And here I was waiting to get unplugged, or maybe finding a Nokia phone that received a call.

  • survirtual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    This paper is shit.

    https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488_8e072972f66d1fb748b47244c4813c86.pdf

    They proved absolutely nothing.

    For instance, they treat physics as a formal axiomatic system, which is fine for a human model of the physical world, but not for the physical world itself.

    You can’t say something is “unprovable” and make a logical leap to saying it is “physically undecidable.” Gödel-incompleteness produces unprovable sentences inside a formal system, it doesn’t imply that physical observables correspond to those sentences.

    I could go on but the paper is 12 short pages of non-sequiturs and logical leaps, with references to invoke formality, it’s a joke that an article like this is being passed around and taken as reality.

    • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I mean, simulation theory is kind of a joke itself. It’s a fun thought experiment, but ultimately it’s just solipsism repackaged.

      In reality there’s no more evidence for it than there is for you being a butterfly dreaming it’s a man. And it seems to me that the only reason people take it at all seriously in the modern age is because Elon Musk said he believed it back when he had a good enough PR team that people thought he was worth listening to.

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        33 minutes ago

        Have you bothered looking for evidence?

        What makes you so sure that there’s no evidence for it?

        For example, a common trope we see in the simulated worlds we create are Easter eggs. Are you sure nothing like that exists in our own universe?