On some level you have to accept arguments from authority.
The problem is that you offer nothing but an argument from authority.
have seen evidence yourself?
Well, of course I have. The computer I use to type this words relies on QM to work, the dual wave-particle nature of light is quite apparent in digital photography, NMR machines in hospitals do work, etc.
In any case, let me express my position clearly.
I do not believe it possible to prove we’re NOT living in a simulation.
The question is whether it’s possible to prove we ARE living in a simulation is complex. Part of the complexity involves the meaning of “simulation” in this context. For example, if we assume that there is an omnipotent Creator of the universe, can we call this universe “a simulation”? It might be possible to test whether we are in a specific kind of simulation (see the paper you linked to), but I don’t think it’s possible to test whether we are in some, unspecified, unknown simulation.
My position is that it is possible for us to get both Bayesian evidence for and against simulation. I was not talking at all about “proof” in the sense you seem to use it.
If it’s possible to get evidence for a “specific kind of simulation”, then lacking that evidence is weak evidence against simulation. If we test many different possible simulation hypotheses and don’t find anything, that’s slightly stronger evidence. It’s inconsistent to say that we can’t prove ~simulation but can prove simulation.
The computer I use to type this words relies on QM to work, the dual wave-particle nature of light is quite apparent in digital photography, NMR machines in hospitals do work, etc.
I’m curious if you understand QM well enough to say that computers wouldn’t work without it. Is there no possible design for computers in classical physics that we would recognize as computer? Couldn’t QM be false and all these things work differently, and you’d have no way of knowing? Whatever you say, I doubt there are no areas in your life where you just rely on authority without understanding the subject. If not physics, then medicine, or something else.
Is there no possible design for computers in classical physics that we would recognize as computer?
Of course there is—from Babbage to the mechanical calculators or the mid-XX century. But I didn’t mean computers in general—I meant the specific computer that I’m typing these words on, the computer that relies on semiconductor microchips.
The problem is that you offer nothing but an argument from authority.
Well, of course I have. The computer I use to type this words relies on QM to work, the dual wave-particle nature of light is quite apparent in digital photography, NMR machines in hospitals do work, etc.
In any case, let me express my position clearly.
I do not believe it possible to prove we’re NOT living in a simulation.
The question is whether it’s possible to prove we ARE living in a simulation is complex. Part of the complexity involves the meaning of “simulation” in this context. For example, if we assume that there is an omnipotent Creator of the universe, can we call this universe “a simulation”? It might be possible to test whether we are in a specific kind of simulation (see the paper you linked to), but I don’t think it’s possible to test whether we are in some, unspecified, unknown simulation.
My position is that it is possible for us to get both Bayesian evidence for and against simulation. I was not talking at all about “proof” in the sense you seem to use it.
If it’s possible to get evidence for a “specific kind of simulation”, then lacking that evidence is weak evidence against simulation. If we test many different possible simulation hypotheses and don’t find anything, that’s slightly stronger evidence. It’s inconsistent to say that we can’t prove ~simulation but can prove simulation.
I’m curious if you understand QM well enough to say that computers wouldn’t work without it. Is there no possible design for computers in classical physics that we would recognize as computer? Couldn’t QM be false and all these things work differently, and you’d have no way of knowing? Whatever you say, I doubt there are no areas in your life where you just rely on authority without understanding the subject. If not physics, then medicine, or something else.
Of course there is—from Babbage to the mechanical calculators or the mid-XX century. But I didn’t mean computers in general—I meant the specific computer that I’m typing these words on, the computer that relies on semiconductor microchips.
How do you know your computer relies on semiconductor microchips? Could you explain to me why semiconductor microchips require QM to work?
I looked :-)
See e.g. this.