Toril as a Counter-Earth

[Thomas Bowman]

Except, of course, you can't. In The Matrix, the trick is managed by way of having the people have existence *outside* the simulation, and so in part not subject to the simulation's rules. If, however, you are a fully simulated being yourself, you are 100% beholden to the rules of the simulation. How could you then generate an event that isn't part of the simulation, to show that something else exists?

The Simulation Hypothesis is what we call "non-falsifiable". There is no experiment that, even in theory, could possibly refute the statement, "The universe is a simulation." For any evidence you have that we are not in an simulation, there is the answer, "But that evidence is itself simulated."

Non-falsifiable statements are outside the realm of science.

You can't falsify it, but it remains a possibility that you can't disprove either. So if a planet appears in the Solar System and it is populated by humans among other races, I would think the explanation of "we're living in a simulation," would be the most likely explanation, a lesser likely explanation would be Ancient Astronauts etc. but with simulations you can do anything. I would say in real life, we can not prove we are living in a simulation, unless something happens that can't be explained any other way. I would say humans evolving somewhere else in the Universe would be extremely unlikely for instance. If the Universe was made to resemble the natural universe, but it was a made thing, we can not rule out the possibility that humans might live elsewhere in it, that it would be an artificial universe that was made with a specific purpose in mind.

 

[Umbran]

You can't falsify it, but it remains a possibility that you can't disprove either.

Um. Yeah. That's what "non-falsifiable" means. Even if it isn't true, you can't *prove* it isn't true, even in theory.

So if a planet appears in the Solar System and it is populated by humans among other races, I would think the explanation of "we're living in a simulation," would be the most likely explanation

People toss out things like "most likely explanation". It doesn't mean anything. The explanation is not Shrodinger's Cat, that could be anything until we figure out which one it is. There is only one explanation - it is 100% likely. All others are 0% likely. That we don't know which it is does not create a probability distribution.

I would say in real life, we can not prove we are living in a simulation, unless something happens that can't be explained any other way.

Let us be clear - there is *nothing* that cannot be explained another way. You can *always* come up with another non-falsifiable explanation that explains it. You can stack them infinitely - turtles all the way down.

I would say humans evolving somewhere else in the Universe would be extremely unlikely for instance.

By current understanding, you'd be incorrect. The Universe (as physics currently seems to tell us) is infinite. Not just "very large", but truly infinite. The likelyhood of humanity evolving on any given planet is very small, but non-zero. In an infinite space, so long as a thing is not completely impossible, it is statistically certain to happen. Not only are we certain that something exactly like humanity exists, *you*, personally, exist somewhere else. An exact duplicate of Earth, and all its people, exists.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

Um. Yeah. That's what "non-falsifiable" means. Even if it isn't true, you can't *prove* it isn't true, even in theory.




People toss out things like "most likely explanation". It doesn't mean anything. The explanation is not Shrodinger's Cat, that could be anything until we figure out which one it is. There is only one explanation - it is 100% likely. All others are 0% likely. That we don't know which it is does not create a probability distribution.




Let us be clear - there is *nothing* that cannot be explained another way. You can *always* come up with another non-falsifiable explanation that explains it. You can stack them infinitely - turtles all the way down.



By current understanding, you'd be incorrect. The Universe (as physics currently seems to tell us) is infinite. Not just "very large", but truly infinite. The likelyhood of humanity evolving on any given planet is very small, but non-zero. In an infinite space, so long as a thing is not completely impossible, it is statistically certain to happen. Not only are we certain that something exactly like humanity exists, *you*, personally, exist somewhere else. An exact duplicate of Earth, and all its people, exists.

But we aren't arguing about the real universe, just about a game. I don't have to prove anything, just suggest a plausible explanation. Also with science fiction, I don't have to solve every problem on how to get there, just suggest enough of a solution to make it sound somewhat plausible that it can happen. If I had all the answers, it would not be science fiction. I'm 51 years old, and I waited long enough for the Space Age to really happen, so I figure someone like Elon Musk might be right, and we might be able to build spaceships capable of transporting 100 people to Mars. One might figure that an entire Mars mission would take about as long as sending humans on a one way trip to Earth orbit on the other side of the Sun. I heard it takes 9 months to get to Mars and 9 months to get back, after about a year's stay on Mars itself, this comes to almost 3 years in space or on Mars, and about 3 years exposure to cosmic radiation, and we have no experience with that. I choose to be optimistic, because it is only a game after all. Never lose sight that it is only a game. I like the science end of it to be serious and disciplined, but some people just like to say no all the time and they say it can't be done. I am not a rocket scientist, but I've read a lot of books on manned missions to Mars and the like. I'm just trying to have some fun and be creative after all.

 

[Shasarak]

Except, of course, you can't. In The Matrix, the trick is managed by way of having the people have existence *outside* the simulation, and so in part not subject to the simulation's rules. If, however, you are a fully simulated being yourself, you are 100% beholden to the rules of the simulation. How could you then generate an event that isn't part of the simulation, to show that something else exists?

The Simulation Hypothesis is what we call "non-falsifiable". There is no experiment that, even in theory, could possibly refute the statement, "The universe is a simulation." For any evidence you have that we are not in an simulation, there is the answer, "But that evidence is itself simulated."

Non-falsifiable statements are outside the realm of science.

One way that I have seen being suggested is to try an experiment doing something fast enough that you can essentially see if the simulation lags trying to process the data. Kind of like the deja vu cat.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

One way that I have seen being suggested is to try an experiment doing something fast enough that you can essentially see if the simulation lags trying to process the data. Kind of like the deja vu cat.

The way quantum mechanics uses probability to resolve the position of particles would seems to suggest that the Universe itself uses approximations for the tiniest of particles, and there are also things like the Observer effect and Schrodinger's Cat, all seeming to suggest perhaps that we are living in a computer simulation. Because if we are living in a simulation, then the only thing that matters is what the observer sees. When the observer is not looking, all we have is probabilities that only collapse back into particles when the observer looks again. I think what we see when we look into space is essentially random.

 

[Umbran]

One way that I have seen being suggested is to try an experiment doing something fast enough that you can essentially see if the simulation lags trying to process the data. Kind of like the deja vu cat.

Won't work. Your sensory inputs, measuring systems, and mental processes are all part of the simulation. If the simulation lags, then *you* lag.

And... as if someone simulating an entire friggin' Universe has issues with processing speed? "Waitaminute! I just got 2+2=5! That means that no only are we a simulation, but we are being run on a Pentium chip!!1!"

 

[Thomas Bowman]

You don't have to simulate the entire Universe, only those parts where people are to observe. For instance, Maybe Jupiter didn't have any moons until that first observation was made through a telescope, there could have been a probability of Jupiter having moons but that probability only collapsed to specific moons in specific orbits when an intelligent mind first observed it. There could be galaxies that don't exist until we look at them through a telescope, and then the computer would randomly create galaxies for us to see. Now as we look at stars, we are detecting planets orbiting them, some invisible hand is rolling invisible dice to create those planets as they need to be seen.

 

[Shasarak]

Won't work. Your sensory inputs, measuring systems, and mental processes are all part of the simulation. If the simulation lags, then *you* lag.

And... as if someone simulating an entire friggin' Universe has issues with processing speed? "Waitaminute! I just got 2+2=5! That means that no only are we a simulation, but we are being run on a Pentium chip!!1!"

The main thing with experiments is that it is hard to discus the results before running the experiment.

Although it would be cool to be able to lag out the entire universe.

 

[Thomas Kalbfus]

As for the other problem of landing the bff, I got a solution.

First land a couple Orion capsules, each holds 4 passengers, they land by parachute, and have breaking rockets for making a soft landing on ground. Aim for a cleared farmers field. The Orion capsule is much smaller than a bfr, and it would seem less threatening to the local inhabitants. Land about 8 astronauts on a farmer's field and they prepare the field for the landing of the much larger bfr. The time of the landing should be in the fall or winter, so crops won't be damaged. The 8 astronauts then remove the vegetation so the landing of the much larger bfr does not start any fires.