Hippopotame (./5955) :
Mais l'intérieur du programme de simulation n'a pas a priori accès à la réalité extérieure.

Théoriquement. La réalité c'est qu'il y a souvent des leaks... ( par exemple, si qqch à l'intérieur du programme est conscient, en observant le programme de simulation dans lequel il tourne, il peut en déduire quelque chose sur les us et coutume du programmeur ou de l'ordinateur... c'est ce que tu me disais plus haut en fait ^^)

Hippopotame (./5955) :
Ce n'est pas parce que c'est excessivement rare qu'on ne peut pas en détecter la nécessité théorique.

Oui bien sûr, mais en s'en rend compte souvent tardivement, quand y'a plus qu'un truc ou deux qui coincent dans notre modèle.

Hippopotame (./5955) :
Je ne vois pas en quoi ça serait flou ou insatisfaisant..

Bha je suis bien d'accord que la Constante de Planck dit quelque chose sur la structure profonde de l'univers, mais ça reste un quelque chose très vague (bon, au moins, l'évidence d'une certaine limite d'émergence ). C'est pas insatisfaisant si on n'attend pas que la science prenne le rôle de religion.
Ce qui me semble relever du vague le plus complet, ce sont les prévisions type Linde (qui reposent sur bien autres choses que juste la notion de constante de Planck !! Tu triches là, en prenant un point fort isolé pour dire "mais c'est trop bien on peu projeter le modèle sans problèmes"... )

D'ailleurs à ce propos, quand je parlais de Dieu à propos de ses bulles d'univers...

http://research.calacademy.org/calwild/1998summer/stories/skywatcher.html

Andrei Linde, a cosmologist at Stanford University, is the co-inventor of the theory of eternal inflation. Inflation theory holds that the universe's fundamental forces separated out in the first 10-35 seconds, causing the universe to expand, or inflate, very quickly and violently. Eternal inflation suggests that this sort of event may have occurred many, many times, perhaps an infinite number of times, in a universe that is constantly self-reproducing.

Until 1989, Linde lived in the Soviet Union, where, he says, "the whole society was opposed to any type of religious education," and where dialectical materialism was the only publicly discussed ideology. He now distrusts any dogmatic and authoritarian system, including, he says, religions ruled over by one God, or one church hierarchy. "When you say something abstract about philosophy, about some great things which you want to explore, this is fine. But when you say that there is some savior who came to save you, this is absolutely a different issue. If you assume, as monotheistic religion does, that something like that is an important part of religion, then it makes the whole idea of religion too narrow...and in some respects dangerous," Linde says.

Linde is more attracted by polytheistic Indian religions. "Indian thought speculated about different ways one may think about God. God may be a powerful old man with a beard who drives the universe in a proper direction. God may be a universal law of nature. Or at some level of abstraction God is a perfection, or the Absolute which incorporates everything and which is, in some sense, you or me."

Scientists are influenced by the religious metaphors that pervade their culture, says Linde. "ne of the basic assumptions among physicists--that one set of natural laws can describe everything that exists--is a product of the monotheistic tradition, he says. A view of the cosmos encompassing innumerable universes, where new ones are springing forth all the time, and where different physical laws apply in different universes (as suggested by eternal inflation), might seem more reasonable to people practicing polytheistic religions.

Though he is reluctant to name it, Linde does see his scientific efforts as attempts to "see clearly the boundary of physics and science, and...to investigate what is beyond that boundary. I would call it philosophy, or my own religion, in my sense of the word. I would say that it is a way towards understanding something greater than simply the world of matter."