"Connected" is crap be it religious mythology or si fi woo.
Offline 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
- Login to post comments
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
Where has anyone in this thread said anything about a giant consciousness?
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
You aren't aware of what fallacies are, do you?
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
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
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) . .
Misc. (Misc.) Image Upload
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.
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
OK. This thread offically needs to be sealed.
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.
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.
I have the need to drive the point deeper.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I have noticed that...
lol
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yet it still won't be deep enough.
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
"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
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
What expertise does Nick have in economics?
Nobody here disagrees with the assetion that you are unimportant.
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
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
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.
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?
Or that too....
There are no theists on operating tables.
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
Yay an admission! Mark the calendar.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
lol
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesisw
"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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
ALSO from the same wiki entery.
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulation_argument
And another entery I DID NOT WRITE MYSELF
"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
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
And ffs, if you insist on fighting a straw army, at least make it coherent.
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.
"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
You would flunk the Turing test.
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.
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.
"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