0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Repeating a meaningless collection of words doesn't add meaning.
Simulation of the observation of what?
So what is the real system of which you think we might be a simulation?
So what are the scientific evidences in relation to evolution?
This is to highlight that we have a 50/50 chance of being in a simulation.
I don't think it, I'm sure. By math Bostrom suggests we have a 50/50 chance of living inside a simulation.
This is not reasoning worthy of a scientist. Don't let go.
There are an awful lot: biogeography, genetic patterns (including those of endogenous retroviruses), patterns in the fossil record, and observations of evolution in real time.
Where do you get those odds from?
50-50 odds aren't at all being "sure" of something.
Says the guy who states that physical evidence was planted by a higher being specifically to be a deception. If the dinosaurs are a deception, then anything can be a similarly-planted deception and it would be impossible to prove otherwise.
Do you dispute the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics? Or not?
Quote from: alancalverd on 02/03/2022 23:19:28QuoteSimulation of the observation of what?From what you see.
... but I do dispute that it is probable.
No, my friend, a simulation must have an objective system to simulate. An observation is not a system.
Can you argue your position?
Lack of evidence for us being in a simulation, I'd say.
the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics?
However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation. It happens as soon as you see and observe matter.
So, back to the question. If I am a simulation, what is the system that I simulate?
However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation.
Quote from: Kartazion on 04/03/2022 07:00:00However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation.I don't see how.
The simulated system is that of the atom and all the other particles.
Observation does not change the state of matter. Here is what I learn thanks to you. If the state of matter does not change under the effect of observation, then simulation is no longer possible.
So I am a simulation of myself.
Again you are misunderstanding the use of the word observation, but you are not alone.Observation in QM would be better described as a measurement or interaction rather than the act of seeing/observing.
If I look at the double-slit experiment with my eyes open, the result of the interference figure will be the same as if I have my eyes closed?