It is always interesting to think about these situations. Ultimately though a question like this doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things. We we do matters to us, even if it is a computer simulation. Always fun rabbit holes to jump down but it doesn’t take you very far.
While this theory might sound fascinating from a philosophical viewpoint, I personally find it to lend itself more towards philosophy rather than science, which is not the degree of Tyson or Musk.
[ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
DU
Deleted User
That’s right. It’s philosophy. There was a few physicists who proposed ways of empirically testing the simulation hypothesis but they said in their paper that we won’t be able to do so for a while.
This is very interesting claim, It has been argued by Musk many times, my only concern is that it could fit as a news story on WT not as a fact checking report, it will be very hard for us to verify such a claim as empirical, but I wan to assure you again to write a story based on it. what do you think?
[ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
DU
Deleted User
Some claims are verifiable even if they are not empirically verifiable. Take the claim “A fair dice will land on a ‘1’ with 100% probability.”
Even if all the dice in the world disappeared, we still know that is false because we know that on a fair dice there are six sides and all have an equal chance of landing.
In order for Musk to claim that we are in a simulation, he has to ignore the other possibilities much as the person saying that a fair dice will land on a ‘1’ is 100% certain has to ignore the other 5 sides of the dice.
However, I understand your concerns so I will will amendment the article and delete the fact check part.
I did understand your very interesting dice metaphor, Musk has to ignore all other possibilities.
It would be great if you reach out to Max Tegmark at MIT he authored a known book in this direction called “Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality”, he can comment on this story.
[ This comment is from a user you have muted ] (show)
DU
Deleted User
I read Tegmark’s book a few years ago. It’s a good intro to issues in contemporary physics but once he started to wade into deeper philosophical realms, the book lost its way for me. Tegmark may be a good cosmologist but I don’t think he’s a very good philosopher. Too many unfounded assumptions.
I found the image of Musk used in the header here
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/elon-musk-smoking-weed
It is always interesting to think about these situations. Ultimately though a question like this doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things. We we do matters to us, even if it is a computer simulation. Always fun rabbit holes to jump down but it doesn’t take you very far.
While this theory might sound fascinating from a philosophical viewpoint, I personally find it to lend itself more towards philosophy rather than science, which is not the degree of Tyson or Musk.
That’s right. It’s philosophy. There was a few physicists who proposed ways of empirically testing the simulation hypothesis but they said in their paper that we won’t be able to do so for a while.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00058
Hi folks, it was simple to just tweak summary and last sentence to make this very interesting piece a report rather than fact-check.
This is very interesting claim, It has been argued by Musk many times, my only concern is that it could fit as a news story on WT not as a fact checking report, it will be very hard for us to verify such a claim as empirical, but I wan to assure you again to write a story based on it. what do you think?
Some claims are verifiable even if they are not empirically verifiable. Take the claim “A fair dice will land on a ‘1’ with 100% probability.”
Even if all the dice in the world disappeared, we still know that is false because we know that on a fair dice there are six sides and all have an equal chance of landing.
In order for Musk to claim that we are in a simulation, he has to ignore the other possibilities much as the person saying that a fair dice will land on a ‘1’ is 100% certain has to ignore the other 5 sides of the dice.
However, I understand your concerns so I will will amendment the article and delete the fact check part.
I did understand your very interesting dice metaphor, Musk has to ignore all other possibilities.
It would be great if you reach out to Max Tegmark at MIT he authored a known book in this direction called “Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality”, he can comment on this story.
Maybe Ed can help!
I read Tegmark’s book a few years ago. It’s a good intro to issues in contemporary physics but once he started to wade into deeper philosophical realms, the book lost its way for me. Tegmark may be a good cosmologist but I don’t think he’s a very good philosopher. Too many unfounded assumptions.