Talk:Simulation hypothesis

Blog post and PowerPoint lecture notes in lead?

In the lead we have this sentence: The hypothesis popularized by Bostrom is very disputed, with, for example, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, who called it pseudoscience[6] and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint" and that "protagonists seem to have confused science fiction with science. Late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory."[7]. The first one is cited to a Blogspot URL, and appears to be the personal opinion of the person mentioned. The second one, likewise, looks like a PowerPoint slide deck of lecture notes, and not an actual publication. While the opinions of these people seem reasonable to me (and surely the people themselves know what they're talking about), are we sure that these are appropriate citations? jp×g 23:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Those should both fall within WP:RSOPINION, since they're both notable people and they're talking about the hypothesis and not Bostrom himself. - car chasm (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"Other uses in philosophy"

The section on parsimony and brains it vats is essentially a summary of one preprint by Lorenzo Pieri. It is the only publication by him on the subject, and he cannot be considered an expert in this field. It is unclear why the opinions stated by Pieri in his preprint are relevant to the article. Furthermore, the current section does not give what I consider to be a full picture of the arguments in the preprint. I have tried removing the section, in disconcordance with @Randy Kryn: (see [1]). I have therefore now edited that section [2] to remove original research. Feedback is welcome here on the talk page. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think most of your removals are for the better (there is a lot of crap in this article). I do think that the brain in a vat should be mentioned somewhere, though, since it seems like an obviously analogous thought experiment (about which the arguments for and against would seem to be quite similar as well). jp×g 21:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

To editor JPxG: I agree with you and I have added a sentence added two sentences. (I would've liked to add a bit more but I find it personally quite difficult to write on this type of subject without starting to generate Geschwurbel.) --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

dream hypothesis

there could be a distinction between dreams and reality. when we dream, we do not remember reality. when we are awake, however, we remember the dream. 49.37.195.208 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This can't be right—but what is?

No error correction is perfect, and at some point of complexity, error correction algorithms cause more mistakes because they have problem to manage needlessly huge chunks of data.

I'd fix that, if I knew what it was supposed to mean. Anyone? – AndyFielding (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense to me Coltcatus (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)