know. Is it genuinely popular amongst physicists? Sounds like wishful thinking more than anything else. Oh it’s the Theory of Everything we just have to build a particle accelerator that Jupiter could wear as a belt to prove it.

>>10905290
>Cringe

Cringe.

>>10905274
There's a proof against it based on there not being enough computing power possible in our universe to ever be able to simulate a universe in a way that produces all the little details that can be verified as existing and consistent from observation to observation.
But this proof depends on the assumption the meta-universe simulating us is similar to or identical to our own universe. If it's completely off the wall different in ways we can't even begin to appreciate then you can't really say anything about basic shit like what "large" or "small" mean in their context.
Also you could always argue the simulation we're in itself is nowhere close to the detailed observable universe we believe we have knowledge of i.e. The meta-universe programmers are just screwing with our perception and any time we think we have evidence of highly consistent little details that wouldn't be feasible for a meta-universe programmer to capture we could just be like in a dream where you're fed the conclusion of a narrative idea and go along with it as though it really were true even though the dream never bothered to actually go through the trouble of having you experience the event that never happened but which you're now under the impression did happen.
That last one might sound unlikely, but it would be pretty easy to accomplish. None of us are really in a position to do a robust verification of all the rigorously worked out knowledge we assume mankind has amassed over the millennia. No matter who you are, you're leaving huge amounts of it out because you can't be autistically obsessed, hyper-knowledgeable expert in every subject that's ever existed. If any one morning it turned out that despite believing you're in your 30s and have been waking up and going through a routine every day for your entire adult life you are actually an artificially created entity who didn't exist prior to the minute you woke up, you wouldn't necessarily have any way of knowing.

>>10905304
The physics community is deeply divided, with both sides entrenched and very little "middle ground". Never mind that I can't imagine how there could be a middle ground on this. So it's not surprising that a physics professor, who had obviously chosen a side, was highly critical and dismissive of the other.

>>10905304
Fallacy of authority. A lot of physicists devote their whole life to trying to explain how it would work but ultimately its just a theory.

Also, all science is just popular science. We literally select and choose which models explain our experience the best and go from there.

>>10905309
>There's a proof against it based on there not being enough computing power possible in our universe to ever be able to simulate a universe
How is that a proof

>>10905311
Why would there be a division over something that hasn’t been tested? That’s dumb. If testing a model requires a fuckhueg particle accelerator, figure out more practical tests or formulate other hypothesis with different, more practical tests in the meantime until we can invest the resources into making some absurd megastructure. If that test fails, as string theory tests failed in the LHC, then I think we’re dealing with something more like Sagan’s Dragon than an earnest scientific proposal.

>>10905313
>Fallacy of authority. A lot of physicists devote their whole life to trying to explain how it would work but ultimately its just a theory.

We can map out the models all we like but ultimately what matters is the experiment, right?