Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
**** does that even mean?
It's probably just another bunch of minor academics trying to get funding by producing a "spectacular" paper.
I'm hoping Sabine will give this paper a 10/10 on her bullshitometer.
How do you falsify a statement like "it's possible to be dealt aces N times in a row" where N is some arbitrarily large finite number though? Or just for ease, "it's possible to flip N heads in a row" or whatever. That doesn't seem as clear cut.
We don't need to talk about games of chance. I think everything we're trying to say already exists in statistical mechanics, thermodynamics and math. We have the 2nd law which I think everyone would agree is science and is falsifiable. But we also have the Poincare Recurrence Theorem that tells us a glass of cold water given enough time can turn into a glass of slightly warmer water and ice. You can prove it, but there is no way to test it as it involves probabilities as low as (10^-23)! so it's impossible to observe or falsify. But I would say stuff like this is of a different category than religion or simulation theory, which is effectively designed to be unfalsifiable.
There are claims that us being in a simulation is falsifiable and that it is proven we don't live in a simulation
Interesting.
Today's cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren't fundamental. They emerge from something deeper:pure information.
Our senses are basically information channels to our brain. But none of them in isolation give us the perception of a world out there. For instance if we could only hear sounds, it wouldn't occur to us that something out there is causing them. Same with vision and touch. It's only when the brain unifies those information channels that a me in here and a world out there appears.
Doesn't mean there isn't an external source for that info. But it also doesn't mean that the 3D graph our brains compile that information into corresponds to anything like a local world.
That article seems particularly bad.
A platonic realm can’t be fundamental because it’s causally inert.
Edit: I also don’t see how this has falsified simulation theory when it’s consistent with simulation theory that the simulation could trick scientists into thinking simulation theory was impossible.
If I ever understand it properly I will post it in the precise pithy way you like to call gobbledygook.
That article seems particularly bad.
A platonic realm can’t be fundamental because it’s causally inert.
Edit: I also don’t see how this has falsified simulation theory when it’s consistent with simulation theory that the simulation could trick scientists into thinking simulation theory was impossible.
I found it while I was looking for what Penrose had to say. I guess it's based on the same ideas. Here's a bit of Penrose according to AI
Penrose's Stance
Non-Algorithmic Reality: Penrose argues that human consciousness involves processes that are fundamentally non-computable (non-algorithmic). Since a standard computer simulation operates entirely on algorithms and computations, this suggests that our reality and consciousness could not be a product of such a simulation.
Quantum Gravity and Consciousness: Penrose, often with Stuart Hameroff, proposes the "Orch-OR" (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) theory, which suggests that consciousness arises from quantum processes occurring within the microtubules of neurons in the brain. He posits that gravity plays a role in the "objective reduction" (collapse) of the quantum wave function, an idea known as the Penrose-Diosi model. This requires a theory of quantum gravity that goes beyond current physics and involves non-computable elements.
Distinction from Simulation: His perspective fundamentally clashes with the "materialistic" view of the simulation hypothesis, which suggests everything in our universe is reducible to mathematical computation. Penrose believes the deep aspects of physics are not entirely computable.
Connection to Quantum Gravity
Quantum gravity is central to Penrose's ideas because it is the theoretical framework required to reconcile general relativity (gravity) with quantum mechanics.
Penrose argues that the incompatibility between the linearity of quantum mechanics and the non-linearity of Einstein's general relativity means a complete theory of quantum gravity must incorporate a mechanism for wave function collapse that is linked to spacetime structure and thus gravity itself.
Experiments are being proposed and conducted to test these Penrose-Diosi models of gravity-related wave function collapse.
In essence, Penrose suggests that reality is more profound and complex than can be replicated by even the most advanced computer simulation envisioned by current science.
I agree with what you say that even allowing thath the article I posted is about a genuine proof, the scope and interpretation of what that proof means regarding a simulation is going to me much less solid.
I found it while I was looking for what Penrose had to say. I guess it's based on the same ideas. Here's a bit of Penrose according to AI
I agree with what you say that even allowing thath the article I posted is about a genuine proof, the scope and interpretation of what that proof means regarding a simulation is going to me much less solid.
So I got curious and read the paper that the article was based on. Seems to be begging the question to say that the universe is complete and consistent. If you do believe that simulation is possible, you don’t have to bite the bullet that ultimate reality is a simulation, so that Godell’s incompleteness theory is true doesn’t give you warrant to say that you can’t have an incomplete simulation. Even granting the premises I don’t see where the conclusion is justified.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.22950
Also I’m skeptical of the meta truth function. Not sure why we would need that, but maybe we do.
I agree we don’t need complete physics to pilot a drone. But what if we’re talking about a particle accelerator? A simulation would need the complete underlying rules to avoid inconsistencies.
I can’t imagine a randomly spawned universe creating a simulation without accidentally giving its inhabitants some glimpse of the deeper reality.
Edit: I also don’t see how this has falsified simulation theory when it’s consistent with simulation theory that the simulation could trick scientists into thinking simulation theory was impossible.
That's kind of a god of the gaps plea but it's a valid question considering the topic.
My understanding is that tapping into the quantum vacuum for energy could destabilize... well everything. So highly advanced civilizations wouldn't do it even if they could. So I'm thinking if they did create our universe, they'd leave the dangerous cheat codes out. Or maybe make something like the Big Bang so obvious as to not look elsewhere, leave some dimensions out, etc.
Would be funny (in some morbid sense) if some guy wins the lottery and then gets killed by lightning on his way to redeem his winnings.
Kinda like the Alanis Morrissette song, 'Ironic".
https://genius.com/Alanis-morissette-iro...
[Verse 1]
An old man turned ninety-eight
He won the lottery and died the next day
It's a black fly in your Chardonnay
It's a death row pardon two minutes too late
That's kind of a god of the gaps plea but it's a valid question considering the topic. My understanding is that tapping into the quantum vacuum for energy could destabilize... well everything. So highly advanced civilizations wouldn't do it even if they could. So I'm thinking if they did create our universe, they'd leave the dangerous cheat codes out. Or maybe make something li
I have no idea about quantum vacuums but I wasn’t making a God of the Gaps argument, since I wasn’t proposing that the simulation can explain something as yet unexplained by science. I’m saying that the supposed falsification misses the point of the skeptical problem that simulation theory poses.
I have no idea about quantum vacuums but I wasnÂ’t making a God of the Gaps argument, since I wasnÂ’t proposing that the simulation can explain something as yet unexplained by science. IÂ’m saying that the supposed falsification misses the point of the skeptical problem that simulation theory poses.
I don't think the universe's almighty creator tricking scientists into thinking a simulation is impossible counts as evidence.
I don't think the universe's almighty creator tricking scientists into thinking a simulation is impossible counts as evidence.
Where did I say it counts as evidence? I said it’s consistent with the simulation hypothesis. Do you know the difference between those things? If not, something being evidence of a theory means that it raises the probability of that theory being true over other theories. Something being consistent with a theory means that it doesn’t rule out the theory.
Can we move all this egghead bollocks to a separate thread?
I guess you could make the argument that no matter how powerful your magnifying device, if you don't see the atoms it's just because you need a more powerful device, so that avenue doesn't lead to falsifiability. But we inferred the existence of atoms through other experiments before we ever saw them with electron microscopes, so we know that we can identify them through means
This is happening in modern times as well. it's sort of natural for any extra dimensions to be somewhere around the Planck scale, which would make our situation many many orders of magnitude worse than the ancient Greeks. And that's precisely why models with large extra dimensions like ADD or RS got so much attention in the 90s and early 2000s. They actually said stuff that could be falsified at the TEv scale which was reachable with known technology.
That article seems particularly bad.
A platonic realm can’t be fundamental because it’s causally inert.
Edit: I also don’t see how this has falsified simulation theory when it’s consistent with simulation theory that the simulation could trick scientists into thinking simulation theory was impossible.
I prefer the term 'causally effete.'
I agree we don’t need complete physics to pilot a drone. But what if we’re talking about a particle accelerator? A simulation would need the complete underlying rules to avoid inconsistencies.
I can’t imagine a randomly spawned universe creating a simulation without accidentally giving its inhabitants some glimpse of the deeper reality.
A 'random' universe couldn't 'create' anything.
2p2 been glitchy for me all morning.
(Just thought I'd mention it.)
