Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by JosephDredd, Oct 12, 2017.
It's no coincidence that Ralphie May just died.
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.
Instead of just shutting down or even hardening on your beliefs, maybe you should examine what science actually does.
Always somebody gotta come into these threads yelling "hey SCIENCE is just theories too !!" without a shred of understanding what "theory" means in scientific method.
Awesome discovery but kind of a let down really. I suppose its just the term dark matter that seemed to hold some promise of matter held in an alternate dimension of our universe or something. Still though it is really neat to watch the progress of human knowledge move forward.
It's called science, and I'm certain you failed it many, many times in school.
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
Buncha baryonists running the universe. Dark Matter Lives.... Matter.
Lol at all the science trade trying to sound mint..
Simulation Service pack 4.23
- Fixed Bug: Removed apparent binary correlation to quantum physics.
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".
1.(of an object) in pristine condition; as new.
Yeah, a more accurate headline would be:
"If we're in a simulation, it's not running on Windows 10"
Ah, gotcha. You're probably right.
See .. your so full of science schtik, high above the ground level you don't know what mint means.. my case in point..
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 area
This says nothing about the simulation hypothesis. You just added that in there
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..
lol that's right, I did. There is no connection between the two other than I wanted to add another interesting thing to this thread.
Separate names with a comma.