Kipping does it again. Why is there something rather than nothing?

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 1623
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Kipping does it again. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:13 am

Kipping is agnostic and he doesn't believe there's a 50-50 chance that we live in a simulation. Kipping has argued that we are probably not in a simulation.
Um, Doubtingthomas? This is what Kipping believes about us living in a simulation:
Like his predecessors, David Kipping also believed in the simulation theory. He used Bayesian reasoning to calculate the odds that the reality as people thought is unreal. Bayesian reasoning is a common method of statistical analysis that applies probability theory to inductive reasoning.

Kipping believed that by using this method, there is a 50% chance that the world as humans know it is just a computer simulation. He added that the probability would increase as the technology that enables the creation of the simulation that contains conscious beings is developed.
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/2 ... lation.htm
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
User avatar
Everybody Wang Chung
God
Posts: 1623
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:52 am

Re: Kipping does it again. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Post by Everybody Wang Chung »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:23 am
Kipping has another video titled "Why You're Probably Not a Simulation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5YuwvJkpQ
I am sure that article didn't clarify Kipping's views.

Doubtingthomas, the video briefly discusses Kipping's paper: A Bayesian Approach to the Simulation Argument that shows we are probably living in a simulation.

Nowhere in your video does it say that Kipping doesn't believe in the simulation theory. From David Kipping's article:
If one does not penalize the model HS for its complexity and simply assigns even a-priori odds, then it is still found that the probability we live in base reality—after marginalizing over the model uncertainties—is still not the favored outcome, with a probability less than 50%. As the number of simulations grows very large, this probability tends towards 50%,
https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/8/109
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Kipping does it again. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Post by doubtingthomas »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:51 am
Nowhere in your video does it say that Kipping doesn't believe in the simulation theory. From David Kipping's article:
If one does not penalize the model HS for its complexity and simply assigns even a-priori odds, then it is still found that the probability we live in base reality—after marginalizing over the model uncertainties—is still not the favored outcome, with a probability less than 50%. As the number of simulations grows very large, this probability tends towards 50%,
https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/8/109
It's very confusing. Kipping said in the video, "... my own research paper on this topic finds better than 50 odds that we are living in a non-simulated base reality"

https://youtu.be/HA5YuwvJkpQ?t=1925 (at 32:00)
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Kipping does it again. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Post by Physics Guy »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:31 am
Mathematical proof that the Big Bang could have spontaneously generated from nothing ...
... if you assume Wheeler-DeWitt quantum gravity, which has been around for decades and is well-known not to work.

A proof of something like this, in a theory which is at most only a little bit right, is well worth publishing. It's another little grain on the pile. It is hardly a breakthrough, however.

As a rule of thumb, when a scientific journalist tells you that some new result is important, what they're really telling you is that it isn't important, because if it were really important they would not have to tell you.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Kipping does it again. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Post by huckelberry »

Everybody Wang Chung wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:31 am
Well, most physicists would say that we have nothing from nothing. The universe is made of absolutely nothing.

Mathematical proof that the Big Bang could have spontaneously generated from nothing:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... discussion.
from the link,
According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, quantum fluctuations in the metastable false vacuum – a state absent of space, time or matter – can give rise to virtual particle pairs. Ordinarily these pairs self-annihilate almost instantly, but if these virtual particles separate immediately, they can avoid annihilation, creating a true vacuum bubble. The Wuhan team’s equations show that such a bubble has the potential to expand exponentially, causing a new universe to appear. All of this begins from quantum behavior and leads to the creation of a tremendous amount of matter and energy during the inflation stage. (Note that as stated in this paper, the metastable false vacuum has “neither matter nor space or time,” but is a form of wavefunction referred to as “quantum potential.” While most of us wouldn’t be inclined to call this “nothing,” physicists do refer to it as such.)
Everybody Wang Chung,

from nothing? sounds like a semantic quibble over what gets called nothing or called something. I can see that one may choose to say that to be something there must be space time matter. We could fit language that way because those are the characteristics of things we are most familiar with.
Post Reply