HopDavid

Tyson - Is the universe a simulation (split from Discussable Topics)

Recommended Posts

On 6/21/2019 at 7:59 PM, MigL said:

I find it interesting that on a science site, we are allowed to discuss alternate/parallel universes which are not in causal contact, and as such unfalsifiable. Or whether reality is a simulation ( the N DG Tyson thread that was recently closed ) which is also unfalsifiable.
Yet if someone mentions the concept of a God, everyone loses their mind.

I'm not religious, but I'm not that insecure or thin-skinned about my science either.

Well there are skeptics who've taken Tyson to task that the notion's not a testable hypothesis. P Z Myers did a piece We have a term for that, Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Intelligent Design".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I follow, are you suggesting that it points towards evidence of god?

the article does but what about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 10:26 AM, Curious layman said:

I'm not sure I follow, are you suggesting that it points towards evidence of god?

the article does but what about you?

Ummmm.... No. Neither PZ Myers nor I are suggesting there's evidence supporting or refuting the simulation hypothesis. It's not a testable.

PZ Myers does note that both Tyson as well as religious people speculate the universe is an artifact created by an intelligent being (or beings). So Myers is correct. Tyson is indeed suggesting the universe is intelligently designed.

Personally Tyson's suggestion doesn't sway me one way or the other. The man is an incompetent buffoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HopDavid said:

Personally Tyson's suggestion doesn't sway me one way or the other. The man is an incompetent buffoon.

but, but, he's a Pop-Science Icon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I would certainly NOT call him an incompetent buffoon.
But quite a few scientists ( including the likes of S Hawking ) have put too much 'pop' in their science.
It's a direct result of 'dumbing down' the science for the attention challenged masses.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


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

I would certainly NOT call him an incompetent buffoon.
But quite a few scientists ( including the likes of S Hawking ) have put too much 'pop' in their science.
It's a direct result of 'dumbing down' the science for the attention challenged masses.

Bingo! They are doing a job and such efforts need commending. If only 10% become interested in the dumbed down, pop science versions [which I believe charlatans and others with agendas use for derision purposes] and chose to proceed and make it their career choice, or just out of pure interest, they will inquire further and undertake deeper learning, and that could be of great benefit to us all....Another Einstein perhaps? 

To call him an incompetent buffoon,  is an ignorant remark at best. 

I welcome all the DeGrasse Tyson's, Brian Cox's, the Bill Nye's and the many others stemming back to the late great Carl Sagan and David Attenbourough, for their efforts in educating the masses.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HopDavid said:

Ummmm.... No. Neither PZ Myers nor I are suggesting there's evidence supporting or refuting the simulation hypothesis. It's not a testable.

PZ Myers does note that both Tyson as well as religious people speculate the universe is an artifact created by an intelligent being (or beings). So Myers is correct. Tyson is indeed suggesting the universe is intelligently designed.

Personally Tyson's suggestion doesn't sway me one way or the other. The man is an incompetent buffoon.

Ok, just wanted to get my facts straight. I think its important to note that the program was entertainment focused

I reckon tysons opinion on who the "designer" is is a lot different from who the religious people think it is. To put them in the same group isn't fair in my opinion.

An incompetent buffoon. I disagree. You've got to remember that the majority of his audience are just ordinary people who wouldn't understand if he went into to much detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Ok, just wanted to get my facts straight. I think its important to note that the program was entertainment focused

I reckon tysons opinion on who the "designer" is is a lot different from who the religious people think it is. To put them in the same group isn't fair in my opinion.

An incompetent buffoon. I disagree. You've got to remember that the majority of his audience are just ordinary people who wouldn't understand if he went into to much detail.

Right on all counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 5:40 PM, MigL said:

I would certainly NOT call him an incompetent buffoon.
But quite a few scientists ( including the likes of S Hawking ) have put too much 'pop' in their science.
It's a direct result of 'dumbing down' the science for the attention challenged masses.

And I most certainly WOULD call him an incompetent buffoon. He doesn't merely simplify. He often gets his material completely wrong.

For example Tyson telling Joe Rogan there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals. See this thread in the r/badmathematics subreddit.

And this wasn't an isolated incident. Tyson will study something with half his attention and then build a story around it. Usually entertaining but often resulting in misinformation.

That Tyson manages to botch basic math and physics is merely annoying. Much worse is when he uses his poor memory and strong imagination to invent histories. And then uses his bad history to push a narrative.

I will give an example of his inventing history to support his political talking points:

Tyson would give an account of President Bush's 9-11 speech. Supposedly the speech was "an attempt to distinguish we from they". That's what Republican presidents do, right? Use disasters to sow division and whip up fear and anger. Sadly for Tyson, Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion.

This was a standard part of Tyson's routine for eight years. Then Sean Davis called out Tyson in 2014. Turns out Tyson conflated Bush's eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts with his 9-11 speech. However in neither speech did  Bush try to set Christians above Muslims. With some arm twisting Tyson eventually admitted his error and apologized to Bush. See Jonathan Adler's column in the Washington Post

Getting back to Intelligent Design vs Simulation. Both assume our universe was made by an intelligent being (or beings). And neither are testable. So it's not in the realm of science. Which makes it perfect material for an addled pop science celebrity who hasn't cracked a text book in almost 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone makes mistakes.
A Einstein did too.

Do you consider him an incompetent buffoon ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HopDavid said:

It's ironic that you would use anything about Bush II to show how someone is a complete buffoon because of mistakes they made. I think your arguments against Tyson are fallacious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HopDavid said:

And I most certainly WOULD call him an incompetent buffoon. He doesn't merely simplify.

Simplifying appears to be exactly what you seem to be doing, along with an apparent "over the top" dislike of an obvious intelligent scientist with appropriate credentials. 

Quote

He often gets his material completely wrong.

:rolleyes: Recognising the fact that we all make errors, what you claim is at best a slight exaggeration.

On 6/28/2019 at 7:04 AM, HopDavid said:

Tyson is indeed suggesting the universe is intelligently designed.

Not in the manner that you seem to be unjustly applying to him. He is suggesting [a suggestion that I absolutely abhore] that perhaps we are simply a simulation created by a supreme race of beings. He is certainly not suggesting any Intelligent design for the existence of the universe and life as a whole [he is afterall an intelligent atheist] which is the general meaning taken when impressionable people speak of intelligent design, that is some magical spaghetti monster beyond the universe itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Everyone makes mistakes.
A Einstein did too.

Do you consider him an incompetent buffoon ?

Einstein was speculating on ideas at the frontiers of physics. Tyson is botching basic math and physics, stuff most people should learn in high school.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

It's ironic that you would use anything about Bush II to show how someone is a complete buffoon because of mistakes they made. I think your arguments against Tyson are fallacious. 

I don't like Bush nor do I regard him as the sharpest tool in the shed. Does that justify slamming him with falsehoods?  Evidently in your book it does.

So no irony at all. I value truth and accuracy. You, on the other hand, seem to think it's okay to spread false stories about people you regard as stupid.

And, again, Tyson admitted the Bush and Star Names story was false.  

Share this post


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

Einstein was speculating on ideas at the frontiers of physics. 

Speculation is a required step in science that Tyson was using.

Quote

Tyson is botching basic math and physics, stuff most people should learn in high school.

Nonsense...You have not shown that.

Quote

 

So no irony at all. I value truth and accuracy. You, on the other hand, seem to think it's okay to spread false stories about people you regard as stupid.

And, again, Tyson admitted the Bush and Star Names story was false.  

 

Actually plenty of irony as seen in your rather "over the top" Tyson bashing crusade and exaggerated claims and extrapolation of them.

.And again in reply to your mistaken claim that Tyson supports intelligent design, and my answer that you seem to have missed......"Not in the manner that you seem to be unjustly applying to him. He is suggesting [a suggestion that I absolutely abhore] that perhaps we are simply a simulation created by a supreme race of beings. He is certainly not suggesting any Intelligent design for the existence of the universe and life as a whole [he is afterall an intelligent atheist] which is the general meaning taken when impressionable people speak of intelligent design, that is some magical spaghetti monster beyond the universe itself". 

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did N DG Tyson's expertise become American politics ?

I know I've misquoted people.
Apparently you never have; Your arrogance is justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, beecee said:

Simplifying appears to be exactly what you seem to be doing, along with an apparent "over the top" dislike of an obvious intelligent scientist with appropriate credentials. 

:rolleyes: Recognising the fact that we all make errors, what you claim is at best a slight exaggeration.

 

Tyson makes numerous errors. Here is a list I've compiled.

A lot of them are screwing up basic math and physics, stuff people should have learned in high school. Time and time again he demonstrates he's comfortable speaking authoritatively on subjects he knows nothing about. 

Much worse is when he invents histories to push a narrative. From my list:

Bush and Star Names

Ghazali: Math is the work of The Devil

Newton and Laplace

The notion that we're in a simulation is not testable. Precisely what poser nerds from the IFLS crowd and similar cliques like to discuss.

We live in a shallow culture that values celebrity and entertainment more than truth and accuracy. I call it the Tyson-Trump zeitgeist.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Tyson makes numerous errors. Here is a list I've compiled.

A lot of them are screwing up basic math and physics, stuff people should have learned in high school. Time and time again he demonstrates he's comfortable speaking authoritatively on subjects he knows nothing about. 

Much worse is when he invents histories to push a narrative. From my list:

Bush and Star Names

Ghazali: Math is the work of The Devil

Newton and Laplace

The notion that we're in a simulation is not testable. Precisely what poser nerds from the IFLS crowd and similar cliques like to discuss.

We live in a shallow culture that values celebrity and entertainment more than truth and accuracy. I call it the Tyson-Trump zeitgeist.

So  this is your "bash Tyson" crusade thread. Again you ignore the fact re the true definition of intelligent design and the fact that Tyson is an intelligent Atheist. Or is this the reason for such unsupported drivel that you have posted? 

Also you have avoided a question put to you earlier in this thread, thus.......

On 6/27/2019 at 3:26 AM, Curious layman said:

I'm not sure I follow, are you suggesting that it points towards evidence of god?

the article does but what about you?

you answered.....

On 6/28/2019 at 7:04 AM, HopDavid said:

Ummmm.... No. Neither PZ Myers nor I are suggesting there's evidence supporting or refuting the simulation hypothesis. It's not a testable.

PZ Myers does note that both Tyson as well as religious people speculate the universe is an artifact created by an intelligent being (or beings). So Myers is correct. Tyson is indeed suggesting the universe is intelligently designed.

So again, please answer the question as asked. Note...Tyson is an intelligent avowed Atheist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, beecee said:

...(snip)... an obvious intelligent scientist with appropriate credentials.

A lot of people point to Tyson's credentials. I call that the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. 

In the case of his stuff on infinite sets -- Many people learned in high school that the transcendentals are a subset of the irrationals. So it's not possible for the set of transcendentals to have a higher cardinality than the irrationals. And both sets are thought to have the same cardinality, the cardinality of the continuum. Again, something many people learned in high school.

Tyson has stage presence and a commanding baritone voice. But he's not obviously intelligent and it's debatable if he deserves the label "scientist".

Tyson Appeal to Authority.jpg

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

 Note...Tyson is an intelligent avowed Atheist. 

FALSE. Time and time against Tyson has rejected that lable. See this Wikipedia article. The article quotes Tyson:

Quote

I'm constantly claimed by atheists. I find this intriguing. In fact, on my Wiki page – I didn't create the Wiki page, others did, and I'm flattered that people cared enough about my life to assemble it – and it said "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist." I said, "Well that's not really true." I said, "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an agnostic." I went back a week later it had been rewritten and it said "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist." – again within a week – and I said, "What's up with that?" so I said "Alright, I have to word it a little differently." So I said, okay "Neil deGrasse Tyson, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic."

You've just been caught speaking with authority on a topic you know nothing about.

Share this post


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

A lot of people point to Tyson's credentials. I call that the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. 

So again you refuse to answer two former questions now, and instead proceed on your Tyson bashing crusade. I smell an agenda afoot.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


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

So again you refuse to answer two former questions now, and instead proceed on your Tyson bashing crusade. 

You want Tyson saying our universe is simulation created by a supreme race of beings. And PZ Myers correctly notes that's little different from saying we're created by the race that lives on Mount Olympus. Or in Asgard.

Sorry but Tyson's tomaytoe is no different from Myer's tomahtoe. Bolding your tedious semantics arguments does not lend it any weight.

And, once again, Tyson rejects the label "atheist". You've been busted repeatedly dropping this steaming pile.

Share this post


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

You want Tyson saying our universe is simulation created by a supreme race of beings. And PZ Myers correctly notes that's little different from saying we're created by the race that lives on Mount Olympus. Or in Asgard.

Sorry but Tyson's tomaytoe is no different from Myer's tomahtoe. Bolding your tedious semantics arguments does not lend it any weight.

And, once again, Tyson rejects the label "atheist". You've been busted repeatedly dropping this steaming pile.

I also reject the label "Atheist" I prefer scientific realist. And again you refuse to answer the question...Perhaps due to some agenda? 

Let me put that question again..the first from Curious Layman....

I'm not sure I follow, are you suggesting that it points towards evidence of god?

the article does but what about you?

And the obvious refutation re your nonsensical claim re Intelligent design...

"Not in the manner that you seem to be unjustly applying to him. He is suggesting [a suggestion that I absolutely abhore] that perhaps we are simply a simulation created by a supreme race of beings. He is certainly not suggesting any Intelligent design for the existence of the universe and life as a whole [he is afterall an intelligent atheist] which is the general meaning taken when impressionable people speak of intelligent design, that is some magical spaghetti monster beyond the universe itself". 

The second question..Do you deny that is generally what is meant by intelligent design? Lets put in a third question in reply to your rambling rhetoric.....Is this the agenda behind your crusade against Tyson? You know being an Atheist or agnostic...or if you like a non believer?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

I split this off to let people discuss the simulation hypothesis. But since it’s turned into Tyson-bashing, I’m closing it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HopDavid said:

Does that justify slamming him with falsehoods?  Evidently in your book it does.

So no irony at all. I value truth and accuracy. You, on the other hand, seem to think it's okay to spread false stories about people you regard as stupid.

I only commented that your arguments were fallacious and ironic. That's all. Your strawman responses are evidence in support of my comment.

Share this post


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