Regression of the week: Tyson thinks he might be living in the matrix

Blog 20161005 Regression of the week: Tyson thinks he might be living in the matrix
Thanks to Steve Puetz for this heads-up on the latest regressive outrage:

This comes as a special shock because Neil Degrasse Tyson is supposed to be the modern replacement for Carl Sagan. That a well-trained scientist would bother himself with such sci-fi notions shows just how far astray regressive physics and cosmogony have gone. This propensity needs a little explanation:
It is particularly revealing because Tyson gives no physics in his answer, just pure speculation based on immaterialism. After all, if you can believe in Einstein’s “immaterial fields” you can believe almost anything else. In addition to the matrix idea, others have considered that we might be part of a grand simulation. Tyson couches this in terms of probability, which just goes to show that he has not been able to make up his mind and that he lacks principles that would help him do so.
Those familiar with "The Ten Assumptions of Science" know that neither materialism nor immaterialism can be proven correct. That is why I wrote materialism like this: “The external world exists after the observer does not.” Clearly, there can be no personal proof of that. Likewise, we could be imagining all the things and all the occurences around us, with our senses being part of that imagining. Berkeley’s chair might disappear after he left the room and Chopra’s consciousness might be required for the universe to exist after all. Of course, all those imaginings, like Tyson’s matrix, are nonsense.
As we mature, we should be able to determine the difference between sense and nonsense. We do this by finally deciding which of the two dialectical opposites in philosophy is likely to be correct and thereafter assuming that we have made the correct decision. Making that decision closes many doors (e.g., matrices and simulations) and opens many others (e.g., how the universe really works).


Bligh said...

As scientists we argue for evidence or point out lack of evidence. That is all we can do, although there are other logical arguments against immaterialism starting with "nothing" as a concept.

Eric Stanley Reiter said...

There is a reason for such acts of desperation, like Tyson took: Quantum mechanics seems to work, and no one has developed an experiment to show how it fails... until now. I do beam-split coincidence tests using gamma-rays, and coincident clicks happen at rates much greater than chance. QM predicts chance, like a photon should go one way or another at a beam-splitter. This means there are no photons; just light. However, to explain our particle-like effects we conclude there is an energy=hf threshold at the instant of emission and for resonant absorption up to threshold hf. Please see thresholdmodel.com Thanks