Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly what prediction does the simulation theory make that would distinguish it as superior to an objective reality?
Screw predictions, it better explains the known facts than does the objective reality theory.
I'm not looking for a nobel prize. I'm not authoring a PHd thesis, or looking to publish a peer reviewed study in The Harvard Review.
I'm just a guy with above average intelligence who has looked around and had a "holy ****e" moment. A new theory, a radical theory, a theory that sounds downright certifiably insane, but it explains lifes little mysteries better than does the so obvious it's not even questioned theory of objective reality.
It explains how a single particle (or photon, or electron, or buckeyball) can appear to be in two places at once and interfere with itself.
It explains how when we record "which slit" data, the behavior of said particles magically changes.
It explains how, if we record said data and destroy the data before it becomes available to us, the behavior change disappears.
It explains how quantum tunneling works, when particles penetrate an impenetrable barrier.
It explains why, at the planck length, matter does not move smoothly, but rather it ticks. Ditto for the planck time.
It explains why the speed of light is both limited, as well as constant.
It explains why time is relative.
It explains why something came from nothing at T=0.
The objective reality hypothesis explains none of the above. Under the objective reality hypothesis, most, if not all of the above is literally physically impossible.
And yet it occurs.
So, sorry, it explains a lot of things that are currently inexplicable. Ergo, it is a reasonable hypothesis.
I'm sure science seems like a religion to the simpletons who can't count beyond their fingers and toes combined. It helps to actually learn something about how it works.
Modern Science is Consensus and Peer Review. Brilliant!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
I'm sure science seems like a religion to the simpletons who can't count beyond their fingers and toes combined. It helps to actually learn something about how it works.
As ambient says it would be wonderful if part of the education system was an intense look not just at science but the scientific method. In my own country of birth for example we start a subject called "Science" very early on which then splits in higher school levels to Physics, Biology, Chemisty and Applied maths.
At no point during any of this were we educated on what the philosophy and history of science actually were or what the scientific method entails. As such you can see people on this thread writing things like "Screw Prediction" which is actually to disregard one of the core tools of the methodology of Science. Prediction is not just an interesting side effect. Prediction is one of THE most important aspects of establishing a theory as more than unsubstantiated hypothesis.
A lack of understanding of science allows people with religious agendas to accept things like Gravity but dismiss things like Evolution yet both are established Theory in science by identical methods. To accept one and reject the other at this time shows a monstrous ignorance of science. You either accept the scientific method, or you do not. You do not get to apply it when it suits your religious fairy tales and ignore it when it does not.
science is the opposite of religion. for one thing, science has no central authority, its so anti-authoritarian in tone because its all about empiricism, whereas religion is all about dogmatism and a priori assumptions.
Science is the study of God's creation. It is so intricate that man really thinks themselves smart when they use large names and equations to try to nail down how and why it works that way.
Man can only find that this creator is past genius and all knowing. We who live here did not get here on our own. We try to be in control to find out what we can and conquer that wisdom. It is unending and we in our limited minds try to make strides to better our knowledge. It is with God's help giving us a brain and some wisdom to accomplish what we need to know.
Science requires thought, hypothesis, theory, experimentation, evidence, proof and an ability to support it's findings when challenged using empirical means.
Doesn't have much of a correlation to Religion it seems.
Science is the study of God's creation. It is so intricate that man really thinks themselves smart when they use large names and equations to try to nail down how and why it works that way.
Man can only find that this creator is past genius and all knowing. We who live here did not get here on our own. We try to be in control to find out what we can and conquer that wisdom. It is unending and we in our limited minds try to make strides to better our knowledge. It is with God's help giving us a brain and some wisdom to accomplish what we need to know.
That just sounds a bit like saying "It is all too complicated for me... therefore god".
It all is very complicated, and much of it may turn out to be beyond our understanding or abilities. That does not mean there is a god though. At all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
