Evidence for God from Science

This is one atheist that baffles me . He says he's agnostic , acts like a militant atheist most of the times then comes up with something like this , but then he will attach childish human traits to this being he thinks could have created this universe as a simulation .

He did everything but call this being God

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/neil ... 00649.html



Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation

We trust the scientists around us to have the best grasp on how the world actually works.

So at this year's 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History, which addressed the question of whether or not the universe is a simulation, the answers from some panelists may be more comforting than the responses of others.

Physicist Lisa Randall, for example, said she thought the odds that the universe isn't "real" are so low as to be "effectively zero."

A satisfying answer for those who don't want to sit there puzzling out what it would mean for the universe not to be real, to be sure.

But on the other hand, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was hosting the debate, said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high."

Uh oh?

The question of whether or not we know that our universe is real has vexed thinkers going far back into history, long before Descartes made his famous "I think therefore I am" statement. The same question has been explored in modern science fiction films like "The Matrix" and David Cronenberg's "eXistenZ."

But most physicists and philosophers agree that it's impossible to prove definitively that we don't live in a simulation and that the universe is real.

Tyson agrees, but says he wouldn't be surprised if we were to find out somehow that someone else is responsible for our universe.

We trust the scientists around us to have the best grasp on how the world actually works.

So at this year's 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History, which addressed the question of whether or not the universe is a simulation, the answers from some panelists may be more comforting than the responses of others.

Physicist Lisa Randall, for example, said she thought the odds that the universe isn't "real" are so low as to be "effectively zero."

A satisfying answer for those who don't want to sit there puzzling out what it would mean for the universe not to be real, to be sure.

But on the other hand, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was hosting the debate, said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high."

Uh oh?

The question of whether or not we know that our universe is real has vexed thinkers going far back into history, long before Descartes made his famous "I think therefore I am" statement. The same question has been explored in modern science fiction films like "The Matrix" and David Cronenberg's "eXistenZ."

But most physicists and philosophers agree that it's impossible to prove definitively that we don't live in a simulation and that the universe is real.

Tyson agrees, but says he wouldn't be surprised if we were to find out somehow that someone else is responsible for our universe.

matrix code
(Flickr/David.Asch)

One of the main arguments that physicists use to talk about what's known as the "simulation hypothesis" is that if we can prove that it's possible to simulate a universe — if we can figure out all the laws that govern how everything works (which physicists are trying to do) — that makes it much more likely that it is actually simulated. If we know that it's possible to do something, it's much easier to think that thing is being done.

We haven't been able to figure out how to simulate a universe — yet. But it's not too hard to imagine that some other creature out there is far smarter than us.

Tyson points out that we humans have always defined ourselves as the smartest beings alive, orders of magnitude more intelligent than species like chimpanzees that share close to 99% of our DNA. We can create symphonies and do trigonometry and astrophysics (some of us, anyway).

But Tyson uses a thought experiment to imagine a life form that's as much smarter than us as we are than dogs, chimps, or other terrestrial mammals.

"What would we look like to them? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence," he says.

Whatever that being is, it very well might be able to create a simulation of a universe.

"And if that's the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity for their entertainment," Tyson says. "I’m saying, the day we learn that it is true, I will be the only one in the room saying, I’m not surprised."

Meh,
I don't really care for scientists that try to speak outside their field as if they have authority to do so that is comparable to their expertise.

As one scientists put it ( physicist of course):
Science should be about WHAT is being done, not WHO is doing it.
Of course the paradox is that the scientists that do the amazing stuff and discover amazing findings rarely are the ones that get the press.

It's a simple logical thought experiment.

If it is possible to simulate the universe, then it is likely that this was done more than once.
One can then also assume that multiple simulations would exist within each simulation.
And since simulations would effectively vastly outnumber the real universe the chances we are in a simulation are therefore high.

Of course this rests on first postulate.

As I was going to St. Ives
I met a man with seven wives,
Each wife had seven sacks,
Each sack had seven cats,
Each cat had seven kits:

If I pulled someone at random from this crowd, most likely it will be a kit.

Reality has 7 simulations
Each simulation has 7 subsimulations
Each subsimulation has 7 subsubsimulations
Each subsubsimulation has 7 subsubsubsimulations

If I was born in one of these places, most likely it will be a simulations.

No expertise is needed, just the ability to think logically