"We are here! We are here! We are here, here, here!"
-PJ
Posted on 04/24/2016 7:20:50 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
We trust the scientists around us to have the best grasp on how the world actually works.
So at this year's 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History, which addressed the question of whether the universe is a simulation, the answers from some panelists may be more comforting than the responses from others.
Physicist Lisa Randall, for example, said that she thought the odds that the universe isn't "real" are so low as to be "effectively zero."
A satisfying answer for those who don't want to sit there puzzling out what it would mean for the universe not to be real, to be sure.
But on the other hand, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was hosting the debate, said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high."
Uh-oh?
The question of whether we know that our universe is real has vexed thinkers going far back into history, long before Descartes made his famous "I think, therefore I am" statement. The same question has been explored in modern science-fiction films like "The Matrix" and David Cronenberg's "Existenz."
But most physicists and philosophers agree that it's impossible to prove definitively that we don't live in a simulation and that the universe is real.
Tyson agrees, but says that he wouldn't be surprised if we were to find out somehow that someone else is responsible for our universe.
One of the main arguments that physicists use to talk about what's known as the "simulation hypothesis" is that if we can prove that it's possible to simulate a universe — if we can figure out all the laws that govern how everything works, which physicists are trying to do —
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
We will need to adjust the impellances and coil omnidirectionally.
Yes, excellent jaw.
Steve Martin in the Jerk, finding his name listed in the Telephone Book.
Look, I’m somebody!
Mr. Tyson you’re an atheist..... but if you think the universe is a simulation.... you inherently are saying you believe the universe was intelligently designed...
“...somehow that someone else is responsible for our universe...”
Mr. Tyson: And who, exactly, do you posit that “someone else” is?
Not much, actually.
Of course it doesn’t - if you are delusional liberal.
Assembly, of course.
NDT can go FO.
M-Theory
And He creates the bare metal, too.
And all of its properties, useful and not obviously useful.
Because, otherwise, He wouldn't be God.
42
Well said.
This is the kind of spontaneous publicity that makes people!
Things are going to start happening to me now!
He hates these cans!
Let’s test that theory. If none of this is reality surely he won’t mind me firing a bullet into his head right?
Tyson agrees, but says that he wouldn’t be surprised if we were to find out somehow that someone else is responsible for our universe....
“What if God built the computer?”
Or maybe it was the mice, Frankie & Benjy, with the help of Slartibartfast?
(my first thought was also G-d but couldn’t resist the above reference)
This is not exactly a new hypothesis, though Tyson is too rigidly programmed to think of the classic answer.
Tyson points out that we humans have always defined ourselves as the smartest beings alive.
Not true. See above. The idea that humans are the smartest things in the universe is a peculiarly modern delusion, probably rooted in having too many tenured faculty members around.
"And if that's the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity for their entertainment," Tyson says.
Most people who have considered the subject think that God had some purpose in mind other than entertainment.
The idea that our universe may be considered, for lack of a more adequate terminology, as a thought experiment in the mind of God is an old one. It answers a number of puzzles. If Tyson were not locked in his dogmatic box, he would recognize that he is stumbling around a well-rehearsed question. Of course, I'm sure he would prefer to believe in a race of incomprehensibly intelligent aliens as opposed to a creator God. He might want to pause and reflect on why he would prefer to consider himself a plaything as opposed to an infinitely valued creation.
Or, as has already been said, there is nothing new under the sun.
The funny thing is that Tyson is pretty much describing God but will never admit that. They have to change the language is order to accept the fact that we have a creator.. Both man and the universe.
They simply lack the faith to truly understand.
"We are here! We are here! We are here, here, here!"
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.