Talk:Planetarium hypothesis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Planetarium hypothesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

removal of simulation argument etc

Similarly to what i wrote in Talk:Fermi paradox#edit to planetarium hypothesis:

Connecting this issue to Bostrom's Simulation Argument is uncited. The citations given contain nothing about the Fermi Paradox, and in my previous reading about the SimArg and web search before making this edit, Bostrom never links them. He discusses the FermiP in the context of the Great Filter, etc.
And in any case, the SimArg is a particular argument for the Simulation hypothesis; the SimArg in its particular detail would be hard to connect to the FermiP at all.
As best i understand it without current access to Baxter's paper, the point of the PlanetariumHyp is that we ourselves (and some of our environment?) are not simulated; it is our experience of the "outside" universe (where that begins isn't clear) that is simulated. Hence the image of a planetarium. Thus much of even SimHyp is irrelevant.

Also:

I removed the Bryce/quantum information because, though the source does mention Baxter/PlanetHyp, Bryce's material about quantum phenomenon as a test of being in a simulation is not clearly related to the PlanetHyp. Obviously not in the case that worldly (quantum and other) experiments are not simulated, but only astronomical data.

"alyosha" (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not speculative?

I mean it says

The hypothesis has been considered by some authors as speculative...

But so then if it is only "some", then what authors don't consider it speculative. If they're out there let's see some refs, and if they're not let's change the wording to "all commentators" or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]