Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more

  • Thread starter Thread starter NewToThis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Simulation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the idea that our universe might be a simulation, exploring the perspectives of scientists who engage with this concept. Participants express their views on the legitimacy of such discussions within the scientific community, questioning the value and implications of considering this hypothesis.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express frustration that respected scientists, such as those from NASA and Harvard, dedicate time to discussing the simulation hypothesis, arguing that there is no evidence to support it.
  • Others acknowledge that while they find the simulation idea silly, they see no harm in scientists contemplating it during their spare time, as it could lead to interesting discussions.
  • One participant suggests that scientists should dismiss the simulation hypothesis as they would with religious claims, emphasizing the lack of evidence.
  • There is a shared sentiment among some that historical examples exist of intelligent individuals endorsing unfounded ideas, which raises skepticism about the simulation hypothesis.
  • A participant mentions the potential for this topic to attract philosophical discussions, indicating a desire to keep the conversation focused on scientific perspectives.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity and seriousness of the simulation hypothesis, with some dismissing it outright while others are more open to the idea of discussing it. There is no consensus on whether such discussions are appropriate within the scientific community.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express concerns about the implications of scientists engaging with speculative ideas, suggesting that it may detract from more grounded scientific discourse. The discussion reflects a tension between open exploration of ideas and the need for evidence-based reasoning.

NewToThis
Messages
29
Reaction score
3
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix

I don't want to discuss the subject of the article, I just wonder how people on here feel about respected and well educated scientists giving such subjects their time?

"Harvard theoretical physicist Lisa Randall is even more skeptical. “I don’t see that there’s really an argument for it,” she said. “There’s no real evidence.”

What she should say is "There is NO evidence for it".

I feel a bit annoyed that NASA and Harvard scientists are giving this subject any time they may as well say the bible could be true.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the "universe may be a simulation" idea is kind of silly too. (It doesn't merit a whole lot of consideration in my book.)

That said, if physicists/scientists think about such things in their spare time, it doesn't really do any harm, and may lead to interesting (and maybe fun) discussions.

Here is a video of the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation? There are some interesting points made if one cares to watch it. So there's that.

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
Thanks for the video, I'll check that out later.

I don't mind them discussing it but I don't like them respecting the idea, they should rubbish it just like they should rubbish religion because there is absolutely no evidence for it. These are scientists people like me look up to so it disappoints me to hear them talk like this. I expect better.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
collinsmark said:
I think the "universe may be a simulation" idea is kind of silly too.
Agreed, but I would not include the "kind of" caveat.
 
NewToThis said:
I feel a bit annoyed that NASA and Harvard scientists are giving this subject any time they may as well say the bible could be true.
There is plenty of historical precedence of smart people having silly ideas.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
phinds said:
There is plenty of historical precedence of smart people having silly ideas.
Strings/SUSY anyone? o:) :-p
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
NewToThis, I couldn't agree with you more, this falls under nonsense/philosophy and while we can't prevent people from coming up with such things (what did they think before computers?) at least we can not waste our time on it. :smile: So I am closing this before we attract a bunch of people that think this is a philosophical thread. Not that there is anything wrong with philosophy, this isn't the place for it.

And Collinsmark, I'm mortified, you owe me a possessed dog picture now, Halloween is just around the corner.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: collinsmark

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
11K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
7K