Can science and religion meet with Simulation Hypothesis?

a reply to: daskakik

That's kinda the point : Science™ needs defending, just like it's being defended here.

That's the difference between Science™ and science.
And that defense, is the tell-tale signs of religious devotion to an idea.

Have been trying to think of a different way to describe it, as this way doesn't seem to work.

a reply to: Kreeate

Science™ begins where science ends.

Nobody needs to defend science. It stands on its own.

The scientific-method cannot be applied to Science™, as it is an unscientific belief-system.

But these are just my opinions, and not true in any way.

originally posted by: Nothin
That's kinda the point : Science™ needs defending, just like it's being defended here.

I have not seen anyone defending Science™ in this thread.

Saying even with the ™ it doesn't fit the description of a religion isn't defending it, it is just pointing out the differences.

a reply to: daskakik

LoL !!

That's exactly what is going on here : a defense of Science™.
Saying that it's not religious is a defensive opinion, whether you believe it, or not.
It defensive in relation to my opinion that Science™, and Scientism™, are religious belief-systems.

It's fine with me if you don't agree
You have your opinions.
Nobody is right or wrong here.
Just discussing ideas.

originally posted by: Nothin
It defensive in relation to my opinion that Science™, and Scientism™, are religious belief-systems.

If that is how you see it then I guess that is how you see it but technically it isn't.

If you had said a tomato is a vegetable and someone came along and said it was technically a fruit, they are not defending tomato's, they are just disagreeing with your statement. That isn't the same thing.

a reply to: daskakik

What do you mean by "...but technically it isn't... " ?

What is that "technically" ?

Another idea that was made-up, and supposedly agreed upon ?

Wouldn't that make it Technically™ ?

If one believes that some things are Technically™ correct, and others aren't : doesn't that again show the thinker that beliefs are being defended ?

Who gets to decide what is Technically™ correct ?
Experts™ ?
Specialists™ ?
White-Coats™ ?
High-Priests ?

originally posted by: Nothin
What do you mean by "...but technically it isn't... " ?

That is what the rest of the post addresses.

If one believes that some things are Technically™ correct, and others aren't : doesn't that again show the thinker that beliefs are being defended?

No, you can refute a statement without actually defending the subject matter.

ETA: In other words, I can refute your claim that Science™ is a religion without actually defending Science™.

a reply to: daskakik

Agreed : it doesn't mean right or wrong, just a difference in opinion.

My point is that using an opinion to defend a point is engaging beliefs.
Just like my sentences are my opinions and beliefs, and not 'true'.

Pointing to some supposedly 'higher-truth' : doesn't make any idea 'true'.
It's merely an opinion, that defends itself with supposedly agreed-upon sets of opinions.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: daskakik

ETA: In other words, I can refute your claim that Science™ is a religion without actually defending Science™.

ETA : My opinion is that that is exactly what is happening here.

originally posted by: Nothin
My point is that using an opinion to defend a point is engaging beliefs.

Sure, but it doesn't mean those beliefs are in defense of the subject matter, regardless of the veracity of the opposing opinion.

It's merely an opinion, that defends itself with supposedly agreed-upon sets of opinions.

Defends itself, not necessarily the subject matter.

I disagree with your statement that Science™ is a religion, that doesn't mean I am defending Science™, I am just disagreeing with your statement because of the set of opinions that says religions fit a certain criteria.

Likewise, you think it is a religion because of a different set of opinions.

The thing is that you are not actually attacking Science™ by saying it is a religion and I am not defending it.

a reply to: Nothin
Well, you are wrong.

Not a single time in our exchange have I felt the need nor the inclination to defend Science™. I just pointed out that it doesn't fit a certain definition of a religion.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes. My idea from my original post, was to indicate the aspects of Science™ that are religious.
Would it help understanding if it was referred-to as Scientism™ ?

Otherwise the discussion is stuck before even getting off the ground.

Am not seeking agreement, but folks with the interest in suspending their beliefs and opinions, to engage in thought-experiments.
Just to look at things with different lenses every now and then.
Takes away the tediousness of getting bored with life, and everything, ya know ?

Don't worry though.
Most around here don't like my colouring outside of the lines... LoL !!

Doesn't make right nor wrong, just the guy that likes to think about stuff that nobody else seems to.

Well, you are wrong.

Opinions aren't right or wrong, but that's just my opinion... LoL !!

a reply to: Nothin
And my reply was aimed at pointing out that those aspects are personal and not part of science with or without the ™.

Neither Science nor Science™ ask people to give up any other beliefs and go full in on the Big Bang or to not entertain anything without physical proof and peer review. If some people choose to live like that, then that is on them, not the system that they want to be religious about.

Am not seeking agreement, but folks with the interest in suspending their beliefs and opinions, to engage in thought-experiments.

Like I said earlier, in my experience, it is the religious people that are hesitant to engage in thought-experiments like the one proposed in the OP because these beliefs do ask you to shun all other beliefs. That doesn't mean some can't be believers and still engage but those ™s do demand not just faith but faithfulness from their followers.

That is what I see as the big difference between those two camps.

a reply to: daskakik

So much energy is spent on these boards, pointing-out differences.

In the spirit of the OP : was hoping to point-out some possible, or potential similarities.

It's probably me who is unable to explain it cogently, to intrigue others in attempting to see it that way, even if just for a suspended ' reality ' thought-experiment.

a reply to: Nothin
The similarity you pointed out is what would keep people from engaging, strong feelings for their beliefs.

I don't think the problem is your explanation, some people just don't want to look at things in a different way.

a reply to: daskakik

Can see what you mean, in that folks engage in ideas perhaps more openly, if there is no perceived threat to their world-view.
Good point.

Was perhaps awkward of me to put it that way.

If you ever come-across an idea, within the scientific domain, that you can see as unscientific : that is what my description of Science™ is attempting to describe.

And for me : it extends way beyond that, to points that most disagree with.

It's understandable that most don't want to accept my view at it's extreme, but my failure was in explaining the most basic level, that most would be able to agree with.

Do the proponents of the notion that this universe is a simulation ever say what it's a simulation of?

Cause if it's not a simulation of something (else), then the word or term is inapplicable, inappropiate, does not apply.

Why is it that whenever I hear someone prominent (like a well-known scientist, or one of the rockstar scientists like Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku) talk about the so-called "simulation hypothesis" (not a scientific hypothesis as defined in the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories*), they never say a peep about what it supposedly is a simulation of in that scenario?

*:

...

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.” [*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.]

Source: Your Cells and DNA—Living Libraries! (Awake!—2015)

The simulation hypothesis is neither based on an observation of facts ("tentative" or otherwise) nor lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.” Regarding those criteria (for a scientific hypothesis as defined in the encyclopedia quoted above), it's a lot like the so-called "multiverse hypothesis". Another unverified idea/notion/philosophy that cannot be verified by means of experimentally testing it, it's not even born out of an "observation of facts" (in spite of some people trying to give that impression to bolster the idea/philosophy under the marketinglabel "science"). Also often heavily invoking the part of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that leads to a contradiction/paradox (as shown by Dr. Schrödinger in his cat story), showing that that part of the Copenhagen Interpretation is in error, a mistake, not science but nonsense and pseudoscience. Synonyms for "paradox" as listed on thesaurus.com (some in orange, the red ones are the most similar and related):

contradiction (main meaning and synonym)
absurdity (red)
error (orange)
mistake (orange)
nonsense (orange)

Here's the correct view of quantum mechanics, as explained and demonstrated by Freeman Dyson in the video further below; it may clear up a wrong (already refuted by the evidence, see video) misleading picture many people have of quantum mechanics that is often used or invoked in these types of so-called "hypotheses" (both the multiverse and simulation hypotheses heavily lean on people having the wrong misleading picture described in the bolded part below, their proponents often speak about quantum mechanics as such when promoting the notion of a multiverse or that this universe is a simulation, it also pops up in so-called "M-theory" and "string theory", other examples of pseudoscience that neither qualify as scientific theories nor scientific hypotheses as defined by the earlier quoted encyclopedia by those criteria, making it rather dishonest and misleading to give people that impression by using terms like "theory" and "hypothesis" in that context, as if it's "science" or part of science):

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechanical language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms". Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle".

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened from what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."

For details and the justifications for the conclusions above, see the video below. Also note the point made at 22:02: "therefore no such wave function can exist" (in relation to what he's talking about there). 21:23 - 23:56, keypoints at 22:05, 22:45 and 23:06 (the introduction may also be of interest especially starting at 0:30 with the keypoints at 2:03 - 3:34 and 5:35 - 6:03):

Here's Roger Penrose (worked with Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes) saying something about whether M-theory and string theory are "science" or not (using the expressions, "they're hardly science", "what is referred to as M-theory isn't even a theory, it's a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations", "latch on to some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observation"; not willing to stick his neck out completely and blatantly call it what it is, pseudoscience, not real science. Remember that an "idea" is a "philosophy", so what are those earning their salaries by studying the philosophies/ideas prominent in the field of "string theory", like the character Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory? Scientists or philosophers? What field are they primarily engaged and employed in, science or philosophy?):

1 Timothy 6:20

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”* [KJV: “science.” Latin: scientia; Greek: gnoʹsis)

Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts acquired by personal experience, observation, or study.

Source: Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures)

Synonyms for "facts" as listed on thesaurus.com again: certainties/truths/realities. I.e., things that are certain/true/factual/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error (again these synonyms are listed on thesaurus.com on the page for "factual" in the table "accurate; adjective: correct, without error"; well, the same table can be found on the pages for those synonyms as well of course).

Knowledge (gnoʹsis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20)

Keep an eye out for those paradoxes/contradictions. Sometimes, they're well hidden (as in the doctrine of the Trinity and all connected philosophies and theosophies) sometimes, not that much, or not that well:Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something (playlist)Some background context starts here (although the first 18 videos in the playlist show the more elaborated background and motives for this behaviour): Bait-and-Switch Atheist Propaganda

This is interesting because yeah, belief in a creator does kind of make it a religion in a way. Unfortunately the last two links didn't work, one gave a 404 error and the other simply said it timed out. Nonetheless I think I get what you're saying. So does that mean that when religions say we're being tested, it's like software testing and Earth is a debugging area? The more I think of it, the two concepts seem to share a lot, just in different words.