"Connected" is crap be it religious mythology or si fi woo.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
"Connected" is crap be it religious mythology or si fi woo.

 Be it an atheist version, or part of some sects of Asian/Oriental or Indian religions.

There are people with gods or godless who have a really stupid idea that "all this" is connected. Some think of it as cognitive or even if not cognitive, somehow living. 

No sorry guys, neither new age si fi thinking or mixing it with old mythology makes the universe all "connected". It is true that all this started in one tiny dense space. But that was then. None of us have any connection now, to an electron or quark or atom on the furthest galaxies away from us. There has been since the big bang, tons of speed and separation. 

It is still a watered down way of dreaming of being infinite. This universe is not a living thing, living things in it are an outcome, not a requirement or starting point or cause. The universe is uncaring like a our atmosphere on this planet, you can have sunny days, but you can also have hurricanes and tornados. The universe is vastly hostile and violent, we only perceive it as calm because we don't think about it's long term history. 

So even without thinking of it as a god, it is still stupid to get stuck on even a si fi pretty. Yes there are pretty things in the universe. And it is even freaky to think of all the matter starting in the same spot. But no, I really wish people would stop letting their emotions allow them to think an object, a giant weather pattern, somehow is capable of giving one shit about humans. 

"All this" is a giant weather pattern and we are merely a finite blip riding in it. It is ok to have a deep appreciation for what we observe. But please do not turn it into a mythology, religion or even a Star Trek episode. Science and nature are awesome without old woo or new woo.

I think it is awesome to think about the fact that I do not contain one single atom from when I was a sperm and egg or even a baby. I think it is awesome to think about neutrinos and black holes and red giants. I do not feel in any case the need to turn it into a god or a si fi movie.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
You know Brian, it is okay

You know Brian, it is okay to admit when you don't know wtf you are talking about and go educate yourself. Interestingly enough, the only reason I have enough knowledge about qm to go down the path this thread has taken is because of a thread on here a couple years ago that revealed my extreme ignorance of the topic. www.rationalresponders.com/forum/34212

Thanks to Teralek and Wonderist, I got pointed in the right direction and was able to get a rough understanding, so should that topic come up again, I can argue it more intelligently. There are many smart people with interests in a variety of fields that having a good discussion with can reveal areas of ignorance. It is one of the main reasons I keep coming back. I think it is very obvious that you could use some study on the areas of debate, specifically identifying the key points being made against your stance and responding to those key points. When you continuously argue against strawmen and go off on unrelated tangents it makes you look like a damn idiot and irritates most.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
precisely. you, for

precisely. you, for example, just revealed my ignorance of constitutional law over in the OU thread. i admit i went off half-cocked there because EXC irritates me, and sure, i could have dug in my heels, but i only would have ended up looking like an asshole. so i swallowed my pride and even apologized to EXC--admittedly something that was not terribly pleasant for me to do, but infinitely more pleasant than making an embarrassment out of myself by sticking doggedly to erroneous views that contradict the evidence.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I love how Brian proves

I love how Brian proves beyond argument he doesn't know shit about quantum science before the first page is half over. But he keeps going, making a mockery of himself. It's literally like watching caposkia.

I'll sum up this topic very quickly for anyone who joins now:

Beyond Saving wins by a quantum light year. lol

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:I love how

Vastet wrote:
I love how Brian proves beyond argument he doesn't know shit about quantum science before the first page is half over. But he keeps going, making a mockery of himself. It's literally like watching caposkia. I'll sum up this topic very quickly for anyone who joins now: Beyond Saving wins by a quantum light year. lol

You "You fucked up so therefore ALIENS"

You sound like theist dude.

QM still equals QM. It does not equal si fi crap or religious crap. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 https://www.youtube.com/wat

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASZWediSfTU&t=556

Ok, I am full of shit..............Fine

Here is a SCIENTIST who @ 2 mins 49 seconds into the entire video telling EVERYONE some were going too far in jumping to conclusions...... We are not "connected" as some sort of giant consciousness. 

No one has to take my word for anything.

And here is the other link once again saying that the transporter from Star Trek is an extreme improbibility. WHICH I already posted. Again, no one has to take my word for it. 

This link has a SCIENTIST also saying don't fall for si fi BULLSHIT. 

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/01/q-what-is-quantum-teleportation-why-cant-we-use-it-to-communicate-faster-than-light/

NOW, arge with them, not me. 

FUCK, HERE is the top link again, hopefully it will work if I do this right. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASZWediSfTU&t=556

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Ok, I am full

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, I am full of shit..............Fine

Here is a SCIENTIST who @ 2 mins 49 seconds into the entire video telling EVERYONE some were going too far in jumping to conclusions...... We are not "connected" as some sort of giant consciousness. 

No one has to take my word for anything.

And here is the other link once again saying that the transporter from Star Trek is an extreme improbibility. WHICH I already posted. Again, no one has to take my word for it. 

This link has a SCIENTIST also saying don't fall for si fi BULLSHIT. 

NOW, arge with them, not me. 

FUCK, HERE is the top link again, hopefully it will work if I do this right. 

Your missing the point.

Every one here, except for maybe Bob (and I apologize if I misunderstood Bob's post), is saying we don't know enough to say one thing or another. Sure there are scientists who will tell you one thing, but there is another scientist who will say the opposite. It isn't that either of them are wrong or right, it is that their theory has yet to completely proved with irrefutable evidence.

Even the discovery of the Higgs boson, which until recently some people believed did not exist, will take decades of studies to understand and collect data. It took multiple tests to make sure that their discovery was real. It took the entire scientific community to weigh in on the subject and to give a peer review.

Maybe one day soon one of the scientists we are talking about, from either side, will win a Nobel Prize for their work. Maybe their work will open the door to some amazing field of science not yet knon. None of the scientists you are mentioning are wrong, they are presenting a theory which is a work in progress. It is not yet passed the stage of infancy.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Here is a

Brian37 wrote:

Here is a SCIENTIST who @ 2 mins 49 seconds into the entire video telling EVERYONE some were going too far in jumping to conclusions...... We are not "connected" as some sort of giant consciousness. 

Where has anyone in this thread said anything about a giant consciousness?

 

Brian37 wrote:

And here is the other link once again saying that the transporter from Star Trek is an extreme improbibility. WHICH I already posted. Again, no one has to take my word for it. 

Where has anyone in this thread said anything about Star Trek transporters being probable?

Our point exactly is that you are utterly incapable of addressing the actual points made. The only person in this thread who has said anything about quantum mechanics that is patently untrue is you, when you said that electrons on the other side of the universe have absolution no, zero, none, couldn't possibly have any relation and are completely independent. Which is exactly as true as saying that quantum teleportation means we can build a Star Trek transporter tomorrow. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 No neither Bob are I are

 No neither Bob are I are claiming to know everything. But the scientists in those links are saying what we agree with, don't gap fill, and even with what we don't know there still are rules AND limitations. You cannot equate the micro world to the macro world because once you get to the macro world it needs a specific structure to behave a certain way. Waves cant behave only as waves at the macro level, they have to build up to the macro level. Just like you cannot treat a car tire as the entire in tact functioning car. 

QM is freaky enough by itself and certainly it can open doors, but there are things even with what we don't know that are simply crap and worth leaving behind as claims. QM still has rules and you cant retrofit your personal wishes into it. 

Now the other thing is others were slamming Einstien for poo pooing QM, but I am quite sure if he were alive today, he'd be thrilled to have been proven wrong. So if someone here thinks the transporter from Star Trek is a possibility they can work on it. Not sure if the guys here who don't like me should really value "all this" as being a giant conciousness, because that would mean we are connected. I think they would like it if I was in my own separate universe where they didn't have to deal with me.

But if I can slime them mentally with the fact that all the material in their bodies and my body were in the same place at the singularity. COOTIES COOTIES! 

I am fine with them blasting me, that is part of living in a world were not everyone gets along. 

Neil made it extremely clear in his COSMOS series that being open minded did not mean clinging to the past or retrofitting your own desires into science. There are certainly lots of things I would love to be true. The biggest would be humans not treating getting pissed off and offended as being the worst thing in the world. But we don't live in a perfect world.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Here is a SCIENTIST who @ 2 mins 49 seconds into the entire video telling EVERYONE some were going too far in jumping to conclusions...... We are not "connected" as some sort of giant consciousness. 

Where has anyone in this thread said anything about a giant consciousness?

 

Brian37 wrote:

And here is the other link once again saying that the transporter from Star Trek is an extreme improbibility. WHICH I already posted. Again, no one has to take my word for it. 

Where has anyone in this thread said anything about Star Trek transporters being probable?

Our point exactly is that you are utterly incapable of addressing the actual points made. The only person in this thread who has said anything about quantum mechanics that is patently untrue is you, when you said that electrons on the other side of the universe have absolution no, zero, none, couldn't possibly have any relation and are completely independent. Which is exactly as true as saying that quantum teleportation means we can build a Star Trek transporter tomorrow. 

Holy fuck BEYOND I didn't aim the OP at any one person here. It was a post for everyone in general. There are idiots who take science and try to justify religion with it. There are idiots who take science to justify si fi crap. It was a general post.

GO CLICK ON THE second link in the last post above where I re posted the links. You will find one where a scientist in the article has a PICTURE of the Star Trek transporter and the caption below it basically says "THIS IS NOT WHAT QM JUSTIFIES". I have never met that guy. But he is running into the same crap on his own without us knowing each other or ever having talked or met.

This is not the only website I hang out at. I see these tactics all over the web and I post "don't gap fill" arguments all the time in lots of places. 

I know we get on each others nerves and we would love to mentally only strangle each other, but really, this website is only one I hang out on. The point of the OP was "DONT GAP FILL". Not aimed at one person. If some here do that, they would not be the only ones who do it. Now show me anywhere in the OP I named names of people on this site.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I'm not taking about your

 I'm not taking about your OP idiot, the thread has moved on since then. You could have shut it down by simply stating 'that isn't the kind of connection I was referring to, I meant universal consciousness like Chopra'. You didn't, instead you fabricated an Einstein quote, a dishonesty you haven't bothered to acknowledge yet, then made claims that directly contradict modern theories in quantum physics. When it was demonstrated how your claims are untrue, you rant about gap filling. The only person here who has arbitrarily filled gaps is you. Yet you refuse to address any of the specific arguments.

And Bob hasn't said shit about anything, so why do you keep using him as an authority? If he wants to tell me I'm wrong, he can tell me himself. As it is, he only had a few comments on relativity and I never said shit about relativity. I assume he either has nothing to add or doesn't want to. So stop hiding behind his skirts and address my arguments yourself.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: But the

Brian37 wrote:

But the scientists in those links are saying what we agree with, don't gap fill,

Actually this statement is your problem and we aren't trying to fill any gaps. We are challenging your evidence as being the absolute truth.

brian37 wrote:
You cannot equate the micro world to the macro world

This is an example of you using terms with out fully understanding what you are posting. It causes confusion and disruption in the conversation. And for that matter, you need to define waves better because waves function different at each level.

brian37 wrote:
if someone here thinks the transporter from Star Trek is a possibility they can work on it. Not sure if the guys here who don't like me should really value "all this" as being a giant consciousness, because that would mean we are connected.

You aren't aware of what fallacies are, do you?

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Debating with Brian is

 Debating with Brian is like playing Doom in god mode: a one sided bloody slaughter that can go one for infinte levels and your opponents don't even realize there isn't even a possibility of hurting you.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Debating with Brian is like playing Doom in god mode: a one sided bloody slaughter that can go one for infinte levels and your opponents don't even realize there isn't even a possibility of hurting you.

I think, after all this crap, I understand where he was going with the conversation. However not retracting mistakes and making corrections it turned in to a giant cluster fuck of misdirection and misinformation on his part. Hell, I would have been happy to just see a correction on the quote he obviously made up out of thin air. I searched Google and couldn't find hide nor hair of it any where.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Debating with Brian is like playing Doom in god mode: a one sided bloody slaughter that can go one for infinte levels and your opponents don't even realize there isn't even a possibility of hurting you.

I think, after all this crap, I understand where he was going with the conversation. However not retracting mistakes and making corrections it turned in to a giant cluster fuck of misdirection and misinformation on his part. Hell, I would have been happy to just see a correction on the quote he obviously made up out of thin air. I searched Google and couldn't find hide nor hair of it any where.

 

Well yeah, and I'll admit my first post I was just being a pedantic asshole, because I knew he meant 'connected' in the religious sense and was just preaching to the choir. I expected him to tell me off and move on. But hey, it turned into a weeks worth of entertainment lol. Generally speaking, if I only type one line I am either joking or trolling.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
.. ''god mode'' in gaming is an ancient concept . .

  re::  .. ''god mode''  in gaming is an ancient concept . .

   Long before the daughter of Lord Byron's  conceptual leap  (Ada's father was Lord Byron) . .


Beyond Saving wrote:

  Debating with Brian, THE ONE AND ONLY Brian,  is like playing Doom in god mode: a one sided bloody slaughter that can go one for infinte levels and your opponents don't even realize there isn't even a possibility of hurting you.

 

 

  Misc. (Misc.)  Image Upload  

 

 

  I am reminded of "god-mode'' in many many ancient cultures (See/View  Upload) . .

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Debating with Brian, THE ONE AND ONLY Brian,  is like playing Doom in god mode: a one sided bloody slaughter that can go one for infinte levels and your opponents don't even realize there isn't even a possibility of hurting you.

 

I am reminded of "god-mode'' in many many ancient cultures (See/View  Upload) 

Ah Dana! How are you doing these days? I definitely didn't think you'd be joining this testosterone fest of bickering.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: 

danatemporary wrote:

  re::  .. ''god mode''  in gaming is an ancient concept . .

   Long before the daughter of Lord Byron's  conceptual leap  (Ada's father was Lord Byron) . .


Beyond Saving wrote:

  Debating with Brian, THE ONE AND ONLY Brian,  is like playing Doom in god mode: a one sided bloody slaughter that can go one for infinte levels and your opponents don't even realize there isn't even a possibility of hurting you.

 

 

  Misc. (Misc.)  Image Upload  

 

 

  I am reminded of "god-mode'' in many many ancient cultures (See/View  Upload) . .

 

Marry me?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Marry

Beyond Saving wrote:

Marry me?

OK. This thread offically needs to be sealed.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet wrote:I

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I love how Brian proves beyond argument he doesn't know shit about quantum science before the first page is half over. But he keeps going, making a mockery of himself. It's literally like watching caposkia. I'll sum up this topic very quickly for anyone who joins now: Beyond Saving wins by a quantum light year. lol

You "You fucked up so therefore ALIENS"

You sound like theist dude.

QM still equals QM. It does not equal si fi crap or religious crap. 

You CONTINUE to prove you don't know shit about quantum science, and you compound your monumental error exponentially by continuing to repeat "You "You fucked up so therefore ALIENS"" as if it did ANYTHING more than prove your complete ignorance of the subject in absolute terms. My asshole knows more about the quantum universe than you do, that's how out classed you are here.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I love how Brian proves beyond argument he doesn't know shit about quantum science before the first page is half over. But he keeps going, making a mockery of himself. It's literally like watching caposkia. I'll sum up this topic very quickly for anyone who joins now: Beyond Saving wins by a quantum light year. lol

You "You fucked up so therefore ALIENS"

You sound like theist dude.

QM still equals QM. It does not equal si fi crap or religious crap. 

You CONTINUE to prove you don't know shit about quantum science, and you compound your monumental error exponentially by continuing to repeat "You "You fucked up so therefore ALIENS"" as if it did ANYTHING more than prove your complete ignorance of the subject in absolute terms. My asshole knows more about the quantum universe than you do, that's how out classed you are here.

Vas - I think it has been concluded that Brian messed up and went off on a tangent to which he won't admit the mistakes made.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I have the need to drive the

I have the need to drive the point deeper.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I have the need

Vastet wrote:
I have the need to drive the point deeper.

I have noticed that...


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
lol

lol

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Yet it still won't be deep

 Yet it still won't be deep enough.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I love how Brian proves beyond argument he doesn't know shit about quantum science before the first page is half over. But he keeps going, making a mockery of himself. It's literally like watching caposkia. I'll sum up this topic very quickly for anyone who joins now: Beyond Saving wins by a quantum light year. lol

You "You fucked up so therefore ALIENS"

You sound like theist dude.

QM still equals QM. It does not equal si fi crap or religious crap. 

You CONTINUE to prove you don't know shit about quantum science, and you compound your monumental error exponentially by continuing to repeat "You "You fucked up so therefore ALIENS"" as if it did ANYTHING more than prove your complete ignorance of the subject in absolute terms. My asshole knows more about the quantum universe than you do, that's how out classed you are here.

You are right I don't know shit about quantum mechanics, but when I point to people who do like Beyond when I point to Nick Hanauer a billionaire whom does know about economics, because Nick doesn't agree with Beyond, you like him ignore people who dont agree with you.

Now, Neil Degrees Tyson, and Laurence Krauss, and the lady on this pannel in this video, dispite their competing ideas all agree that "we" are unimportant just like Sagan said in his Pale Blue dot.  Now even with string theory this lady says the end result can be "0".  CHECK OUT  TIME STAMP at 54mins and 58 seconds.  My point is no matter what science figures out our existence is not important to all this. And if a god is not required as a gap answer, why would a cosmic Bill Gates need to "program" us into existence either?  54 MINS 58 SECONDS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNh-pY3hJnY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Quote:
Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters.

"Open to interpretation" and "contending" still do not equate to a cognition of any kind being a requirement to fill in the gaps.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
If I had magical powers and

If I had magical powers and could create life by enchanting straw animals, maybe I could make a straw horse come to life.

Then, as an analogy, this thread is like punching my straw horse until it dies, and then, continuing to punch it repeatedly. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You are right

Brian37 wrote:

You are right I don't know shit about quantum mechanics, but when I point to people who do like Beyond when I point to Nick Hanauer a billionaire whom does know about economics, because Nick doesn't agree with Beyond, you like him ignore people who dont agree with you.

What expertise does Nick have in economics?

 

Quote:

Now, Neil Degrees Tyson, and Laurence Krauss, and the lady on this pannel in this video, dispite their competing ideas all agree that "we" are unimportant just like Sagan said in his Pale Blue dot.  Now even with string theory this lady says the end result can be "0".  CHECK OUT  TIME STAMP at 54mins and 58 seconds.  My point is no matter what science figures out our existence is not important to all this. And if a god is not required as a gap answer, why would a cosmic Bill Gates need to "program" us into existence either?  54 MINS 58 SECONDS.

Nobody here disagrees with the assetion that you are unimportant. 

 

Quote:

"Open to interpretation" and "contending" still do not equate to a cognition of any kind being a requirement to fill in the gaps.

At least we got you reading wiki, even if you still haven't bothered to read any of the posts I or anyone else has made pointing out your errors. The only person who has filled any gaps at all is you. The rest of us merely pointed out that there are gaps that shouldn't be filled with naked assertions and arrogant certainty.  And you still haven't admitted, let alone apologized, for fabricating an Einstein quote. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:And you

Beyond Saving wrote:
And you still haven't admitted, let alone apologized, for fabricating an Einstein quote.



i'm pretty sure he has some sort of psychosis that literally does not allow him to see sentences like this. he also never acknowledged his fake hypatia or marx attributions either. anything that obviously exposes his monumental dishonesty is automatically blocked by his subconscious.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
I'm reminded of this

I'm reminded of this conversation regarding quantum mechanics:

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:I'm

zarathustra wrote:

I'm reminded of this conversation regarding quantum mechanics:

 

Deepak is one of those people I like but dislike at the same time.

I could easily be just like him but I don't spew out shit just to fill the spaces between the first and last word of my sentences.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: And

Beyond Saving wrote:
 And you still haven't admitted, let alone apologized, for fabricating an Einstein quote. 

Every time I think about it, that he ignores our requests, it just makes me wonder what the fuck is going on with him. I mean, he is either embarrassed or he is too proud. A simple, "ok I made it up" or "the quote was inaccurate" would suffice. Maybe he is getting a chuckle from us still talking about it and he is keeping track of the number of times we bring it up?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4895
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Beyond Saving

iwbiek wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
And you still haven't admitted, let alone apologized, for fabricating an Einstein quote.

i'm pretty sure he has some sort of psychosis that literally does not allow him to see sentences like this. he also never acknowledged his fake hypatia or marx attributions either. anything that obviously exposes his monumental dishonesty is automatically blocked by his subconscious.

Or that too....


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Deepak

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Deepak is one of those people I like but dislike at the same time.

I could easily be just like him but I don't spew out shit just to fill the spaces between the first and last word of my sentences.

It seems to pay well.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 And you still haven't admitted, let alone apologized, for fabricating an Einstein quote. 

Every time I think about it, that he ignores our requests, it just makes me wonder what the fuck is going on with him. I mean, he is either embarrassed or he is too proud. A simple, "ok I made it up" or "the quote was inaccurate" would suffice. Maybe he is getting a chuckle from us still talking about it and he is keeping track of the number of times we bring it up?




it would be so easy to straighten it out, wouldn't it? just an "oops, my bad, should've checked my source." i think he would be amazed at how quickly people's attitudes toward him would do a 180 if he just showed himself to be a reasonable person who owns his mistakes as much as his principles. that's why i always accuse him of having a martyr complex: i think he genuinely relishes negative attention because he can then at least subconsciously place himself in the same category as the true martyrs like malala that he lacks either the courage or circumstances or both to emulate. i really don't think embarrassment factors into anything he does. he's one person i would classify as shameless.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You are right

Brian37 wrote:
You are right I don't know shit about quantum mechanics,

Yay an admission! Mark the calendar.

Brian37 wrote:
but when I point to people who do like Beyond when I point to Nick Hanauer a billionaire whom does know about economics, because Nick doesn't agree with Beyond, you like him ignore people who dont agree with you.

Your sentence structure here is so bad I'm not sure what you're trying to say. But I can say with certainty that an argument you have with Beyond on economics has nothing to do with an argument on quantum mechanics.
I've never heard of this Nick guy you keep referring to, but his wealth doesn't automatically qualify him as an expert on economics. And even if it did that wouldn't mean anything. Most experts on economics have the irrational belief that an unsustainable system can be sustained indefinitely, which automatically qualifies them as idiots.

Brian37 wrote:
Now, Neil Degrees Tyson, and Laurence Krauss, and the lady on this pannel in this video, dispite their competing ideas all agree that "we" are unimportant just like Sagan said in his Pale Blue dot.

Good for them. I happen to know for a fact that we are important to the universe. It is the nature of the universe to increase entropy, and life is the most effective known process to increase entropy. Sentient life is the pinnacle of life's capacity to increase entropy, at least so far as has been observed.
Individually we don't mean squat to the universe, but collectively we are a reflection of its very nature at the most efficient level known to exist.
And who gives a shit whether or not we matter as individuals in the objective sense? Objectively, nothing matters. Nothing ever has mattered, and nothing ever will matter. The universe itself doesn't matter. Therefore, looking at things objectively is inherently pointless. All that matters is subjective.

Brian37 wrote:
Now even with string theory this lady says the end result can be "0".  CHECK OUT  TIME STAMP at 54mins and 58 seconds.  My point is no matter what science figures out our existence is not important to all this. And if a god is not required as a gap answer, why would a cosmic Bill Gates need to "program" us into existence either?  54 MINS 58 SECONDS.

None of this is relevant. String theory is not quantum mechanics. A god is not quantum mechanics. Bill Gates is not quantum mechanics. Windows is not quantum mechanics. Gaps are not quantum mechanics. Existence is kind of quantum mechanics, but not really.

Try staying on topic.

Brian37 wrote:
"Open to interpretation" and "contending" still do not equate to a cognition of any kind being a requirement to fill in the gaps.

Quantum mechanics does not suggest a god, nor does the OBSERVED phenomena of quantum pairing, which allows two particles to influence each other even if they are on the opposite sides of the universe and when all other known sciences say they should not be able to.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
but when I point to people who do like Beyond when I point to Nick Hanauer a billionaire whom does know about economics, because Nick doesn't agree with Beyond, you like him ignore people who dont agree with you.
Your sentence structure here is so bad I'm not sure what you're trying to say. But I can say with certainty that an argument you have with Beyond on economics has nothing to do with an argument on quantum mechanics. I've never heard of this Nick guy you keep referring to, but his wealth doesn't automatically qualify him as an expert on economics. And even if it did that wouldn't mean anything. Most experts on economics have the irrational belief that an unsustainable system can be sustained indefinitely, which automatically qualifies them as idiots.

I googled him out of curiosity when Brian started making a big deal about him. 

Nick was born a multi-millionaire. He then splashed around a lot during the early internet boom starting and selling various website businesses. He made most of his money off of being one of the first investors in Amazon.com He invested something like $45,000. When Amazon started becoming gigantic in 2000, he cashed out and left the board over differences with Bezos (founder of Amazon). He walked away making several hundred million. He is now worth roughly $1 billion +- depending on who you believe. If he held onto his Amazon stock, he would be worth $4-$5 billion in Amazon alone.

Not that Brian knew any of that. Nick has a degree in philosophy, has a billion dollars and most importantly, gave a 5 minute speech about how rich people need to be taxed more and workers should get paid more that gave Brian a hard on. Whether he actually has a basis or any intelligent arguments for what he was talking about doesn't matter. Besides, Brian needed a rich person to like to go on the shelf alongside his black friend and his gay friend to prove that he is open minded. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
lol

lol

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesisw

wiki wrote:
(but, of course, would NOT prove that the universe is a simulation). A multitude of physical observables must be explored before any such scenario could be accepted or rejected as a theory of nature.[11] In a public discussion with Neil deGrasse Tyson, String Theory Physicist, Dr. James Gates, stated that he found self-correcting computer error code embedded within the fundamental structure of String Theory, which made him "question if (he) was living in the Matrix." [12]

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

article wrote:
However these claims have NOT been widely accepted, or cited, among quantum gravity researchers and appear to be in direct conflict with string theory calculations.[22]

ALSO from the same wiki entery.

wiki wrote:
The papers do NOT suggest that the universe we actually live in is a hologram and are not an actual proof of Maldacena's conjecture for all cases but a demonstration that the conjecture works for a particular theoretical case.

My take is that it is METAPHOR as to what we would expect to see if we could be big enough to see what is going on. Again, if you are attempting to replace a god with a cosmic computer programer you are simply trying to replace god with your own cognition.

Sagan said this was it. Niel says this is it. Hawking said a god is not required. So why would a cosmic programmer fill in that gap any better? I see si fi fans taking what science is saying out of context on par with what theists do claiming DNA is code for evidence for a God.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

article wrote:
However these claims have NOT been widely accepted, or cited, among quantum gravity researchers and appear to be in direct conflict with string theory calculations.[22]

ALSO from the same wiki entery.

wiki wrote:
The papers do NOT suggest that the universe we actually live in is a hologram and are not an actual proof of Maldacena's conjecture for all cases but a demonstration that the conjecture works for a particular theoretical case.

My take is that it is METAPHOR as to what we would expect to see if we could be big enough to see what is going on. Again, if you are attempting to replace a god with a cosmic computer programer you are simply trying to replace god with your own cognition.

Sagan said this was it. Niel says this is it. Hawking said a god is not required. So why would a cosmic programmer fill in that gap any better? I see si fi fans taking what science is saying out of context on par with what theists do claiming DNA is code for evidence for a God.

Who has even mentioned the holographic principle or the simulation hypothesis? Although, it is worth noting that people a ton smarter than you are seriously considering the possibility and attempting to come up with ways to test the hypothesis. Either way, it isn't relevant to this conversation as whether these theories are true or false doesn't change the observed effects of quantum entanglement.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 http://news.discovery.com/s

 http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

NOW here is one for your side, but I still have problems with this the same way I have a problem with a god claim.

 

Quote:
If all of this isn’t mind-blowing enough, Bostrom imagined “stacked” levels of reality, “we would have to suspect that the post-humans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings. Here may be room for a large number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over time.”

How do you get around infinite regress? If that programmer is simulated then what simulated that programmer, and what simulated that programmer and what simulated that programmer. At what point does "all this" cease to require a programmer?

It seems to be overcomplicated. No, not the complexity of all the "possibilities", but the increasing complexity to explain everything. My basic understanding of methodology is that you do not add extra baggage to the hypothesis.

If I understand Krauss, whatever he agrees with with string theory, ultimately the way I understand what he is saying is that we go in and out of "nothing" ultimately. Much like winter goes to spring to summer to fall to winter back to spring. All this seems to be an uncaused giant weather pattern.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

 

FYI guys, "infinite regress" is a term I learned long ago even before Rational Responders started as a website. 

Here is yet another quote that confirms my problem with a "cosmic Bill Gates" "theory". Now is this going to turn into a 9/11 consperacy here? I wrote the entery myself?

wiki wrote:
The existence of simulated reality is UNPROVABLE in any concrete sense: any "evidence" that is directly observed could be another simulation itself. In other words, there is an INFINITE REGRESS problem with the argument.

How is the infinite reguress less of a problem with a buch of quatum programers than you already accept with a god concept?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I don't have a 'side', I

 I don't have a 'side', I don't presume to know. And nobody on here has said anything about a simulated reality theory. That isn't what I was talking about and you know it, that is why Vastet called you a liar. I have solely been talking about the OBSERVED phenomenon in quantum mechanics of the relationship between two photons that can exist over any distance- including the other side of the universe. Making your repeated assertion that something on the other side of the universe has zero, no, none, absolutely couldn't have any relationship or connection with you, false.

There are dozens of hypothses that attempt to explain why that relationship exists, or define the nature of that relationship. Some are more 'out there' and hard to believe than others. I haven't taken a position on any of them- I don't have nearly enough education in the field to make a strong argument that one is right and all the others are wrong. The bottom line is that testing hasn't been conclusive yet on these hypotheses, so we don't know for sure. We do know there is a relationship, we don't know how, why or exactly what that means. 

Although, you do provide solid evidence for Vastet's hypothesis that you are a liar, because you KNOW I never suggested the connection was caused by a deity, yet you still argue as if that were my point. I've been here for 7 years, my views on religion aren't exactly a fucking secret. FYI, I'm an atheist.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 http://rationalwiki.org/wik

 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulation_argument

This one seems to favor your side, BUT, still has huge caviates in it. And again, I am skeptical of it because of infinite regress.

article wrote:
The point of the argument is not to demonstrate or prove that we are in a computer simulation - it is actually unfalsifiable given that even if the simulated and non-simulated realities are different, there would be no conceivable way of us determining the difference via an experiment made within a simulated reality (or even a non-simulated reality). The differences between a simulated and non-simulated reality may also be moot depending on one's ideas about what is and is not real. The argument is simply to demonstrate that there is a reasonable chance that we are simulated digitally given these plausible assumptions. Those assumptions may well be false, in which case the probabilities favour us not being simulated. But, their very plausibility means that they cannot be immediately dismissed; the ultimate conclusion is that there is a significant chance this world is, in fact, a computer simulation.

Ultimate conclusion is that we are a simulation if we are betting? Ok, but a cognative simulation, or merely an unthinking simulation? A hurrican does not need Posiedon and lightening doesn't need Thor. It would seem less complicated to allow all this to do without any sort of prime cogniton, or a bunch of tiny cognitions. In other words, why cant all this just do without any help from any type of cognition?

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 http://rationalwiki.org/wik

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulation_argument

And another entery I DID NOT WRITE MYSELF

rationalwiki wrote:

While the simulation argument is a skeptical view of reality, and proposes an interesting question regarding nature and technology, there are several problems if it is proposed as a serious hypothesis. Firstly, the simulation argument is completely unfalsifiable as it is impossible to devise an experiment to test the hypothesis and potentially prove it to be false. Even if a hypothetical experiment was devised and turned out negative (that the world was not simulated) it would still be insufficient because there is the potential that this is merely what the simulation wants us to think, or we are living inside a simulation inside a simulation. This, according to widely accepted definitions, places it firmly in the field of pseudoscience. Any serious suggestion that we do live in a simulation (as opposed to discussion of the probabilities, assumptions and the potential technologies involved, which is academically sound) relies purely on faith and argument by assertion. This makes the simulation argument, as an explanation of reality, more like a religion - regardless of the assertions of transhumanists that the maths works out. Occam's Razor can also be used to guide us in working out whether to accept the simulation argument as a real explanation of reality. This suggests that, all other things being equal, the hypothesis with fewest assumptions is most likely correct. Given that the simulation argument rests on numerous assumptions regarding the means and motives of the simulators and the technology that powers them, Occam's Razor would suggest that simulation is the far more complex hypothesis compared to non-simulation.

Now there is one for my side. "Occam's Razor would suggest that simulation is far more complex hypothesis compared to non-simulation"

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Did you read my post

 Did you read my post dumbass? I haven't been talking about simulation theories. I don't have a side and I certainly thinks simulation is unlikely (though I can't prove it is impossible).

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 And ffs, if you insist on

 And ffs, if you insist on fighting a straw army, at least make it coherent.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 http://www.smithsonianmag.c

 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science/what-universe-real-physics-has-some-mind-bending-answers-180952699/?no-ist

Sounds nice on the surface, but people miss words in it like "if" and "may" and this huge caviat that underscores the problem with infinite regress.

Quote:

A 2013 paper by MIT engineer Seth Lloyd builds the case for an intriguing spin on the concept: If space-time is made of quantum bits, the universe must be one giant quantum computer. Of course, both notions raise a troubling quandary: If the universe is a computer program, who or what wrote the code?

"Troubling quandry". I agree. Occam's Razor as to the point of my prior posts would indicate this might be adding extra baggage causing data that might end up not being as accurate as one would shoot for, leading to infinite regress.

Again, if one is willing to reject a god as the mover of all this, even if one wants to look at this as a "code" why would this "code" need a cognitive cause anymore than a hurricane needs Poseidon? Isn't replacing a god with a "programmer" the same extra baggage?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 You would flunk the Turing

 You would flunk the Turing test.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 http://io9.com/5799396/your

http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-computer-simulation-and-math-proves-it

Once again, sounds nice in the title, but the caveates still are written into the article.

article wrote:
One very strong argument against this unsettling theory is that a computer with the computational power to accomplish this is impossible.

On top of rasing more questions than it answers "what programmer wrote that code, and what programer wrote that code" and so on and so on and so on. 

 

prior posted rationalwiki article wrote:

The point of the argument is not to demonstrate or prove that we are in a computer simulation - it is actually unfalsifiable given that even if the simulated and non-simulated realities are different, there would be no conceivable way of us determining the difference via an experiment made within a simulated reality (or even a non-simulated reality)

"UNFALSIFIABLE"

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog