Why is the idea of a simulated universe acceptable in science..........But......

[Sriram]

Simulated universes are an acceptable hypothesis so we could be merely in the mind of the simulator who or whatever that may be.

I thought I had made it clear that I do not think that a simulated universe is an acceptable hypothesis.  It has exactly the same issues as the God hypothesis.  In fact, it is the God hypothesis.

That's great!  Which means the God hypothesis is now one of the ideas in science.  So...you can stop fighting with the believers.

[splashscuba]

Why is Brian Greene's category of Simulated universe acceptable to science but the notion that the universe could be created by God not?

Because such simulated universes follow a set of defined rules.

[jeremyp]

That's great!  Which means the God hypothesis is now one of the ideas in science.  So...you can stop fighting with the believers.

No.  The God hypothesis is unfalsifiable.  As a form of the God hypothesis, the Universal simulation is unfalsifiable therefore it is not a scientific idea.

[Sriram]

That's great!  Which means the God hypothesis is now one of the ideas in science.  So...you can stop fighting with the believers.

No.  The God hypothesis is unfalsifiable.  As a form of the God hypothesis, the Universal simulation is unfalsifiable therefore it is not a scientific idea.

But we have already seen that the idea of falsifiability is not regarded as useful by all scientists. Some of them feel it needs to be retired.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/

(Try some of the other ideas that need to be retired also.....)

[torridon]

That's great!  Which means the God hypothesis is now one of the ideas in science.  So...you can stop fighting with the believers.

No.  The God hypothesis is unfalsifiable.  As a form of the God hypothesis, the Universal simulation is unfalsifiable therefore it is not a scientific idea.

But we have already seen that the idea of falsifiability is not regarded as useful by all scientists. Some of them feel it needs to be retired.

That's nonsense. Falsifiability is the sharpest tool in the box and will always be of value wherever it can be used. That doesn't mean science is about falsifiability and nothing else. That doesn't mean that falsifiability is regarded as 'not useful'. Carroll's point is merely that increasingly theoreticians are working in areas where experimentalists cannot effectively tread, but that should not define such work as non-science simply because it is not practical to set up experiments to test it.

[Sriram]

Yes...so you cannot dismiss an idea merely because it cannot be falsified. That's the point.

Finally at least some scientists are beginning to realize that knowledge cannot be tied down by our limited methods and limited definitions of reality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Simulated universes are an acceptable hypothesis so we could be merely in the mind of the simulator who or whatever that may be.

I thought I had made it clear that I do not think that a simulated universe is an acceptable hypothesis.  It has exactly the same issues as the God hypothesis.  In fact, it is the God hypothesis.

But simulated universes exist as computer programmers have simulated them!

In terms of being unfalsifiable, that is something the simulated universe hypothesis shares with other multiverses however Bostrom has introduced us to the idea of a pop up window appearing telling us what the real nature of the universe is. That casts a question mark over the unfalsifiability of the hypothesis.

[torridon]

Yes...so you cannot dismiss an idea merely because it cannot be falsified. That's the point.

Finally at least some scientists are beginning to realize that knowledge cannot be tied down by our limited methods and limited definitions of reality.

More accurately, what it means, is we recognise that models that cannot be tested in practice are not necessarily invalid or worthless or wrong, but such ideas will not gain the level of traction as ideas that gain robustness through intensive testing. They will more likely remain in the 'speculative' camp as opposed to the 'well established' camp.

[Sriram]

Yes...so you cannot dismiss an idea merely because it cannot be falsified. That's the point.

Finally at least some scientists are beginning to realize that knowledge cannot be tied down by our limited methods and limited definitions of reality.

More accurately, what it means, is we recognise that models that cannot be tested in practice are not necessarily invalid or worthless or wrong, but such ideas will not gain the level of traction as ideas that gain robustness through intensive testing. They will more likely remain in the 'speculative' camp as opposed to the 'well established' camp.

I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.

Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'.  Some more speculative than others.   Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so why not the 'God hypothesis'.  That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.

[torridon]

I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.

Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'.  Some more speculative than others.   Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so way not the 'God hypothesis'.  That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.

The trouble with a god hypothesis is that it is heavily invested with cultural baggage and multiplicity of meanings. A scientific definition of god would require clarity and definition.

[Sriram]

I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.

Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'.  Some more speculative than others.   Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so way not the 'God hypothesis'.  That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.

The trouble with a god hypothesis is that it is heavily invested with cultural baggage and multiplicity of meanings. A scientific definition of god would require clarity and definition.

I agree with that. That is why 'Spirituality' needs to be emphasized rather than 'religion'.  We need to understand the difference and focus more on the former.

Hey!...I like the way this discussion is going!   These boards do make a difference...it seems.

[torridon]

  

[Sriram]

 

We are now ready for Dawkins...I think. Bring him in someone! 

[BashfulAnthony]

 

We are now ready for Dawkins...I think. Bring him in someone! 

He won't come:  not till he sees the colour of your money!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.

Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'.  Some more speculative than others.   Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so way not the 'God hypothesis'.  That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.

The trouble with a god hypothesis is that it is heavily invested with cultural baggage and multiplicity of meanings.

Loaded on by atheists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I understand what you are saying...but I don't think it is all black and white. They don't belong in two boxes ..one 'well established'...second 'speculative'.

Its more of a gradation.....with most ideas being in the grey area.....and very few being 'well established'.  Some more speculative than others.   Even the role of genes and epigenes are in the grey area....so way not the 'God hypothesis'.  That does not necessarily make it wrong or even unlikely.

The trouble with a god hypothesis is that it is heavily invested with cultural baggage and multiplicity of meanings. A scientific definition of god would require clarity and definition.

An intelligent infinite universe.

[jeremyp]

But we have already seen that the idea of falsifiability is not regarded as useful by all scientists.

Some of them feel it needs to be retired.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/

So Sean Caroll is wrong. 

[jeremyp]

But simulated universes exist as computer programmers have simulated them!

I kind of thought it would be obvious to everybody that we were talking about the Universe we live in, not some vastly simplified model in a programmer's computer.

Bostrom has introduced us to the idea of a pop up window appearing telling us what the real nature of the universe is. That casts a question mark over the unfalsifiability of the hypothesis.

Can you suggest an experiment we can perform in principle that would force this pop up to appear?  No?  Well we can't falsify the hypothesis then.

[Sriram]

But we have already seen that the idea of falsifiability is not regarded as useful by all scientists.

Some of them feel it needs to be retired.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/

So Sean Caroll is wrong.

Yeah right!  That's so easy isn't it?! LOL!

Many of you are so stuck in old science that neither will you grow nor will you allow science to evolve. You want it to be static to suit your mindset. Very sad!   Fortunately all are not like that. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But simulated universes exist as computer programmers have simulated them!

I kind of thought it would be obvious to everybody that we were talking about the Universe we live in, not some vastly simplified model in a programmer's computer.

Bostrom has introduced us to the idea of a pop up window appearing telling us what the real nature of the universe is. That casts a question mark over the unfalsifiability of the hypothesis.

Can you suggest an experiment we can perform in principle that would force this pop up to appear?  No?  Well we can't falsify the hypothesis then.

Vastly simplified models are acceptable to science though besides
computers are getting more and more sophisticated all the time and if we are dealing with an intelligent infinitely large and old universe who knows how many Gozilliobytes are possible.

What we have is a situation where the appearance of the pop up confirms the theory. So is the theory unfalsifiable? I don't know if it is in that case.