QuantumT

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

ST and multiverse theories are attempts to solve problems of the day. Simulated reality solves nothing at this point in time.

In my humble opinion it solves a lot, including:

- "universe from nothing".
- duality and nonlocality.
- the arrow of time.
- the dimensionless constants.
- dark matter and energy.

47 minutes ago, Sensei said:

In the OP, you called scientists "cowards", when you could downgrade it to "scientists are afraid of losing respect of colleagues and end up as crackpot scientist".. Like everybody else, they want their career to grow up, and want to be famous in scientific community. Controversial hypothesis and theories could stop their career.

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 I found it sad and disturbing and really hypocritical that you called a whole group of people "cowards", right after criticizing their objectivity and adherence to the scientific method. I don't know about the other downvote you got, but mine was because you made your criticism personal.

You are right. My choice of word could have been better.

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Is that anywhere close to being on the same level of model as string theory?

It is, if you take the dive and fully investigate it seriously.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why would one be unable to simulate them, if one assumes we are in a simulation?

It's not a question of ability, but of necessity. It would be totally unnecessary, and make no sense.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, it's to question and you aren't...

Criticize and question are synonyms. It looks like you are making this personal, by attacking my approach, for no good reason.

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It is perfectly reasonable for science to favour a hypothesis which has (potentially) predictive utility and is testable.

Since when is ST testable, and when has it predicted anything?

9 hours ago, Strange said:

I don’t know what evidence you think there is, or could be, for it. 

It depends on how you choose to look at the evidence. If you are biased against the concept, you will always choose to interpret the evidence as moot or invalid.

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

As Strange says, simulation is not falsifiable.

I would argue that evidence of a mirror universe (or a multiverse) is as good as disproving a simulated reality. So it's not completely unfalsifiable.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

In simulation, however, our reality IS the model in someone else's reality.

I respectfully disagree. In someone else's reality we are nothing but a gimmick.
The goal of science is to understand our reality. Not any higher reality, just ours.

I can see that some people has downvoted my OP. I find that sad and disturbing.
Isn't science about scrutiny and skepticism? Isn't it the scientific method to criticize?

Is science scientific, when it favors one hypothesis over another, even if they have an equal "lack of evidence"?

If we take the example of sting theory. It has gained the title 'theory', despite the lack of evidence, and it's discussed widely and openly in the scientific community.

But a hypothesis saying we are simulated is frowned upon, and any discussion is quickly silenced, by demanding evidence.
Evidence that is not demanded from string "theory"!
When such evidence is presented, it is dismissed as moot.

Is the scientific community discriminating between hypotheses, and thereby abandoning its core principles in favor of physicalism?
Are most scientists cowards, clinging to a physical reality?

34 minutes ago, Janus said:

And in a great deal of cases, things in nature don't "look designed".

For starters, I don't see myself as a supporter of ID, and I am a proud atheist, - but that is not entirely true.

There are two examples in nature that looks designed: The golden ratio and the "branching" pattern.

The branching pattern is seen in places like: Lightning, tree roots and tops, rivers and blood vessels. I do know that nature "chooses" the easiest and most effective path, so it isn't a sign of ID, but it looks like it. Just like the golden ratio.

This is speculation and metaphysics. Something we will never know for sure. Any answer is unfalsifiable.

To me, the universe seems virtual. It fits all the data, but again, it's unfalsifiable.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

They're reflecting on it

What?! They have results already?!

When do they expect to publish their conclusions?

Quote

Meanwhile, the next data release from the Gaia space telescope, due in two or three years, will enable researchers to calibrate cepheids and TRGBs geometrically based on their parallax, or how far apart they look from different positions in the sky. The James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble’s successor, will also yield a wellspring of new and better data when it launches in 2021. Cosmologists will know the value of H₀ — probably within the decade — and if there is still a discrepancy with predictions, by decade’s end they could be well on their way to discovering why. They’ll know it’s a tension or a crisis and not a surd.

It seems its gonna take a decade before we can be sure whose method is the most precise, so aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves with the crisis here?

2 minutes ago, StopListeningToOurConversa said:

The other is that I'm interested in taking a scientific approach to stopping the "loop of unpleasant phrases" that I probably shouldn't go into any further about.

That approach would be medicine.

Assuming you're not a loonie, I will give my best shot at an answer, in hope that it is just a far out scientific inquiry.

EMF as a direct mind-to-mind communication protocol is far to unlikely to be considered realistic. Brain cells don't send or receive such signals. I wouldn't waste my time in that direction.

But it has been suggested, by respected scientists, that a person could get entangled. This could be an (however far out) explanation to the "observation effect" in quantum mechanics.
If we play with that thought, a nonlocal connection between peoples thoughts and/or feelings might be plausible.

The persons being entangled is presumably very close. Like family members or lovers.
The bad news, however, is that you would then have no way of shielding yourself against it.

57 minutes ago, StopListeningToOurConversa said:

What metal(s) and thickness would be best suited for this experiment?

Sorry, I can't willfully indulge in someones paranoid delusion.

I think we're in the tin foil hat department. And I don't just mean that as a joke. Metal does stop EM signals, if the brain could somehow transmit and receive them.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not in the video posted here, he isn't.

Ooops! You caught me being lazy and assuming. Shame on me!

1 minute ago, Wulphstein said:

I don't necessarily disagree with the  "computer simulation" theory.  I just need the physics community to tell us what the mechanism is.  How is time and space implemented.  If they can't, then they should work on that.  I have a guess, but I can't get the math to work.

Forget proving it. It's hopeless. But I've found seven "Easter eggs"!

2 hours ago, Wulphstein said:

He mentioned aliens taking packages out of our closet and moving them to another dimension at 1:47.  Does this mean that popular science thinks that aliens could be living in a 4th spacial dimension?

He's talking about us living in a simulated reality. In that scenario, our universe would just be information inside one object (a computer) in another universe.
The word 'dimension' is just used to illustrate a different reality than we are in, not as a real reference to an extra dimension.

I read someone's unified field theory answer on Quora. Looks like he said one could be made, if dark matter and gravity is the same thing.
So gravity as a free agent, attracted to large quantity of normal matter? Would explains the difficulty finding gravity in particles.

Could dark matter and gravity be the same thing?

Any debunk would be appreciated!

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

It certainly looks that way.

It sure does. But space also seems like mostly a vacuum, so...

Quote

People create new people everyday.

Lego porn was not exactly what I had in mind...

Does matter give rise to mind?

Does atoms, arranged in the right way make sentience?

Does lifeless objects, like atoms, make life?

If we imagined Lego blocks had atom properties, could be build a person?

2 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

I am frustrated by your complete determination and strong will to not use common sense, intelligence and reason. 

Scientists look for the origin of reality, without a predetermined agenda. That is honest inquiry!

You have already decided, without knowing anything. That is faith.

Just now, Wulphstein said:

First of all, where is the proof.

Second, why is that particles and photon can find the shortest path, the least action, least time path.  But M-theory is the least efficient and there is no evidence to support it? 

M-theory is not some funny idea someone thought of suddenly. It is the result of calculating nature.

We don't know if those calculations represent reality, but they are a lot more valid than some ancient Hebrew texts.

1 minute ago, Wulphstein said:

What mechanism does m-theory use to set the physics constants?

In M-theory 'branes' create big bangs constantly. Each with it's own unique natural laws. We could also call it a multiverse.

You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Just now, Wulphstein said:

Does the M stand for "Magic" theory?

No. It stands for (mem)brane theory.

5 minutes ago, Wulphstein said:

Atheists have already calculated that it would take 10^10^147 attempts get a universe with life by accident.

Source?

Even if that is correct, M-theory solves that issue without a god.