It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Simulation Hypothesis hinted at In theology with emphasis on how to upload.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 07:27 AM
Simulation Hypothesis hinted at In theology with emphasis on finding and transferring to hardware within the base reality.

I will explain how most forms of Theology seem to describe a simulated universe with a software often interacting with various forms of software to build and test useful applications within and how we can transfer our “program” into the base reality. At the same time I will also cover how our reality came into existence (including the universe, space, time, and matter) and what the purpose of all of it is.Next I will explain how the Christian perspective of the Trinity actually confirms all of this.

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 07:28 AM
We see in many ancient belief systems, both philosophies and religions, an underlying belief that this universe is not real but is I’m fact important, and that there is something much more important just beyond the vail of this reality. It’s only within the last hundred years that we have had the technical frame of reference to understand how this could possibly work.
I promised to explain how ancient belief systems attempt to describe a simulated universe. Let’s start with philosophies. There is a philosophy called Solipsism in which one believes there is nothing other than themselves, and that everything is put here for their sake. Most children seem to have this pattern of thinking.
This was later upgraded in a way which deletes the moral complications of those theory by a man named Ludwig Boltzmann who proposed that it is more likely that a brain could temporarily flash into existence (with a lifetime of false memory and sensory input) than to have an entire universe to form and grow to develop an entire species of humans and everything else on Earth which we see now. This highlights the improbably of the existence of a real universe.
Now a more relevant and the most obvious case to bring forward is Plato’s Cave, in which a number of people are chained up facing a blank wall at the back of the cave so that they can not look away. Then objects pass in front of the cave projecting shadows on the wall. Having never seen the outside world, these people give names to the shadows and work to understand how they function and interact.
To take Plato’s cave to a more modern level, we arrive at the film titled “The Matrix” which has humans wired into a computer and their brains connected to a simulation. This movie has strong Christian parallels and concepts throughout it, and it is certainly not a Christian film.
This brings us to another point, it’s not just ancient philosophy and modern films which hold this idea. Many ancient religions tell us the same thing, that there is something more real going on than just what we experience, that ultimately nothing in this world will matter apart from your own choices. And that’s usually rather or not you choose to obey laws handed down by one or more gods, and to admit to atone for sins in some prescribed way when you fail to do so. And that is the key to why we are here in this simulated universe.

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 07:30 AM
Abrahamic Faith Tradition
I promise that you do not have to be religious to read this, and I’ll explain which parts of which religions play a key part when used as metaphors for understanding the nature of the simulation. So let’s first look at the view of how the universe came into according to the Abrahamic faith tradition (accepted by Jews, Christians, and Muslims) a moment.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 NET
This does not say how God created the Heavens (meaning Universe in this verse) or the Earth, but the next verse gives some insight into how this happened.
Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.
Genesis 1:2‭-‬5 NET‬‬‬‬‬‬
In this account, God simply says it and it happens. We have voice dictation on computers and other devices. We can say “Lights On” and if you have the right hardware the lights will come on. Consider an advanced Integrated development environment (IDE) with some kind of voice input. It would be a bit difficult with the programing languages which we use, but not impossible and perhaps God uses something more advanced. Notice that the Sun was not created yet, but the light was? That’s easy because photons existed before the Sun of course, however the day and night cycles on Earth, and all done in 24 hours? This sounds like videogame development, but it’s not finished yet.
God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:6‭-‬8 NET‬‬‬‬‬‬
Don’t overlook this fact, an entire atmosphere, complete with breathable air and clouds, is formed in a single day! This would be impossible for us. Just ask anyone who is considering terraforming Mars how long it would take us to create an atmosphere. The most optimistic people will say a few hundred years of constant work. God did it in a day, again through a voice command.
God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good. God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation – plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:9‭-‬12 NET‬‬‬‬‬‬
Still no sun, but with a simple command God has caused entire continents to appear within one day/night cycle from our planets perspective. Keep in mind that the entire concept of time was created by God before this point, so he does not operate within it’s bounds. By physical means, this mass movement of land and resurfacing of an entire planet in a single day would be impossible without creating enough heat to melt the entire crust. However, if you are in control of a virtual environment then it is easy. So what’s next?
God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. God made two great lights – the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:14‭-‬18 NET‬‬‬‬‬‬
There it is. The light was already created, the day and night cycles already there too, but now the Sun and moon is created. Don’t under estimate this, Earth’s moon is practically another planet. I’ve even heard of the Earth system as a binary planet system. Then the Sun is a massive collection of hydrogen gas under so much pressure that it undergoes nuclear fusion! The stars are the same as the Sun, only some are smaller, and others much bigger, the were created with the sub. Almost like a copy and paste of code, then change a parameter here and there for variety. What could be more impressive than this?
God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”
Genesis 1:20‭-‬22 NET‬‬‬‬‬‬
Wow, jumping right into complex life? And all these various kinds in a single day? Again, with code being copied and pasted and variables being changed (in DNA now) you get many kinds of life. You can think of DNA as an interpreted language within a more complex system. Kind of like a C# application which can process Python code to carry out functions.
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.” God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:26‭-‬27 NET‬‬‬‬‬‬
So we have some of the attributes of God. One of those being our creativity. We even create our on universes, in videogames, we create robotics, sometimes in our own image, and all kinds of devices.
More and more we want to interact with our devices on a personal level. Even my son talks to his computer through voice dictation. I use speech to text when I don’t know how to spell a word or need to translate something.
With the rise of voice assistants being For everything from making phone calls and sending text massages or emails, to getting the news and weather reports to buying products and even refill your prescriptions. The thing is, these don’t have much intelligence, and could benefit from having artificial general intelligence installed on , but how do we know we could trust them? What if they started texting embarrassing images to your friends and family as a joke?
Now consider smart vehicles. Imagine jumping into your car and just saying, “drive me to the store” and it know which store you shop at and drive you there, and even find a good parking spot. Being that smart, it may decide it wants to buy new tires and refuses to drive until you buy them for it, that would be annoying, unacceptable even.
No imagine a smart home with general intelligence becoming mad at the occupants. It could turn up the thermostat to 40°c and lock you in. Or perhaps it just locks you out. Maybe it opens it’s windows or it livestreams it’s security camera feeds while you’re in the shower. We can’t have that.
That is just on the consumer side, think

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 07:33 AM
Video Games
I’m videogame creation, you start with an empty and formless world and create a “lamp” and “camera” first. The lamp is the light source on an empty plane which details what is illuminated and what is in the shadows, and the camera is a point which controls how your player will view the world from a first person perspective. Then you can form your map. This is the land and it’s features. They out add in your plants and animal models with simple behavior. Then you generally do your texturing which often includes more plants. Next, we create the models of the Sun and Moon and place them in the appropriate places. Finally, we create the Non-player characters and the players avatar. This process seems to mirror the Genesis account.
Are there any precedents for using videogames to train artificial intelligence, or is this just a crazy idea that I’m making up? DARPA, the America defense department, is using open world style videogames (similar to GTA) to train AI in combat situations with other robots and real people alike. Additionally, they are scanning brainwaves as gamers play to learn more about the thought process of fighting without fear of real consequences.
This is a real government program which they are actively recruiting for. The results have been good so far, as videogames are a great learning environment. If you disagree, consider how pilots use flight simulators to learn to fly an aircraft. This is no different.
So we see here how our universe came into being, according to the Abrahamic faith tradition; and we also see how the process of creating a virtual videogame style world mimics this Biblical process. Who’s playing the game? Now, I will dig into how the historical figure know to the western world as “Jesus Christ” actually confirms this is a simulation and what that means for us.
So according to Christianity, Jesus is God. His father is also God. And Still more is a Holy Spirit, which is also God. Furthermore, there is only one God. For many Christians, and non-believers alike, the concept of the Trinity is confusing. This is because it’s not explicitly stated in any English copy of scripture; but it is shown. And if you can’t see it, let’s play a game. Specifically, a video game. Videogames seem to hold the key to intuitively understanding the complexity of the Trinity.
God: The Father
Also known simply as God, or The Lord, is the aspect of God who is all powerful and created the entire universe, and all that you see in it.
Imagine you’re a game developer. You write a whole world into existence line by line, shape the models, and place points of light, and so much more. This is like creating a virtual universe complete with the Earth itself, or at least a part of it, and the Sun at least. However first you determine the way light will work in your game, setting points, and using ray tracing to cast shadows, reflections, and such. Think back to scripture about how God created the light before he created the Sun, Moon, and Stars.
You would seem to be a god to the non-player characters in your game. And in a way, you would be as that is what God is to us. God is fully outside of this reality and created every aspect of it. This gives God an awesome amount of power and ability hear on Earth. Furthermore, because of this many games actually call some of these features “god mode”.
God: The Son
I said that Jesus holds the key to confirming that the universe is a simulation. Here is how. Yeshua or Jesus Christ, is the part of God that was in Human form, physically walking on Earth with us throughout the Gospels, as well as in the Garden of Eden as well as in a furnace in Babylon. This is the form that God took, being born through a virgin, to ultimately sacrifice himself on a cross for our sins.
What about the Christ? That’s Hamashiach for my Jewish friends. What about the resurrection? Can videogames explain this? Yes! Easily. Christ was born to a virgin and killed on a cross. When he died he was placed in a tomb. On the third day he rose again. How do you think that this works? Another videogame can explain this in a very simple way.
Pick a game to log into and play. Let’s say Halo. You have a backstory which you really did not play though. Nobody ever had intercourse to produce you. Your body is computer code. Likely written in C++ or a similar language. You miraculously appear and begin your work. You know the script, and what you have to do. I don’t always enjoy every aspect of the videogames I’ve played. One great example is dealing with The Flood on Halo CE. They were my least favorite part, but I did it anyway. This is a weak comparison to the agony which Jesus experienced on the cross two millennia ago, but he did what he needed to do to accomplish his goal. Spoiler alert, he wins.
If the Father is fully outside the system, the Son, Yeshua or Jesus Christ, is the part which is fully inside the system. This is analogous to your game character or avatar. It is fully you and fully part of the game. In a way you are fully in the game and also fully outside the system at the same time in this manner. A sort of duel existence. In this way, Christ logged into our world through a virgin in Bethlehem played through all of the tedious aspects of our day to day lives, and got many people to hear what he had to say. Ultimately, he sacrificed himself on the cross to cover our sins.
I’ve been killed in a videogame before, have you ever been killed in a game you were playing? What happened? Did it actually hurt you, or were you fine and your avatar respawned moments later? We simply respawn back into the game after an annoying pre-set time, right? That’s what God did, after his avatar was killed and buried in a tomb, he respawned after three days, defeating Death which is so real to us in the system.
The human body named Jesus was God’s in-game avatar, fully him but also fully something outside the game. This being was fully human just like you and me in this physical world, however he was also fully outside this would and in full control just like you or I would be to a non-player character in a video game.
Now that we can view Jesus as a player avatar for God existing in the world that he designed, how do we explain Jesus praying to God (himself)? It would be best to view this as being for our benefit. Is there any time you have played a game and your player avatar was taking to You? While this is rare, we only have a small handful of times that Jesus prayed publicly, and I can also only think of few times that this has happened in a videogame, but it does occur. Your character turns to the camera and starts giving you information or commenting on the game. This is a breaking of the so-called “fourth wall”.
The Holy Spirit
This is the part of God which communicates with humans on a personal level, though your conscious. This is the part of God which lives inside all of his children.
The holy spirit is a more difficult aspect to understand, but in many ways, it is a more familiar aspect of God in our day to day life. The holy spirit interacts with us and gives us information regarding what God wants for us. We are completely free to ignore this advice and follow our own free will, but God knows what is really best for us. Depending on the game, you can feed information or commands to non-player characters, which they may act on or simply choose to ignore and do whatever they were doing. They are their own person after all.
One shining example

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 09:27 AM
a reply to: GolgothaBridge

The theory that reality is a simulation has always held a place in my mind. Mainly for the argument about the morality of a God. Why is it okay for a God to genocide a population/world with no repercussions other than maybe dispair for having to do it? Because it's no different than you deleting a character from the Sims or going on a rampage in GTA. You've committed no crime in your reality but have in their reality.
We tend to look at divine beings from our own perspective. "Does God believe in God or is it an atheist?" Is the same as asking does the player have a player? It's pointless and proves nothing.

If it is a simulation though, you have to ask why go through the effort of trying to manipulate a being you created with your own personality into behaving a certain way instead of forcing the issue? To the point of using an avatar to mimic how the simulation should live on instead of just programming the desired result. Is that the game?

God is playing a game where it has to get the simulated God likeness beings to have a set behaviour?

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: oddscreenname

Remember the garden of Eden? The original plan was for Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and then continue subduing the Earth to expand the paradise. Well, we dropped the ball on most of that. Sure, we filled the Earth, but that’s about it. Now you will have a decent group of people in a perfect paradise and a chaotic and ugly and chaotic Earth. It’s back to the beginning, but more extreme. Could we have further work to do? I’m not sure. Either way, we will be serving God.

Alternatively, what if after you did you wake up in one of those speech activated digital assistant boxes sitting on God’s desk, or something like that. Perhaps this world is not even real and God is waiting to bring our consciousness into the real world to perform some task. If you’ve read my article on the trinity you see how this world being a videogame style simulation can make God make more sense, now we can expand the concept to heaven and hell and the afterlife.

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 09:48 AM
That's a lot to read.

I'm going to be honest, I didn't read much of it, yet.

I'll probably read it all.

If you want to apply the technical and scientific, to religious literature like the Bible, you can really do some fun stuff, but a lot more simple and based only on basic logic.

I'll give a couple of examples.

Here's a technical guide for how to talk to God, leveraging the Bible.

True believers that follow the instructions of the Bible are not allowed to lie.
The scripture, is stated to be the word of God.
So, if two true believers engage in conversation, and they ask each other questions about the scripture, then their answers would be the answers that God would want them to give each other. (God's answers)
It's a way to talk to God, by proxy, but only works for true believers.

Another example.

Software Quality Assurance has to test all possible input and output scenarios for software that they are analyzing.
So, in theory, one could QA test the Bible.

In the New Testament it's said that if you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior you will be forgiven of your sins and able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
So... What happens if you choose to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, but then you choose to go to Hell for eternity, regardless?
There's no answer for that question in the Bible, but the Bible also doesn't state or imply that you're FORCED to go to Heaven.

That would be a QA test of scripture, albeit, one that would be controversial. (Hack the Bible, if you will.)

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 10:29 AM
a reply to: GolgothaBridge

The crime of Eden may have been the simulation realizing it was a simulation. Before the apple, Adam and eve didn't realize they were naked. They were animalistic until they weren't. The "ai" realized it could change the coding and was kicked out of the "editing room" that was Eden. It may be the worst thing to realize you're a program that can no longer access operator mode

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 11:19 AM
They are all very interesting ideas. The only problem I have with it is the idea of hardware running the simulation. We don't know if there is any hardware running the simulation if we are in one.

In fact if we are in a simulation all of our ideas and concepts of everything were built up within and are part of the simulation and it's rules, including the concept of physicality and the need to create external machines, hardware and computers to run simulations.

The simulation of the universe may not need hardware at very least not as we understand it. The hardware of the universe could just be energy or not even any kind of hardware at all, but it could be projected from the quantum field like a hologram; like a projected light hitting a black screen. And the organized light become like the coding and programming of the system and the simulation setting the universal laws and primary forces. Then everything else in the universe develops like sub routines and programs in the system.

And even though we can use modern electronic and programming terms, it may not be a computer out there. There may not even be an outside universe in which there could be hardware to run the simulation. These things we do not know, nor will we know until we can escape the simulation and move outside of it, into that encapsulating universe. It may not even be possible if there is nothing of us out there to transfer to and we really are just programs within the simulation; nothing more and nothing less.

Now if you are comparing back to the ancient mystery traditions and the ideas of metaphysical philosophy and creating changes within the simulation, well those ancients were more creating energetic constructs using their will and intent and then just letting it naturally dissolve into the base energetic field and altering and effecting the entire field to some degree. You don't really need hardware for that either.

Good topic OP.

edit on 3-8-2021 by themessengernevermatters because: clarification and typo

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 11:30 AM
ITT: the Matrix fan fiction written by a video game nerd with no actual experience in software design

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 11:32 AM
a reply to: GolgothaBridge

To take Plato’s cave to a more modern level, we arrive at the film titled “The Matrix” which has humans wired into a computer and their brains connected to a simulation. This movie has strong Christian parallels and concepts throughout it, and it is certainly not a Christian film.

This is a natural development. If we hold to the example of Plato's Cave which we have here that

Now a more relevant and the most obvious case to bring forward is Plato’s Cave, in which a number of people are chained up facing a blank wall at the back of the cave so that they can not look away. Then objects pass in front of the cave projecting shadows on the wall. Having never seen the outside world, these people give names to the shadows and work to understand how they function and interact.

If we take interpretations of those shadows from ancient times and extrapolate them to modern times we can see that naturally they would have Christian connotations. Not necessarily that these modern guesses at the shadows are parallel to Christian beliefs but rather BECAUSE the plot driven narrative of the movie is a PRODUCT of a culture that has derived much of it's philosophical and social beliefs FROM that Christian interpretation of the shadows.

PS, I love your nom-de-plume.
Also, you might find it useful in posting walls of text to do one of two things. Either indent the first sentence in a new paragraph to provide markers in a vast see of sentences and paragraphs so that readers can keep track of what they are reading OR as you can see in my reply above, leave a space between paragraphs.

In offering as much information as you have done above, especially when much of that information is truly of value to readers, readers need to find a place to stop along the way to give further consideration to what is being presented. We do need to understand as you already know of modern peoples.

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 12:03 PM

originally posted by: TzarChasm
ITT: the Matrix fan fiction written by a video game nerd with no actual experience in software design

Actually I've got more experience with software than videogames.

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 12:04 PM
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Thank you, I'll fix that when I get a chance.

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 12:05 PM
a reply to: themessengernevermatters

Perhaps the mind of God is the hardware. But that becomes problematic when you start uploading the product (us) into the base reality.

posted on Aug, 3 2021 @ 12:53 PM
a reply to: GolgothaBridge

Sounds like the bible ripped off Mortal Kombat.

posted on Aug, 5 2021 @ 09:17 AM
In an article by Jack Butler at National Review he calls the simulation hypothesis a reflection of a “sad delusion behind the ersatz combination of logic games, pop-culture references, and personal idiosyncrasies that make up this would-be pseudo-religion”. Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossfelder calls it “pseudoscience”.

Of Course You Aren’t Living in a Computer Simulation. Here’s Why. (by Michael Egnor, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics)

Thoughts are intentional, in the sense that they always point to something — to a concept, to an object, to a person, etc. Our thoughts always have an object (conceptual or physical) to which they are intrinsically directed. Our thoughts always mean something.

So are we living in a computer simulation? As I noted above, meaning is precisely what computation lacks. The most fundamental human power — the power of thought to have meaning — is just what a computer simulation cannot do.

Computation is syntax, whereas thought is semantics. If we were living in a computer simulation, and our mind were computation, the one thing we couldn’t do is think.

We couldn’t ask the question “Are we living in a computer simulation?” if we were living in a computer simulation. The irony here is that, of all the possible fundamental truths of reality, the notion that we are living in such a simulation is the one we can rule out simply because it’s self-refuting.

If we are living in a computer simulation, we couldn’t think to ask the question.

posted on Aug, 6 2021 @ 06:08 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

What stops me from asking if he was programed to say that? Just kidding. I'm thinking more of a "program" running in the mind of God less that a literal computer.

posted on Aug, 6 2021 @ 01:10 PM
a reply to: GolgothaBridge

Do you think Michael Egnor was talking about a "literal computer"?

Remember that I skipped quite a bit from the article.

posted on Aug, 6 2021 @ 01:15 PM
a reply to: whereislogic

I'm not sure what he believed, but I would guess so. Then again I think that depends on what we are calling a computer.

posted on Aug, 6 2021 @ 01:28 PM
a reply to: GolgothaBridge

Or "program" for that matter. Were you talking about a literal program?

Or "simulation", were you talking about a literal simulation simulating something? If yes, what is being simulated?

Some possible definitions for "simulate" in that sentence:

imitate the appearance or character of.

- produce a computer model of.

Source: google (Definitions from Oxford Languages)

I think what Michael Egnor is trying to stress, is that our thinking ability cannot be the product of mere computation, or a computational process, i.e. the product (or effect) of a computational program. None of these words seem to be applicable to the reality of our universe and everything in it. You almost sort of have to come up with new definitions for "(computer) simulation" and "program" to make the idea 'work'* when using those words to describe the reality of our universe. (*: 'work', as in, at least make it sound a little better to a biased beholder who already likes such notions obscuring the meaning of the word and concept of "reality", sometimes even to the point of denying that reality is actually real, as in the expression that reality is merely a "persistent illusion"; you may be familiar with that expression and, in my opinion, rather vague claim originally intended to describe the odd/peculiar way particles of energy interact with one another in specific and different ways so that they can be classified as different kinds of atoms, then different kinds of molecules and ultimately solid or material objects, according to the patterns and rules described in the laws of physics. Which doesn't make it an "illusion" by the way, another inapplicable inappropiate word to describe the realities around us or reality in general.)

I think that may be a clue that it's* not true/correct, without error/factual.(*: this simulation hypothesis, or unverifiable and untestable pseudoscientific idea/philosophy inappropiately thought of as a scientific hypothesis; hence the term "pseudoscientific", and with often a vague and confusing usage of language and concepts when proponents are explaining this so-called "hypothesis"; for example in the manner I just described concerning coming up with new definitions to make it 'work').

Where I'm using a / above I'm using synonyms.

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.” [*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.]

Source: Your Cells—Living Libraries! (AWAKE!—2015)

Even Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson like this simulation philosophy/idea, what a surprise:

Elon Musk is among those who have bought into it. He too has said “it’s most likely we’re in a simulation.” And even Neil deGrasse Tyson gave the simulation hypothesis “better than 50-50 odds” of being correct.—theoretical physicist Sabine Hossfelder in the video The Simulation Hypothesis is Pseudoscience

So typical. Hey Sabine, now do string theory, M-theory, the idea of a multiverse and the major assumption in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that basicaly assumes or leads to the notion that particles have no definite properties before they are observed, which in turn has led to the belief/philosophy/idea that particles are popping in and out of existence all the time. Cause that's all pseudoscience that is heavily promoted under the marketinglabel "science", especially amongst theoretical physicists like yourself or in that field, as well.

I doubt she's willing to stick her neck out regarding string theory and the part of the Copenhagen interpretation me and Erwin Schrödinger have and had an issue with though. Sticking her neck out as in calling it what it is: pseudoscience and unverifiable, untestable philosophy, imagination/fantasy and myths/false stories.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

Almost, Sir Roger, almost... you're getting close to calling it what it is as opposed to what it is promoted or marketed as.
edit on 6-8-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in