If the simulation hypothesis is correct and we're just elements of one, what could possibly make you think we're equipped to understand anything about the world simulating us?
"Hey guys hurr durr, I'm gonna go climb down in that anthill and chill out by the food stores. O noes! The antses' chemical precursors indicate they might suspect that a larger world exists! Better throw them off by banning dimethylchloroisothiosolonone!!"
Can you tell me why everyone here and in /v/science downvotes posts about the Simulation Hypothesis to invisibility? Why is a debate about this subject so threatening? Of course I would find a better source of debate about the subject if scientists were willing to debate its validity.
Because it isn't science yet. The bleeding edge of theory is always hypothesis, and still farther in the whack-job direction, is conjecture. They're just sick of talking about something with no experimental predictions and no data to examine.
They aren't trying to silence you. They just don't care.
Not weird. String theory was in this boat in the 90's, and nobody gave a shit about it then, because it didn't make experimental predictions. The only reason it's making a comeback is that it has a new shot at showing some predictive power.
No, that's pretty easy. The top one, there's a somewhat questionable editorial addition to the title. The bottom one just presents an article. That's just poor news aggregator etiquette on your part, not information manipulation.
view the rest of the comments →
SwiftLion ago
If the simulation hypothesis is correct and we're just elements of one, what could possibly make you think we're equipped to understand anything about the world simulating us?
"Hey guys hurr durr, I'm gonna go climb down in that anthill and chill out by the food stores. O noes! The antses' chemical precursors indicate they might suspect that a larger world exists! Better throw them off by banning dimethylchloroisothiosolonone!!"
SarMegahhikkitha ago
Can you tell me why everyone here and in /v/science downvotes posts about the Simulation Hypothesis to invisibility? Why is a debate about this subject so threatening? Of course I would find a better source of debate about the subject if scientists were willing to debate its validity.
SwiftLion ago
Because it isn't science yet. The bleeding edge of theory is always hypothesis, and still farther in the whack-job direction, is conjecture. They're just sick of talking about something with no experimental predictions and no data to examine.
They aren't trying to silence you. They just don't care.
SarMegahhikkitha ago
Yet they won't shut up about string theory. Yet even in /v/conspiracy they downvote it to invisibility instead of ignoring it moving on. Not weird?
SwiftLion ago
Not weird. String theory was in this boat in the 90's, and nobody gave a shit about it then, because it didn't make experimental predictions. The only reason it's making a comeback is that it has a new shot at showing some predictive power.
SarMegahhikkitha ago
Me: https://voat.co/v/science/comments/977114
Someone else: https://voat.co/v/science/comments/985781
Not weird?
SwiftLion ago
No, that's pretty easy. The top one, there's a somewhat questionable editorial addition to the title. The bottom one just presents an article. That's just poor news aggregator etiquette on your part, not information manipulation.