Donaciones #Dana #Chiva #Valencia RT por favor

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory And this is the best argument you may build, sorry you are so afraid of the universe without a purpose than you need to build walls for your fear.

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory You can navegate on the semantics and the greys and avoid them, still the Big Bang has way more evidence than the universe as a simulation, period.

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory Therefore, yes, you must find EVIDENCES

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory This is an hypothesis versus Big Bang, okay, what it proves of the universe a simulation? nothing

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory Based on your hypothesis, yes I am. You don´t provide any evidence accepted beyond the hypothesis.

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory No. The Hubble constant doesn’t describe electromagnetic radiation. It measures the universe’s expansion rate, indirectly affecting light (e.g., redshift). It’s about the cosmic scale, not EM waves themselves. #Cosmology #HubbleConstant

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory I am not a firm believer of big bang but there a tons of more evidence of it than a simulated universe.

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory Establishing modern computational models that explain rules is really daring, we may find soon enough and constantly we lack a lot of data. Another reason to prefer a model where our maths are based on the universe instead of thinking the universe behaves like our maths.

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory If we can create a computational universe it’s a reflection not that the universe needs to be computational but that our computationsthat behaves like this. Why? Is way more easy, if it’s not like this you are talking about the creation of several universes with different “grids”

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory Or computations is “our computations”, typo, by Occam’s Razor plus lack of evidence I believe is the second.

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory That’s contradictory please elaborate

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory Then there is an infinite rabbit hole of simulations and you are not solving the universe itself but finding a scapegoat for it. As I said you solve the simulation, then how you solve the real universe where the simulation is based? There is no validation for it, pure speculation

@matterasmachine @SamStepsForwad @PhysInHistory The point here is to be afraid of facing the fear of a real, indifferent universe, and looking for evidence that hasn’t been proven—like the idea that matter operates as a discrete algorithm, which has no scientific validation. You’re searching for ‘meaning’ and a ‘creator’