Jump to content
Angelo

Does anyone here agree with Tyson that the universe is a simulation

Recommended Posts

If so what is your basis for this conclusion.  Also what allows for such complete nonsense to go unchecked by the scientific establishment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence do you have which led you to conclude it’s nonsense?

Share this post


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

What evidence do you have which led you to conclude it’s nonsense?

Actually evidence is needed only to determine reality, but not fantasy.  So if you believe that Tyson is right tell us on what evidence you base your adjunct conclusion? 

Edited by Angelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Angelo said:

Actually evidence is needed only to determine reality, but not fantasy.  So if you believe that Tyson is right tell us on what evidence you base your adjunct conclusion? 

I never mentioned anything about how I feel or what I believe about the claim. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof on to me. I’m not the one here making assertions  

You said it was nonsense. Now you’re saying it’s fantasy, and further you are suggesting it’s not reality. What is your reason for doing so? Perhaps you have evidence in support of a counter hypothesis that you can share?

Without evidence, you’re just another person with an opinion. 

Share this post


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

I never mentioned anything about how I feel or what I believe about the claim. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof on to me. I’m not the one here making assertions  

You said it was nonsense. Now you’re saying it’s fantasy, and further you are suggesting it’s not reality. What is your reason for doing so? Perhaps you have evidence in support of a counter hypothesis that you can share?

Without evidence, you’re just another person with an opinion. 

If you have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation, please grace us with your knowledge, or if you understand why Tyson thinks that people and planets are not real but computer code on a hard drive again please explain?

Also why would the computer programmer that Tyson claims created the universe be different than the creator that most religions mention as God.  Somewhat strange don't you think for Tyson to champion a universal creator after being such a devout atheist?

Edited by Angelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see. You’re waffling. Throwing stones in glass houses and whatnot. Please, don’t let me interfere with your rant. 

Share this post


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

I see. You’re waffling. Throwing stones in glass houses and whatnot. Please, don’t let me interfere with your rant. 

Actually you interjected without evidence of any type.  That said since there is none, that is to be expected I assume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked you a question. No evidence required from me. I have not stated my position on any of this. Nothing to support. 

Are you perhaps merely trolling, or do you really not get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, iNow said:

I asked you a question. No evidence required from me. I have not stated my position on any of this. Nothing to support. 

You said and I quote  " Without evidence, you’re just another person with an opinion."

So you agree that Tyson is merely expressing his opinion since there is no evidence that we are both computer simulations on a hard drive conversing back and forth on the drive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how much more clear I can make this for you. Perhaps I should start typing with fat crayon and construction paper, perhaps offer you some stick figure diagrams? I haven’t put forth my opinion. I asked you what makes you so dismissive of the one shared by others. 

Share this post


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

Not sure how much more clear I can make this for you. Perhaps I should start typing with fat crayon and construction paper, perhaps offer you some stick figure diagrams? I haven’t put forth my opinion. I asked you what makes you so dismissive of the one shared by others. 

What makes you accept what you hear on a Larry King infomercial?  I mean next we heard that fish oil cures impotence and prevents cancer

 

Share this post


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

What evidence do you have which led you to conclude it’s nonsense?

Nonsense is based on a lack of evidence, or on evidence to the contrary, depending on intended context.

The burden of proof for claiming nonsense is not so cut and dried.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mathematic said:

The whole universe is a simulation on my computer.

Interesting, but what makes your computer not part of the simulation?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nonsense is based on a lack of evidence...

Like gravity waves up until recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nonsense is based on a lack of evidence, or on evidence to the contrary, depending on intended context.

The burden of proof for claiming nonsense is not so cut and dried.

 

 

Facts are all based upon evidence, what facts are the simulated universe based upon?

 

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Like gravity waves up until recently?

LOL you do know that according to Tyson there are no gravity waves right?  Just a great big creators hard drive.

Nothing you can claim is real according to Tyson.  Except for the great big hard drive in the sky that is

Share this post


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

Like gravity waves up until recently?

I would say yes, depending on your definition of recently, and intended context of the term "nonsense".

Newton would have been correct to call it nonsense, unless he meant it as impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would say yes, depending on your definition of recently, and intended context of the term "nonsense".

Newton would have been correct to call it nonsense, unless he meant it as impossible.

According to Tyson Newton was a simulation and gravity is computer code

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing my chance to stir up sh*t...

All of you guys arguing against ( and downvoting ) Angelo, have no problem calling any religion nonsense with no proof that it is.
And, I believe Angelo has already mentioned this...
Why does he need proof/evidence that the 'universe as a simulation' is nonsense, but no-one needs proof/evidence when they make the same assertion about a religious 'creator' ?

Science does not have double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with Tyson's views on the subject but this reminds me of an old idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

"The Boltzmann brain argument suggests that it is more likely for a single brain to spontaneously and briefly form in a void (complete with a false memory of having existed in our universe) than it is for our universe to have come about in the way modern science thinks it actually did. It was first proposed as a reductio ad absurdum response to Ludwig Boltzmann's early explanation for the low-entropy state of our universe"

Share this post


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

Seeing my chance to stir up sh*t...

All of you guys arguing against ( and downvoting ) Angelo, have no problem calling any religion nonsense with no proof that it is.
And, I believe Angelo has already mentioned this...
Why does he need proof/evidence that the 'universe as a simulation' is nonsense, but no-one needs proof/evidence when they make the same assertion about a religious 'creator' ?

Science does not have double standards.

Thank you.....!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would say yes, depending on your definition of recently, and intended context of the term "nonsense".

Newton would have been correct to call it nonsense, unless he meant it as impossible.

I know we are getting a bit off topic, but I'm surprised you would have called gravity waves nonsense. There was no evidence of gravity waves but there was plenty of reason to believe they might be found. I doubt anyone would have funded and built the necessary detectors if they believed gravity waves were nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not familiar with Tyson's views on the subject

He’s not the author of the idea. He just suggested it’s a possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Seeing my chance to stir up sh*t...

All of you guys arguing against ( and downvoting ) Angelo, have no problem calling any religion nonsense with no proof that it is.
And, I believe Angelo has already mentioned this...
Why does he need proof/evidence that the 'universe as a simulation' is nonsense, but no-one needs proof/evidence when they make the same assertion about a religious 'creator' ?

Science does not have double standards.

There is a big difference between refusing to support your claim, and not supporting your claim until asked. Has anyone here not explained why they feel religion is nonsense when asked?

Share this post


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

I know we are getting a bit off topic, but I'm surprised you would have called gravity waves nonsense. There was no evidence of gravity waves but there was plenty of reason to believe they might be found. I doubt anyone would have funded and built the necessary detectors if they believed gravity waves were nonsense.

Do you think that Tyson is rational for rejecting all known science and championing the idea that everything in the universe is really a 0 or 1?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.