←back to thread

UBCO study disproves the simulation hypothesis

(news.ok.ubc.ca)
21 points mxkopy | 7 comments | 02 Nov 25 19:24 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
badenglish ◴[02 Nov 25 19:43 UTC] No.45792824[source]▶
with the same success the study refutes the researchers' religious belief in the truth
replies(2): >>45793465 #>>45794530 #
junon ◴[03 Nov 25 00:00 UTC] No.45794530[source]▶
I would imagine the hand-wavey response might not be far away from "God is not algorithmic".
replies(1): >>45795927 #
MangoToupe ◴[03 Nov 25 04:36 UTC] No.45795927[source]▶
The concept of "god" and "simulated universe" seem to be essentially the same
replies(1): >>45797180 #
junon ◴[03 Nov 25 09:06 UTC] No.45797180[source]▶
I'm an atheist, but I can tell you that no, they are not - at least not to many believers.
replies(1): >>45798112 #
MangoToupe ◴[03 Nov 25 11:54 UTC] No.45798112[source]▶
From the perspective of empirical analysis—how?
replies(1): >>45801176 #
junon ◴[03 Nov 25 16:50 UTC] No.45801176[source]▶
I'd say the question is flawed (at least, in this context); religion is purposefully the opposite of empiricism for most everyone I know, anecdotally. Hence why it's given the term "faith".
replies(2): >>45803621 #>>45803908 #
1. MangoToupe ◴[03 Nov 25 20:20 UTC] No.45803908[source]▶
Exactly. How do you formulate "simulation" without such faith? The idea of demonstrating evidence of either god or simulation is equally nonsensical. The people grasping for such might as well grasp for the spaghetti monster.
replies(2): >>45804672 #>>45805629 #
2. Dylan16807 ◴[03 Nov 25 21:28 UTC] No.45804672[source]▶
> The idea of demonstrating evidence of either god or simulation is equally nonsensical.

Finding evidence is nonsensical if you assume they set everything up perfectly and have never intervened.

That is a stupendously huge "if".

replies(2): >>45805643 #>>45806350 #
3. junon ◴[03 Nov 25 23:14 UTC] No.45805629[source]▶
I agree with you, don't get me wrong. I'm just pointing out that comparing the two as if disproving an inherently empirical thing (we're in a simulation) also disproves a belief-system/faith-based thing (God or religion) is nonsensical in that the second isn't rooted in empiricism, algorithms, nor the scientific method. They don't believe God is something to be proven or disproven, he just is and that's that (as per their faith).
replies(1): >>45806344 #
4. junon ◴[03 Nov 25 23:15 UTC] No.45805643[source]▶
Realistically, the same could be said about the simulation theory. I don't really buy the article as-written, despite also not personally believing we're in a simulation.
5. MangoToupe ◴[04 Nov 25 00:48 UTC] No.45806344[source]▶
That's kind of my point--speculating on simulation is inherently impossible from an empirical perspective.
6. MangoToupe ◴[04 Nov 25 00:49 UTC] No.45806350[source]▶
> Finding evidence is nonsensical if you assume they set everything up perfectly and have never intervene.

Good luck. I don't know why anyone would spend money on this but... sure, go ahead. Let's go back to the tenth century. WHy not? We burn money are far stupider shit.

replies(1): >>45806467 #
7. Dylan16807 ◴[04 Nov 25 01:11 UTC] No.45806467{3}[source]▶
I have no idea what you're talking about. Spend money on what?

The main thing I'm trying to imply is that if Jesus shows up and starts doing miracles constantly, the proof gets pretty simple. Same thing if someone sticks their digital finger into a simulation. Demonstrating the evidence would be pretty straightforward.