I don’t think reasonable is even it, it’s just a helpful assumption.
If “they” are doing a perfect job, there’s nothing you can do, so you might as well assume they’re not and play your role.
Comment on big facts
cynar@lemmy.world 13 hours agoBelief in a null is a lot more reasonable than belief in something so powerful it can pretend to be a null.
Belief that I am not in a Truman show like environment is a lot more reasonable (without evidence) than belief that I am in a Truman show, and they are doing a perfect job.
That doesn’t mean I don’t try disproving the null hypothesis.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
cynar@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
It’s more reasonable via Occam’s razor (more complexity is less reasonable, when everything else is equal). However it is still just a belief axiom. You have to assume 1 holds.
Digit@lemmy.wtf 8 hours ago
Too many cut themselves on Occam’s razor, incorrectly presuming all else equal.
cynar@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
If things are not all equal, then we can slice off a section of the axiom, and start dissecting it, via science. The axiom only applies if things are exactly equal.
E.g. Gravity wave detectors have found oddities, just above the noise floor. These are likely equipment artifacts. They are also consistent with us being in a simulation, and us touching close to the resolution limit. If true (quite unlikely) then it would prove the axiom false.
lime@feddit.nu 12 hours ago
a hypothesis based on established facts is no longer belief but extrapolation.
cynar@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
It’s an assumption, not an extrapolation. Assumptions, without evidence are beliefs.
We assume several unprovable axioms to allow science to function. A lot of work has also been done to collapse them down to the core minimum. What is left is still built on belief.
The fact that the results are useful back validates those beliefs. It doesn’t prove them however.
lime@feddit.nu 12 hours ago
we’re comparing it to a system where none of that has been done. it’s sort of a “god of the gaps” situation but the gaps are shaped exactly like pieces in a puzzle. we can extrapolate the form of the proof even if we can’t show it. the same is not true of the other camp.
cynar@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
You say that, but, if the universe has an infinite lifespan (as current models suggest) then we would almost certainly be Boltzmann brains. (There would be an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains, but only a finite number of humans)
I personally believe I am not, and the universe actually exists, rather than a sensory/memory ghost.
pishadoot@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
Honestly? Without evidence, they’re both equally probable. And believing, or refusing to believe in a god or something, are both faith of equal measure.
It’s just whether someone thinks their version is faith is more realistic than the opposite.