Comments by "robheusd" (@robheusd) on "Chris Williamson" channel.

As long as the "simulation hypothesis" does not make verifyable predictions, the theory is totally empty/void of any meaning and not a scientific hypothesis. It is just a reformulation of theism in modern terms and is as untrue as "last thursday-ism" (the idea that a hypothetical God/creator created the world last thursday in a state in which he universe looks much older).
1
If we have a map of a territiory that maps the territory 1:1, so the map is indistinguisable from the territory, would we call the map a map? Similarly if a simulation is as complex as reality itself, would we call that a simulation? So the point is that if we can't distinguish reaity from simulation, the term simulation does not apply, because a simulation only approximately simulates some part of reality. On the other hand, our consciousness already provides us with a simulation of reality, leaving out some details and transforming some of the information our senses give us, so in fact our consciousness lives in a simulation of reality our brain created for us. Our brains are the product of evolution and enabled us to survive and thrive as a species.
1
1. Climate change is a problem anyhow wether or not the driving force of it is natural changes or due to human CO2 emissions. The concensus amongst scientists is that the much more rapid change that is occuring now is a strong indication that human CO2 emissions are the main cause. (ie it is for instance not the sun because the effects of earth atmopshere warming up due to increased solar radiation would cause heating up of all the atmospheric layers, while increase of CO2 emissions only heats up the lower atmosphere and in fact cools down higher atmospheric layers). 2. For nature itself, a warmer climate and atmosphere with higher CO2 concentration is (in the long run) not a problem, because most the geological history, temperature and CO2 concentrations were higher then now, the problem is purely the speed on which change happens and if species are able to adapt. 3. The drying up of the Sahara (due to Milankovic cycles, the Sahara turns from a green savannah like environment into a desert once every 12.000 years or so) probably did not affect the survival of humans who lived there at that time immensely, they migrated to other places were water was available (ie near the rivers like Nile, Eufraat and Tigris). This kind of climate change and human migration might have been the cause for human civilization to take a jump forward by inventing farming and other technologies and science, like what happened in Mesopotamia and Egypt. So there is no historic precedence for arguing that climate change will cause human civilization to end or perish, instead it can lead to invention of new technologies which enable humanity to adapt to the new environment. 4. In any case, the part of human civilization that suffers the most from the consequences of climate change or other disrupting events are the poor. Western countries can finance mitigation policies, but countries that gets the most affected, don't have the means to mitigate the problems caused by climate change. 5. The funds that we engage to solve the climate problem should therefore be diverted to help people in the poorest countries to adapt to a changing climate, since the richt countries are not prepared to take in all the refugees and host them in their own countries, at least not in the amount of people that are being threatened in their survival. 6. We have the technology to revert the consequences of desertification and turn deserts into forests and farmland, and have developed farming techniques that allows foor production with signigficant less amounts of water (closed cycle agriculture, aquaponics systems, dripm irrigation, etc.), so lets use those techniques to solve the problems caused by climate change, including large scale reforestation projects and prevention of cutting trees for firewood for cooking by introducing other energy sources for cooking.
1