Polinski

Neil deGrasse Tyson says it’s ‘very likely’ the universe is a simulation

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227126-neil-degrasse-tyson-says-its-very-likely-the-universe-is-a-simulation

At the most recent Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, recently held at New York’s Hayden Planetarium, scientists gathered to address the question for the year: Is the universe a computer simulation? It’s an older question that you might imagine, and if we interpret it a bit more broadly then it’s really one of the oldest questions imaginable: How do we know that reality is reality? And, if our universe were a big, elaborate lie, could we ever devise some test to prove that fact? At the debate, host and celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson argued that the probability is that we live in a computer simulation.

Contemplating the above for a moment leads to the fact that if the Universe is a computer simulation that the Earth is part of the Universe so it must be made of simulated computer code too, and Tyson as well must be a simulation contemplating that everything is simulated.  So when Tyson contemplates that reality is simulated it means that the simulation has become self aware that it is simulated.  I wonder, are magic mushroom trips simulated too.

 

Nonsense public funds are being wasted on at your local school.

Too bad logic cant be simulated

Edited by Polinski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Polinski said:

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227126-neil-degrasse-tyson-says-its-very-likely-the-universe-is-a-simulation

At the most recent Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, recently held at New York’s Hayden Planetarium, scientists gathered to address the question for the year: Is the universe a computer simulation? It’s an older question that you might imagine, and if we interpret it a bit more broadly then it’s really one of the oldest questions imaginable: How do we know that reality is reality? And, if our universe were a big, elaborate lie, could we ever devise some test to prove that fact? At the debate, host and celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson argued that the probability is that we live in a computer simulation.

Contemplating the above for a moment leads to the fact that if the Universe is a computer simulation that the Earth is part of the Universe so it must be made of simulated computer code too, and Tyson as well must be a simulation contemplating that everything is simulated.  So when Tyson contemplates that reality is simulated it means that the simulation has become self aware that it is simulated.  I wonder, are magic mushroom trips simulated too.

 

Nonsense public funds are being wasted on at your local school

Too bad logic cant be simulated

As much as I like Neil he is not the last word on this and has no evidence to back that up... 

https://futurism.com/sorry-elon-physicists-say-we-definitely-arent-living-in-a-computer-simulation

 

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

As much as I like Neil he is not the last word on this and has no evidence to back that up... 

Tyson is a lost pup looking for attention, he should use some physics to plot the stock market then he would have less free playtime

Edited by Polinski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Tyson is a lost pup looking for attention, he should use some physics to plot the stock market then he would have less free playtime

What you talking about! Niel De Grasse Tysons a bonafide meme machine. He's a brilliant educator.

Edited by Curious layman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Tyson is a lost pup looking for attention, he should use some physics to plot the stock market then he would have less free playtime

Wrong. DeGrasse Tyson was simply speculating. He was not claiming anything as fact. We also have speculation re parallel universes. In actual fact our knowledge, science and GR stops at t+10-43 seconds post BB. You need to accept that the scientific methodology involves speculation as the first step towards formulating scientific theories. Even SR/GR and the BB at one time were just speculation. 

Let's hope that the replies you are receiving will prompt you to start learning and gaining some knowledge about that which you so readily criticise.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Nonsense public funds are being wasted on at your local school.

Too bad logic cant be simulated

16 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Tyson is a lost pup looking for attention, he should use some physics to plot the stock market then he would have less free playtime

Did you want to discuss the science, or did you just want to attack Tyson? Because I don't see anything beyond ad hominem and emotional rant here. 

This is the Astronomy and Cosmology section.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

As much as I like Neil he is not the last word on this and has no evidence to back that up... 

https://futurism.com/sorry-elon-physicists-say-we-definitely-arent-living-in-a-computer-simulation

The research in that link only proves that you can't simulate a quantum based universe from inside a quantum based universe.

If we are simulated, I find it likely that QM is a biproduct of it. An area they either failed to see us discover, or an easter egg for us to find.
Either way, they do not have QM. That at least we can learn from that article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Curious layman said:

What you talking about! Niel De Grasse Tysons a bonafide meme machine, he's a brilliant educator.

If Tyson is a brilliant educator, then you are a computer simulation that was formed in Darwin's pond.  Oh wait the pond is a simulation too so that can't be correct.  Tyson seems to be leaning to God is the simulation creator...……….

Yea brilliant

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Wrong. DeGrasse Tyson was simply speculating. He was not claiming anything as fact. We also have speculation re parallel universes. In actual fact our knowledge, science and GR stops at t+10-43 seconds post BB. You need to accept that the scientific methodology involves speculation as the first step towards formulating scientific theories. Even SR/GR and the BB at one time were just speculation. 

Are those your thoughts or the simulated thoughts from the simulation

Nonsense taught in our schools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Polinski said:

If Tyson is a brilliant educator, then you are a computer simulation that was formed in Darwin's pond.  Oh wait the pond is a simulation too so that can't be correct.  Tyson seems to be leaning to God is the simulation creator...……….

Yea brilliant

Before you embarrass your self again please show some evidence of a god before invoking a god. God is not an answer to anything and is infact a claim that needs evidence... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Polinski said:

Nonsense taught in our schools

You seem to be making a host of ignorant statements? Or are you just trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

The research in that link only proves that you can't simulate a quantum based universe from inside a quantum based universe.

If we are simulated, I find it likely that QM is a biproduct of it. An area they either failed to see us discover, or an easter egg for us to find.
Either way, they do not have QM. That at least we can learn from that article.

According to Tyson your mind is a simulation so our realities are the product of what the simulation code wants us to percieve

Or if a simulated rock hits Tyson in the head, simulated pain has to be simulated before he can feel it

I tell ya magic mushrooms are everywhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Polinski said:

If Tyson is a brilliant educator, then you are a computer simulation that was formed in Darwin's pond.  Oh wait the pond is a simulation too so that can't be correct.  Tyson seems to be leaning to God is the simulation creator...……….

Yea brilliant

You are letting your personal feelings getting in the way of facts and learning. And in that process you wrongfully degrade good people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Polinski said:

If Tyson is a brilliant educator, then you are a computer simulation that was formed in Darwin's pond.  Oh wait the pond is a simulation too so that can't be correct.  Tyson seems to be leaning to God is the simulation creator...……….

We have no evidence for god or any other magical spaghetti monster. Which answers my last question...that is you are trolling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Before you embarrass your self again please show some evidence of a god before invoking a god. God is not an answer to anything and is infact a claim that needs evidence... 

I did not invoke God, Tyson did by saying that the universe could be a simulation.  Or do you believe that simulations powerful and large enough to be a universe are formed in Darwins pond that can not actually be there until after it is simulated, requiring a computer simulator programmer.  God

 

Tyson said it not me

1 minute ago, QuantumT said:

You are letting your personal feelings getting in the way of facts and learning. And in that process you wrongfully degrade good people.

Ok, teach me that you are not real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Polinski said:

I did not invoke God, Tyson did by saying that the universe could be a simulation.  Or do you believe that simulations powerful and large enough to be a universe are formed in Darwins pond that can not actually be there until after it is simulated, requiring a computer simulator programmer.  God

 

Tyson said it not me

Ok, teach me that you are not real

You appear to have not read any of the replies. Tyson was speculating. He did not state anything as fact....Parallel universe is more speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Ok, teach me that you are not real

Before we can talk about what is real, we must first agree on how reality is perceived and measured. Do you know how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Polinski said:

I did not invoke God, Tyson did by saying that the universe could be a simulation.  Or do you believe that simulations powerful and large enough to be a universe are formed in Darwins pond that can not actually be there until after it is simulated, requiring a computer simulator programmer.  God

Why does the computer programmer have to a god? Why couldn't just be our descendants modeling the past to see how things were back in the good old days. As I said god is not an answer to anything... 

2 minutes ago, Polinski said:

 

Tyson said it not me

Ok, teach me that you are not real

Prove you are real...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Before we can talk about what is real, we must first agree on how reality is perceived and measured. Do you know how?

According to Tyson there is no reality to measure, because what we perceive as real is simulated.

I think he watched one of those Star Trek Next Gen episodes with the Holodeck

Edited by Polinski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Tyson seems to be leaning to God is the simulation creator...……….

Reasoning like this is painful to see. Your critical thinking skills are a dumpster fire. I don't mean to offend, and I'm not attacking you personally. Your arguments are silly and you're ignorant about a LOT of science that you openly criticize. Sorry. Really very sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Polinski said:

According to Tyson there is no reality to measure, because what we perceive as real is simulated.

I think he watched one of those Star Trek Next Gen episodes with the Holodeck

You are so wrong it's becoming ridiculous. Don't you have any pride? If you do you should stop.

Edited by QuantumT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

You are so wrong it's becoming ridiculous. Don't you have any pride? If you dio you should stop.

Is that why I bought Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon not to forget Alibaba

 

Edited by Polinski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Polinski said:

Is that why I bought Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon

Talk about a non sequitur... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Reasoning like this is painful to see. Your critical thinking skills are a dumpster fire. I don't mean to offend, and I'm not attacking you personally. Your arguments are silly and you're ignorant about a LOT of science that you openly criticize. Sorry. Really very sorry.

You can not offend me by mocking Tyson as you are

 

PS Bill Gates is a dropout, with a high school diploma

Edited by Polinski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Polinski said:

Is that why I bought Apple, Google, Netflix and Raytheon

I dont accept any hypothetical about the universe being a simulation. And while you continue ranting, and failing to recognise that Tyson was also speculating on the nature of reality, you'll simply continue ranting.

My speculative scenario is that the BB arose from the quantum foam which can be defined as nothing. What's your speculative scenario? C'mon, I'm really interested to hear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Polinski said:

You can not offend me by mocking Tyson as you are

 

PS Bill Gates is a dropout, with a high school diploma

It's like you're talking to other people we can't see.... 

Very frustrating when this is supposed to be a conversation. Why are you bringing up Gates and Darwin and God? Didn't you come to a science discussion forum to discuss science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.