So what would be a better method to coming to these conclusions? Math and science are pretty accurate when describing the universe and if they find something better to explain it than math and science they will, if it is proven. It's not dogmatic. It's ok to change your mind when better, logical explanations describe the universe. It's also ok to refer to experts in the field. We all can't be experts. Just because something disagrees with our world view does not automatically make it wrong.That's the problem it's theoretical.. and its only accurate based on their own axioms..
I love the fuddling muggling guff these people come out with trying to explain reality and our existence with numbers and measurements.
This bit is just categorically not true.
What do they mean, "Dark Matter"?
They did claim to have proven we're not living in a simulation: https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-complexity-rules-out-our-universe-as-a-computer-simulation
I don't believe they made that claim. I believe it was the interpretations of the research article that claimed that. The research itself says that current computers cannot recreate the physics of the universe. Sensationalist click bait websites then interpreted that as "scientists prove we're not in a simulation".They did claim to have proven we're not living in a simulation: https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-complexity-rules-out-our-universe-as-a-computer-simulation
???Lol at all the science trade trying to sound mint..
I don't believe they made that claim. I believe it was the interpretations of the research article that claimed that. The research itself says that current computers cannot recreate the physics of the universe. Sensationalist click bait websites then interpreted that as "scientists prove we're not in a simulation".
I don't believe they made that claim. I believe it was the interpretations of the research article that claimed that. The research itself says that current computers cannot recreate the physics of the universe. Sensationalist click bait websites then interpreted that as "scientists prove we're not in a simulation".
Yeah, a more accurate headline would be:
"If we're in a simulation, it's not running on Windows 10"
???
mint
1.(of an object) in pristine condition; as new.
The logic is that reality is rendered as we experience it. Much like the environment in a video game renders as you walk throughout it. It doesnt exist until you enter the areaPretty neat.
The news that we are "not in the matrix" seems flawed in that, upon reading articles about the news, it seems that they've ruled out the possibility that the physics of our universe is impossible to map and simulate on any computer that we have or have conceived currently. I always thought that it was more of a "subreality" like how there's a physics engine it our video games but is less complete and only simulates our own.
This says nothing about the simulation hypothesis. You just added that in therehttps://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/
Good news, everybody! Between this and last week's article that scientists claim to have proven that we're not in a simulation of reality, it looks like we can finally relax and enjoy knowing that we're real. /professorfarnsworth
The didnt prove anything in that article. The probability of us being base reality is 1 in millions. The probability of a society creating a simulation is highly likely. Based on these 2 probabilities its possible that reality is a simulation. And even more likely that its a simulation within a simulation and etc..They did claim to have proven we're not living in a simulation: https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-complexity-rules-out-our-universe-as-a-computer-simulation
This says nothing about the simulation hypothesis. You just added that in there