[Discuss] I don't understand

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thing is, simulation hypothesis (simulated reality) isn't a scientific
> hypothesis. It's a philosophical one.
>

​I would *like* to agree with that.

But Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson are quoting odds that are ​
​separated by​

​9 orders decimal magnitude.
There's a difference between their computational model embedded in there
somewhere.
So they should each *at least* be able to give us a  testable hypothesis
regarding their model's assumptions that would, at a minimum, show the
*other's* estimate to be wildly inaccurate.
... or STFU with bloviating numbers about a meta-solipsism.

(Solipsism is the whole world is my dream; this idiocy is that the whole
universe is some computer's dream. So i'll c'll it meta- until informed
what the philosophers now call it.)

As for Musk, he's very good at paraphrasing (some might say parroting)
> others in mass media-worthy sound bites. It's best if you don't take him
> too seriously or too literally.
>

​Yep.
And Astronomers/Astrophysicists (as with practitioners any other science)
should be taken with a grain of salt or two when they leave ​their area of
expertise.

(-:  Only Anthropologists (Study of Man) and us Mathematicians [1]  can
claim universal applicability of expertise and methods  :-)

​[1] http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=435:_Purity
    =>    http://m.xkcd.com/435/ ​


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1vux at gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux