• cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is part of science, it’s an untested (and currently untestable) hypothesis. Such thought experiments can be very useful. Running through the consequences (and possible experiments) can sometimes give useful insights into other areas of physics.

      The problem is when layman take the scientific equivalent of a debate joke and treat it as gospel. It’s similar to what happened with the flat earth society (started out as a debating joke, and got overrun by idiots).

      • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        An untestable hypothesis is not science. Science is ideas and hypothesis that have undergone the scientific method. Until then it’s just a thought experiment.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          Ελληνικά
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep. If it’s not testable, it’s not science.

          I was watching some dumb video where a Christian “scientist” was trying to “prove” that god was the best scientific explanation because it could not be wrong. Which is exactly why explaining things with god isn’t science.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              Ελληνικά
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Depends on what you mean by “The Big bang”. If you’re talking about a seemingly spontaneous explosion of matter ~14 bya, then no, that’s not science. That’s like saying that the sun, or dirt, or a hurricane is science. Forming a hypothesis that all matter can be traced back to a single expansive event, then observing movement of celestial bodies, measuring those movements with redshift and seeing if that data is in-line with your hypothesis… That’s science.

    • tetelestia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s debatable. It’s a logic based hypothesis that scientists are looking for a way to falsify it.

        • fkn@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Edit: they edited their post. I withdraw my question.

          Originally it said “empirical math” and I was confused.

          I don’t follow. What does empirical math have to do with it?

          • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thank you. I didn’t edit my post and have no idea where you saw “empirical math,” so I was as confused as you were. I did however realize that a way of exploring mathematical concepts can be scientific. Using existing rules of math like algebra or calculus has led to us discovering new ways to use math and even new mathematical concepts. The process of long dead mathematicians discovering things like geometry and calculus was scientific in that they had a hypothesis based on past details and measurements, tested it, and found it applied to the real world. Math itself is a construction that doesn’t constitute science, but science can be done in the field of mathematics. This is because science is fundamentally a process.

            • fkn@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you didn’t edit it then I must have transformed some things in my brain… I apologize.

              I think math is a process. The discovery of math is at least. Consider the origin of the incompleteness theorem. Mathematicians (Hilbert primarily) sought to prove that math is purely a construction of interpreted symbols that was wholly self-contained (primarily that everything provable within math only requires math to prove). Godel later proved, using only math, that math is incomplete. That is to specifically say, that there are things in math that are true, that you cannot prove with math. This means that there are more true things in math than you can prove. Simultaneously Godel demonstrated that this is also true for everything outside of math.

              Deep in this proof is this seemingly magical thing that proves that the process of science can’t prove all true things… Because the process of science is math.

              • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Science can’t prove all true things, or even prove anything with absolute certainty, but you can get closer to the truth through science. Some things might not be knowable through science, but if they aren’t knowable, they probably wouldn’t have a real world use. If parallel universes exist and there’s no way to access them or prove they exist, then it basically might as well not exist. It would make no difference if there are no consequences of it being real or not. Unless there are consequences of something existing, something we can do with the knowledge, it only satisfies our curiosity. It sucks, but that might be the practical answer.

                • fkn@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think I didn’t convey my point well.

                  Regardless, I am also a physicalist and I believe that empirical evidence is required for a thing to have support in the scientific sense.

          • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Science is the scientific method, until a hypothesis has gone through the scientific method it’s just a thought experiment and not actual science.

            • fkn@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Edit: I just realized that they edited their post. Originally it said “empirical math”. Now that it says “empirical measurements” my question is void.

              That’s not my question… Unless I am completely misunderstanding what is being said.

              What does empirical math, specifically, have to do with simulation theory.

              I’m not advocating for simulation theory here for what it’s worth. I just don’t understand what “empirical” math has to do with it. The statement that “empirical math needs to be demonstrated first” is just super weird to me.

              I don’t know what to do with it. It feels like it’s claiming that all math is theoretical… Or that math is a tautology… Or that they think math is incapable of doing something that simulation theory posits or…

              So, instead of guessing at some general conclusion of what they are talking about I asked.