Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RuboPosto t1_ixhdnvr wrote

So we are using as proof something we don’t understand how it works to support a hypothesis we can’t test.

14

FireWireBestWire t1_ixhx4i9 wrote

Well like every other cognitive dissonance, we're allowing it to happen.

1

FranticAudi t1_ixkpc81 wrote

Do you understand that reverse engineering complex things in physics is a plausible option? When we start with the answer, and look for the questions... we may have better luck finding the correct answer. The hard problems are unsolvable at this time, but if we start with answers and work our way back... that might be how we solve them. For example, weirdness on the quantum scale seems to make sense when looked at as a result of this all being a simulation. A paper was written by a professor from Florida, I can't remember his name, I found it years ago. This paper takes each example of QM weirdness and gives a neat answer as to why this may be the case. One example, quantum non locality, seemingly faster than light exchange of information. Particles that change their state, regardless of distances between them, seem to change the instant the other changes. This can be potentially explained by a simulation theory. Distance isn't real it could be simulated. The particles are not really far apart at all and saving the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

1

APlayerHater t1_ixlmt1v wrote

Starting with an answer and working your way back is how creationists think the shape of a banana proves god's glory.

1

FranticAudi t1_ixmgz3p wrote

Yeah because comparing the two is the same thing... I'm done talking to you.

You don't understand basic programming, the differences between animation/rendering and the actual programming for random numbers in a computer. I could show you the code differences but I'm not wasting any more of my time.

1