# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation

## Jim Casey

http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-...ulation-2016-4

Whoever created the simulation doesn't need to be that much smarter than people are today either.  We can make some pretty convincing simulations ourselves.

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/cant-wa...hats-great-vr/

It's interesting to note that a lot of folks are open to the idea of the universe being a simulation, but disavow the idea of the earth being flat or the moon being a hologram.

----------


## erowe1

> It's interesting to note that a lot of folks are open to the idea of the universe being a simulation, but disavow the idea of the earth being flat or the moon being a hologram.


Exactly. You can be smart and think the universe is a simulation. But if you think it's less than a million years old, you're an idiot.

----------


## timosman

It is nice to know the  "Turtles all the way down" theory of the universe is finally gaining acceptance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

----------


## Conza88

This is what you get with positivists. Pathetic. I guess this guess passed off as "deep"? It's embarrassing.




> If we can figure out all the laws that govern how everything works  (which physicists are trying to do) — that makes it much more likely  that it is actually simulated.


Yeah; not happening. They're completely ignorant of _methodological dualism_. 




> But Tyson uses a thought experiment to imagine a life form that’s as much smarter than us as we are than dogs, chimps, or other terrestrial mammals.


Yeah - which what, takes on the form of? It's contradictory if given any of the below. 


I. The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts - Human Action pg 107


 The praxeological categories and concepts are devised for the comprehension of human action. They become self-contradictory and nonsensical if one tries to apply them in dealing with conditions different from those of human life. The naive anthropomorphism of primitive religions is unpalatable to the philosophic mind. *However, the endeavors of philosophers to define neatly the attributes of an absolute being, free from all the limitations and frailties of human existence, by the use of praxeological concepts, are no less questionable.* 

*Scholastic philosophers and theologians and likewise Theists and Deists of the Age of Reason conceived an absolute and perfect being, unchangeable, omnipotent, and omniscient, and yet planning and acting, aiming at ends and employing means for the attainment of these ends.* But action can only be imputed to a discontented being, and repeated action only to a being who lacks the power to remove his uneasiness once and for all at one stroke. *An acting being is discontented and therefore not almighty.* If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent. *For an all-powerful being* there is no pressure to choose between various states of uneasiness; he is not under the necessity of acquiescing in the lesser evil. 

Omnipotence would mean the power to achieve everything and to enjoy full satisfaction without being restrained by any limitations. *But this is incompatible with the very concept of action.* *For an almighty being the categories of ends and means do not exist.* He is above all human comprehension, concepts, and understanding. For the almighty being every "means" renders unlimited services, he can apply every "means" for the attainment of any ends, he can achieve every end without the employment of any means. It is beyond the faculties of the human mind to think the concept of almightiness consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. *The paradoxes are insoluble.* Has the almighty being the power to achieve something which is immune to his later interference? *If he has this power, then there are limits to his might and he is no longer almighty; if he lacks this power, he is by virtue of this fact alone not almighty.*

*Are omnipotence and omniscience compatible?* Omniscience presupposes that all future happenings are already unalterably determined. *If there is omniscience, omnipotence is inconceivable.* Impotence to change anything in the predetermined course of events would restrict the power of any agent.

Action is a display of potency and control that are limited. It is a manifestation of man who is restrained by the circumscribed powers of his mind, the physiological nature of his body, the vicissitudes of his environment, and the scarcity of the external factors on which his welfare depends. It is vain to refer to the imperfections and weaknesses of human life if one aims at depicting something absolutely perfect. The very idea of absolute perfection is in every way selfcontradictory. *The state of absolute perfection must be conceived as complete, final, and not exposed to any change.* 

Change could only impair its perfection and transform it into a less perfect state; the mere possibility that a change can occur is incompatible with the concept of absolute perfection. But the absence of change-ix., perfect immutability, rigidity and immobility-is tantamount to the absence of life. Life and perfection are incompatible, but so are death and perfection.

The living is not perfect because it is liable to change; the dead is not perfect because it does not live.

The language of living and acting men can form comparatives and superlatives in comparing degrees. But absoluteness is not a degree; it is a limiting notion. The absolute is indeterminable, unthinkable and ineffable. It is a chimerical conception. There are no such things as perfect happiness, perfect men, eternal bliss. Every attempt to describe the conditions of a land of Cockaigne, or the life of the Angels, results in paradoxes. Where there are conditions, there are limitations and not perfection; there are endeavors to conquer obstacles, there are frustration and discontent.

*After the philosophers had abandoned the search for the absolute, the utopians took it up.* They weave dreams about the perfect state. They do not realize that the state, the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion, is an institution to cope with human imperfection and that its essential function is to inflict punishment upon minorities in order to protect majorities against the detrimental consequences of certain actions. With "perfect" men there would not he any need for compulsion and coercion. 

But utopians do not pay heed to human nature and the inalterable conditions of human life. Godwin thought that man might become immortal after the abolition of private property." Charles Fourier babbled about the ocean containing lemonade instead of salt water.20 Marx's economic system blithely ignored the fact of the scarcity of material factors of production. Trotsky revealed that in the proletarian paradise "the average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise." 27 Nowadays the most popular chimeras are stabilization and security. We will test these catchwords later.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Our Mathematical Universe with Max Tegmark* *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3UxvycpqYo*

----------


## Jim Casey

The simulation is rendered on a dome that encloses the earth.  The dome wall is in Antarctica.  The sun, moon, stars, and planets are rendered by the dome.  The moon is not reflecting sunlight.  There are furnaces below the ground to prevent us from digging a tunnel under the dome wall and escaping.



> Exactly. You can be smart and think the universe is a simulation. But if you think it's less than a million years old, you're an idiot.


There's too many assumptions involved in radio carbon dating for folks to put as much stock in that as they do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmjzE9wHBUU



> It is nice to know the  "Turtles all the way down" theory of the universe is finally gaining acceptance - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


Nobody has ever been able to drill more than 8 miles deep into the ground because the drill bits melt.  Unless the turtles put out sufficient body heat to melt drill bits, it seems more likely that a hot furnace exists miles below the surface.



> This is what you get with positivists. Pathetic. I guess this guess passed off as "deep"? It's embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah; not happening. They're completely ignorant of _methodological dualism_. 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - which what, takes on the form of? It's contradictory if given any of the below. 
> ...


Being unable to comprehend all the laws that govern how everything works could be a result of laws not always applying in every situation, as well as laws that are not stable.  Also, comprehension is limited by the observer effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Limited understanding of natural laws does not necessarily restrict man from expanding the boundaries of what may referred to by some as human nature.  After all, one might say it is human nature to live in caves after observing that for a while.



> *Our Mathematical Universe with Max Tegmark* *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3UxvycpqYo*


While mathematics is an excellent language developed by man that's not open to interpretation, it's a stretch to shoehorn it into areas where it doesn't apply.

----------


## staerker

And yet he rejects the idea of intelligent design, or the existence of God.

He has a lot of catching up to do: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

----------


## juleswin

> http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-...ulation-2016-4
> 
> Whoever created the simulation doesn't need to be that much smarter than people are today either.  We can make some pretty convincing simulations ourselves.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/2015/08/cant-wa...hats-great-vr/
> *
> It's interesting to note that a lot of folks are open to the idea of the universe being a simulation, but disavow the idea of the earth being flat or the moon being a hologram.*



What a load of BS, there is no evidence whatsoever to backup the claim that any large group of people believe the world is a simulation, you just made it up. Also he is saying that there is a very high chance that the world is a simulation which is very different from saying you know a god exists then arranging your live n accordance to the dictates you think he made for you.

Again, you have to understand that you will most likely see zero push back from the atheists/non believers until Tyson tries to make laws that would negatively affected them based on his idea of a simulated world.

----------


## staerker

> Exactly. You can be smart and think the universe is a simulation. But if you think it's less than a million years old, you're an idiot.


If you believe it is a simulation,  or "creation" as referred to by Christians, then any reality is possible.

----------


## Jim Casey

> What a load of BS, there is no evidence whatsoever to backup the claim that any large group of people believe the world is a simulation, you just made it up. Also he is saying that there is a very high chance that the world is a simulation which is very different from saying you know a god exists then arranging your live n accordance to the dictates you think he made for you.
> 
> Again, you have to understand that you will most likely see zero push back from the atheists/non believers until Tyson tries to make laws that would negatively affected them based on his idea of a simulated world.


I never said people believed it.  I said people are open to the idea.  

Lots more people don't believe that the universe is a simulation nor do they believe the earth is flat.

However, people are much more open to the idea that the universe is a simulation than they are to the idea that the earth is flat.  If you confront somebody with the idea that the universe is a simulation just like in the film series "The Matrix", they are not very likely to shut you down and oppose what you are saying.  If you confront somebody with the idea that the earth is flat and surrounded by a dome like in the tv series "Under The Dome", they'll shut you right down on the flat earth part.  So many take ball shaped earth model as unquestionable gospel truth, as accurate and basic as 1+1=2.

Considering that the universe is a simulation, wouldn't it be most efficiently created on a dome that enclosed a flat planed earth?  Man creates his own planetariums, except we can walk out of them easily enough.

----------


## Origanalist

Does it ever need to be shut down for maintenance?

----------


## Jim Casey

> Does it ever need to be shut down for maintenance?


It probably does from time to time.  Man might not be the first smart folks to inhabit the dome either.  There may well have been other creatures here before man.  Previous tenants may have build the Pyramids.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> While mathematics is an excellent language developed by man that's not open to interpretation, it's a stretch to shoehorn it into areas where it doesn't apply.


https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Math...ng/Wigner.html

----------


## Jim Casey

> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Math...ng/Wigner.html


Have you ever looked into the math regarding the supposed curvature of the earth?

----------


## jllundqu

> I never said people believed it.  I said people are open to the idea.  
> 
> Lots more people don't believe that the universe is a simulation nor do they believe the earth is flat.
> 
> However, people are much more open to the idea that the universe is a simulation than they are to the idea that the earth is flat.  If you confront somebody with the idea that the universe is a simulation just like in the film series "The Matrix", they are not very likely to shut you down and oppose what you are saying.  If you confront somebody with the idea that the earth is flat and surrounded by a dome like in the tv series "Under The Dome", they'll shut you right down on the flat earth part.  So many take ball shaped earth model as unquestionable gospel truth, as accurate and basic as 1+1=2.
> 
> Considering that the universe is a simulation, wouldn't it be most efficiently created on a dome that enclosed a flat planed earth?  Man creates his own planetariums, except we can walk out of them easily enough.


The Earth is not flat.  I've personally seen the curvature of the Earth from high altitudes.  What is your argument that the Earth is flat?  Or are you joking?

http://www.nytimes.com/video/science...the-earth.html

If you can watch the above link and still believe the Earth is flat.... well there's just no arguing with you.  BTW.... this electronic communication is only possible with satellites and other space-based technology that orbits a spherical Earth.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Have you ever looked into the math regarding the supposed curvature of the earth?


No, have you ever read "Synergetics", by R. Buckminster Fuller?

https://bfi.org/about-fuller/big-ideas/synergetics

----------


## Jim Casey

> The Earth is not flat.  I've personally seen the curvature of the Earth from high altitudes.  What is your argument that the Earth is flat?  Or are you joking?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/video/science...the-earth.html
> 
> If you can watch the above link and still believe the Earth is flat.... well there's just no arguing with you.  BTW.... this electronic communication is only possible with satellites and other space-based technology that orbits a spherical Earth.


A fish eye lens can make the floor of your room seem curved.  There are government whistle blowers out there about the government's "satellite" positioning and communications system.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nkucc0nSrE

Do you honestly believe NASA can take all theses photos of all these distant planets from close up because they launched a satellite really far?  When ESA says they landed a probe on comet, do you automatically accept what they say at face value?

If so, you might want to ask why none of these multi billion dollar government space agencies can ever make a video of the entire ball earth spinning or rotating.  A spinning and rotating ball earth is the basis for all their work, but they don't seem willing to display the evidence of it.

----------


## jllundqu

> A fish eye lens can make the floor of your room seemed curved.  There are government whistle blowers out there about the government's "satellite" positioning and communications system.  
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nkucc0nSrE
> 
> Do you honestly believe NASA can take all theses photos of all these distant planets from close up because they launched a satellite really far?  When ESA says they landed a probe on comet, do you automatically accept what they say at face value?
> 
> If so, you might want to ask why none of these multi billion dollar government space agencies can ever make a video of the entire ball earth spinning or rotating.  A spinning and rotating ball earth is the basis for all their work, but they don't seem willing to display the evidence of it.


Sorry.... I can't even engage with you here.  I was an astrophysics major at the U of A and I would argue I have a slightly better basis of knowledge.  I own a fairly fantastic telescope of my own and regularly view the glorious heavens and the magnificent spheres that traverse our ecliptic.  Just because you can't get off your ass and find your own answers to what is settled science doesn't mean the Earth is flat.  I just can't really seriously debate someone who thinks the Earth is flat.

Enjoy.

----------


## erowe1

> If so, you might want to ask why none of these multi billion dollar government space agencies can ever make a video of the entire ball earth spinning or rotating.  A spinning and rotating ball earth is the basis for all their work, but they don't seem willing to display the evidence of it.


Like this one?



ETA:
This one's better.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> And yet he rejects the idea of intelligent design, or the existence of God.
> 
> He has a lot of catching up to do: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."


I thought he was Agnostic.

----------


## Origanalist

> Like this one?
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:
> This one's better.


Obviously faked. Like movie special effects.

----------


## staerker

> I thought he was Agnostic.


You're right. I guess not fully rejects, but considers it to be a very low "lack of evidence" chance, contrasting with the OP.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You're right. I guess not fully rejects, but considers it to be a very low "lack of evidence" chance, contrasting with the OP.


I think his beef is mostly with organized religion.  He might not have a problem with a Deist as much as a Christian or Muslim following very specific ideas of their God and their rules.

----------


## jllundqu

> You're right. I guess not fully rejects, but considers it to be a very low "lack of evidence" chance, contrasting with the OP.


I fall in generally the same camp.  I'm more of a Deist/Agnostic.  Although were I forced to pick a religion, I think I might go with Zeus jamming lighting bolts up people's asses for fun.... when looked at objectively, it actually makes more sense than Abrahamic religions.

----------


## Jim Casey

> Sorry.... I can't even engage with you here.  I was an astrophysics major at the U of A and I would argue I have a slightly better basis of knowledge.  I own a fairly fantastic telescope of my own and regularly view the glorious heavens and the magnificent spheres that traverse our ecliptic.  Just because you can't get off your ass and find your own answers to what is settled science doesn't mean the Earth is flat.  I just can't really seriously debate someone who thinks the Earth is flat.
> 
> Enjoy.


I own a 12 inch dobsonian telescope myself, I watched comet lovejoy over the course of several nights in my backyard with it in 2013 as it stole the comet story from ison.

Today, after listening to the extensive research of Mark Sargent and others, I've come to the conclusion that what I saw was merely a rendered image.

"Conspiracy comments" have been removed from one of the videos erowe1 posted, and we the flat earthers are dominating the comments section in the other.

NASA still has no spinning and rotating ball earth videos to share.  Artists will do composites and artists will do paintings, yet we get no real videos of a spinning and rotating ball earth because not only are there no such videos, the earth itself does not spin and rotate.

The dome projects a simulation, we're living in it, on a flat planed earth.  The math supports the flat earth model as well, considering the view of the Chicago skyline across from Lake Michigan, which would not be visible according to ball earth math of 8 inches per mile squared.

----------


## Ronin Truth

So why does a large ship, sailing away on the ocean, not just keep on getting smaller and smaller and smaller, the farther away it gets, until it finally just disappears from view?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ...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."


He may be an expert in astrophysics, but he's an amateur in probability.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> He may be an expert in astrophysics, but he's an amateur in probability.


Is he saying this as a fact?  Or is this just a whimsical speculative discussion taken way to seriously?

----------


## Jim Casey

> So why does a large ship, sailing away on the ocean, not just keep on getting smaller and smaller and smaller, the farther away it gets, until it finally just disappears from view?


If you want to bring it back into view, just look at it with binoculars or a telescope, then you can keep on watching it getting smaller the further away it goes.  Looking across air is similar to looking across water, air is just more transparent.  

No matter how powerful the telescope you have pointed across land or water or air, you will only be able to see as far as the transparency of what you're looking across.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If you want to bring it back into view, just look at it with binoculars or a telescope, then you can keep on watching it getting smaller the further away it goes. Looking across air is similar to looking across water, air is just more transparent. 
> 
> No matter how powerful the telescope you have pointed across land or water or air, you will only be able to see as far as the transparency of what you're looking across.


Actually, I see the ship disappear from the bottom up to the top, as it continues to sail away over the horizon of a pretty close to spherical earth.  

*(INTJ!)*

----------


## jllundqu

lmao...

----------


## Jim Casey

> lmao...


B.o.B released a new mix tape on Flat Earth Day.

http://pitchfork.com/news/65001-bob-...-on-earth-day/

_The nine-track collection samples scientists, pundits, and President Barack Obama, and spans controversial topics like astral projection and cloning. One song, "Fkn' Science Bro," includes references to fossil fuel, climate change, and even dinosaurs._

----------


## Origanalist

> B.o.B released a new mix tape on Flat Earth Day.
> 
> http://pitchfork.com/news/65001-bob-...-on-earth-day/
> 
> _The nine-track collection samples scientists, pundits, and President Barack Obama, and spans controversial topics like astral projection and cloning. One song, "Fkn' Science Bro," includes references to fossil fuel, climate change, and even dinosaurs._


But there are stars outside of that dome.

----------


## TheTexan



----------


## Ronin Truth

FWIW, all of the stars seen with the naked eye, are Milky Way galaxy stars.

----------


## FindLiberty

The ship sailing away on the ocean cannot appear smaller
than one pixel if Neil deGrasse Tyson is actually software based
himself.  This makes me a little bit nuts. 

But I'm warping towards the EU Plasma Cosmology Theories
that place a higher emphasis on electric forces...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBWOH9Wu2c0




I'm curious if you formal, traditional astrophysics people have
ever heard of this.  It really gets interesting when trying to
explain comet composition and their recently observed behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxPX983lGl4

----------


## Ronin Truth

Factoid: 99.9% of the matter in the universe is in a plasma state.

----------


## kpitcher

> The dome projects a simulation, we're living in it, on a flat planed earth.  The math supports the flat earth model as well, considering the view of the Chicago skyline across from Lake Michigan, which would not be visible according to ball earth math of 8 inches per mile squared.


While I assume you're trolling... seeing across Lake Michigan is only 50 some miles to Chicago. You can see the high rises there, the spherical earth model supports that just fine. Square root of your height * 1.23 mile is a rough estimate on how far you can see. Stand on a few hundred foot sand dune and you can see high rises 12 stories or higher. Also if the weather conditions are right you can get even more interesting views. 

Personally I feel it's likely we're either in an It by Bit Universe or with quantum mechanics being so successful in predictions then a Participatory Anthropic Principal where the universe couldn't come into existence without consciousness. (Or at least it was in a wave state until consciousness evolved to realize it)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

For the universe to be a simulation, most of the human race would have to be Philosophical Zombies.

oh wait...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> While I assume you're trolling... seeing across Lake Michigan is only 50 some miles to Chicago. You can see the high rises there, the spherical earth model supports that just fine. Square root of your height * 1.23 mile is a rough estimate on how far you can see. Stand on a few hundred foot sand dune and you can see high rises 12 stories or higher. Also if the weather conditions are right you can get even more interesting views. 
> 
> Personally I feel it's likely we're either in an It by Bit Universe or with quantum mechanics being so successful in predictions then a Participatory Anthropic Principal where the universe couldn't come into existence without consciousness. (Or at least it was in a wave state until consciousness evolved to realize it)


He is not trolling.  He really is a flat Earth evangelist.  Tried to make Ron Paul into a Flat Earther to promote his cause.

That would seem to say that the state of the universe is the product of the collective perception/imagination of all kinds of consciousnesses together.  That consciousness itself has a function on the boson layer to animate it and thus fabricate the fixed reality around us.

The real universe = the meticulously constructed fantasy world of all conscious life, together.

I wouldn't put that past possible, but I don't think it's factualness would make the universe any less real.  If "all rational things" conspired to fabricate a reality, then that would explain a lot of mysticism, as well as the power of Christ.  Maybe not a simulation, maybe more like a terrarium.  A terrarium with an involved Creator.  Fluid reality at the boson layer would totally explain how the Creator could just "jack in" (or is that Jesus in?) and manipulate space-time at will.

----------


## kpitcher

Seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan, a recent news story about it

http://www.abc57.com/story/31830937/...ichigan-mirage

----------


## robert68

The more the celebrity the less the scientist.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*The Holographic Universe*

http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html


http://projectavalon.net/The_Hologra...ael_Talbot.pdf

----------

