| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Quantum many worlds splitting off with each decision. ...... human and quantum, is a clever but useless concept. If true or false it's unprovable. The you that decided to have a pita with meat for breakfast instead of your choice today is now in a different, unreachable, indetectable universe....... so what? Mostly it's an excuse for self destructive nihilistic navel gazing. If your choice means nothing in the "greater context" then you have either no choice or no consequences. .... depending on viewpoint. Totally wrong. Your actions create your future and hypothetical other worlds mean nothing to the path you are taking. Choice is real not a nebulous concept. So.... pretty much a cute idea but some abuse the concept to rationalize..... anything. In other words the "simulation" may be multi threaded but you can't access the other threads so they might as well be imaginary. There's no excuse for your actions in quantum physics. They are your choices. | ||
| Blake |
"Exhaust gases go in, witchcraft happens, and power comes out!" Egads, that's an unfortunate analogy! LOL! How about: Exhaust gasses power a turbine that blows more air-fuel mixture into the engine intake. Or, a turbocharger is an exhaust-powered motor that pumps more air/fuel into an engine. It's that electronic stuff that is witchcraft!  | ||
| Hootowl |
"Have you considered the currently popular scientific understanding that the laws of physics, namely general relativity, do not hold near the moment of the Big Bang, and that there was an inflationary period where the universe expanded at a rate far exceeding the speed of light? Well then..." Yes. However, that implies a finite universe. I'm not sure I buy that. I don't know why, other than that it smacks of flat Earth thinking. I don't expect that we'll get to the end of the universe and see a big "here there be dragons" sign. Also, the period of time the expansion would have occurred in is very very small. Stars wouldn't have formed until after that initial rapid expansion...let alone planets whose raw materials would have first needed to be manufactured within those stars. | ||
| Blake |
Patrick, Well said. Ron Garret, the man in the above video, believes likewise. But he shows how the math supports another interpretation. He calls it the "zero worlds" interpretation. The many worlds interpretation may also fit the math, but he finds it too objectionable and ridiculously extravagant, especially from the point of view of Occam's razor and such. | ||
| Hootowl |
Oh, and speaking of an infinite universe... “It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.” ~Douglas Adams | ||
| Hootowl |
The even distribution of energy (that we can detect) lends credence to the expansion theory. However, again, stars weren't born until after that, and planets are made out of dead stars. A whole lot of time elapsed between expansion and now, given the time necessary to turn hydrogen into transuranic elements and everything in between. | ||
| Aesquire |
Just because someone uses a theory to attack what you believe doesn't mean the theory is bad, just that it's being used by someone in a way you don't like. Could be they are rational and trying to help you, could be they are evil and trying to sell you crap. Does it mean God does not exist because evil men use his name to justify rape & murder? Does Science not work because Progressive's lie that their methods of manipulating people with lies is called a science? The "inflationary problem" with the Big Bang Theory is very interesting. For me it shows it's not done yet. There is more to figure out. And when they come out with the next revision to the theory, the next "darn, that doesn't fit" problem will come up. That's true with all science. The speed of light limitation may crumble next week or next century, and a new concept take it's place. There was quite a bit of excitement and angst a few years back when a neutrino beam fired through the Alps seemed to arrive too fast. hands were waved! people yelled! The End Was Nigh! then they figured out it was a miscalculation. Ooops. ( GPS satellite & cell phones... ) That's going to happen again. There are lots of holes in the current theories. Ironically, some of the holes can be patched by using older ideas updated with new information. maybe. Science is never settled, it just hardens like stale bread from time to time. | ||
| Blake |
So what about the simulation and its initial conditions? | ||
| Hootowl |
Sorry Blake, I'm not allowed to answer that question, as it violates the conditions of the simulation.  If the universe is a simulation that God is running, then yes, God could, depending on the nature of the simulator, start the simulation at any point. This implies that there are many gods standing around a laboratory (or an amusement park) peering at their universes in progress. To what end? Why are we compelled to love Christ in this simulation? Should the lab rat love its tormentor? Sorry dude, I don't believe I live in a simulator. Do you? Really? | ||
| Blake |
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we- living-in-a-computer-simulation/ Neil Tyson rarely ceases to amaze with his shallow superficiality and sophomoric "philosophizing." "There’s no reason to think they’re all-powerful just because they control everything we do.”  | ||
| Hootowl |
---Neil Tyson rarely ceases to amaze with his shallow superficiality and sophomoric "philosophizing." Couldn't agree more. What a self aggrandizing meathead. | ||
| Blake |
Jeff, You seem to be assuming much. Consider the following: 1) What is the purpose of the simulation (our existence)? 2) May the author enter into the simulation Himself and or reveal truths about Himself and us? 3) Why would a more scientifically accurate understanding of the nature of existence in terms of a created mathematical quantum construct change anything about what we know of our creator and our relationship with Him? I guess the term "simulation" carries some baggage, but in context of the universe, God, and existence, it's shouldn't mean anything less than "creation". Truth remains intact. | ||
| Reepicheep |
That makes three of us. I'm a big fan of science. Patronizing philosophy wrapped in a cloak of unsupported oversimplifications isn't science. Bill Nye can kiss my ass two. | ||
| Hootowl |
1. If we knew that...well, I don't know. What would happen? Does the simulation end?  2. That would, once again, depend on the nature of the simulation and the technology used to create said simulation. 3. You seem to be suggesting that our quest for knowledge is pointless, because it will not bring us closer to God. If that is indeed your thoughts on this, I can think of a religion that has wholly embraced that philosophy, and it has resulted in centuries of stagnation, war, and people being executed in soccer stadiums. No, thank you. | ||
| Aesquire |
Don't get sucked in by Nihilism. If it's all a big sim, who cares? Nothing matters.... That way leads to pain. Follow that uncaring path and if you are lucky you will regret it. If we are in a petri dish, we can't tell, so it's only a bit of fun speculation for stoners along the lines of "each atom in my fingernail is like a whole universe... far out" If you believe it's all been built by some deity that wanted his pets to be fooled by the physical evidence, you're supposing a pretty messed up deity. "heh heh, all these suckers looking at the fake stuff I planted, what a bunch of morons!" Feel free to believe you live in a joke, just stay away from me, because your choices based on that idiotic assumption probably won't lead you to kindness and caring. Why should they? OTOH no matter if you prefer Ganesh or the FSM, if you think it matters what you do here, and matters how your treat people, I'm fine living on the same planet. Carry on. Notice that the State Worship Cults make it a top priority to destroy any notion of a loving and caring God. It's competition for the Man Made Hell they want to exploit. That's why there is no apparent remorse from people like Fidel Castro. They think they are God On Earth and all of you just dust for them to use. There is no Soul, there is no hope there is just manipulation and exploitation. And Lies. Who is it supposed to be the Prince Of Lies?...... | ||
| Blake |
No technology, just God. It's still His creation, no more, no less. We just understand it a bit better. How it works and most essentially, that it was indeed born of intent. ID proven. Nothing really changes. Don't get hung up on the baggage of the "simulation" vernacular. It's just an easy way to communicate that material reality is not what it seems. It doesn't mean existence is an elaborate program anything akin to what humans could ever grasp. It's kinda like how we know that solid matter is really mostly empty space. But we still treat it the same way day to day. The reality for living hasn't changed, just our understanding of the atomic realm. | ||
| Hootowl |
Blake, as near as we can tell, there was nothing. Then there was something. That sounds like creation to me. I just don't subscribe to the literal word of Genesis. I believe that God set the universe in motion according to a fixed set of physical laws. Sussing out what those are has been mankind's quest since we first wondered why water is wet. So I applaud science for the effort, and refuse to accept that the majority of scientists are pushing back the boundaries of ignorance as part of a quest to prove the non existence of God. Insert Douglas Adams quote here. Some of them are angry, empty, lost atheists, and I feel bad for them. Most aren't. | ||
| Aesquire |
Most aren't... True. many famous scientists were monks or other orders. Some, sure, are arrogant and have something to prove but that can't be even a noticeable minority except they are loud and obnoxious about it. A trait not confined to atheists. ( but golly they are so good at it ) The whole Simulation/petri dish thing isn't even close to new. It's probably a new generation discovering pot. Or beer. Or too much coffee. ( waxing stupidly philosophical is pretty common at a certain age ) It's like those macaroni art things the kids bring home at a certain age. You smile, stick them on the fridge, and then toss them or throw them in the "embarrass them later" box. You don't really expect macaroni art to be their calling, ( although it may beat Hittite lesbian studies as an income maker ) and you don't expect anyone to take it seriously after they grow up or the coffee wears off. I do love the joke in the tv show "The Good Place" where a stoner from vancouver? did a bunch of 'shrooms and when his friends asked him what the after life is like, got a crazed rant ...... and got it 97% correct. They have framed pictures of the guy "up there". I really should catch up on that show, I just got kinda bored with it. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/ni etzsche_and_the_new_ten_commandments.html Nietzsche is dead... | ||
| Crusty |
Nietzsche is dead... "Never mind that shit; here comes Mongo!" | ||
| Pwnzor |
Most aren't My mother was a science teacher for over 30 years. As far back as I can remember, she was always pointing out the wonders of God's creation found in science. She also told me that any REAL scientist believes in God for the simple fact that the proof is literally everywhere. | ||
| Aesquire |
The even distribution of energy (that we can detect) lends credence to the expansion theory. You have to realize that it's only an "even" distribution of stuff if you look at it out of focus. All a big blur. But the detail is amazing, and not even at all. Like fractals, it's detail on detail. Or... "You can't fool me! It's Turtles, All the way down!" The leaves on a tree, the veins in a leaf, the branchings of the nervous system & blood stream.... all determined by simple ( but oh, so, complex ) mathematical principals. All much alike, all different in detail. All coded into the DNA. That's right. We're ALL precious snowflakes, all different, all unique. Just like everybody else. Trying to explain Chaos Theory or Quantum Mechanics is difficult, partly because these are incomplete ideas, and partly because they are very counter to the "normal" formal ways of thought. If you really understand Quantum stuff you need to roll for a sanity check in the real world. Action at a distance. Quantum entanglement. Speed of light limitations? A lot of it sounds like psychic powers stuff. And we all know that Psychic powers are not real. Except for the times they work. While I have never witnessed anyone move anything with their mind, there is solid evidence of telepathy, albeit pretty useless telepathy. "Far seeing" seems pretty mythical to me, but astral projection seems like a pretty repeatable hallucination. I have yet to witness anyone "take a walk" from their physical body and go read the paper in the next room, and thus gain knowledge not available to the person otherwise. As a cold hearted pragmatist, I can rationalize that a physic's "hunch" is based on subconscious clues assembled on a hidden level or reasoning. Of course I could be wrong. Mostly I'm in agreement with the Amazing Randi ( a magician that has offered a huge sum of money to any one who can prove a psychic power. He still has the money ) But there are things yet to be understood. I'm good with that. I'm all for the seeking of truth. To increase our knowledge of how things work. It would seem a pretty boring world if we did have all the answers. And anyone who claims to have all the answers is, in my limited experience, either loony or lying. | ||
| Hootowl |
"All a big blur. But the detail is amazing' "Even" as in there is matter everywhere. As if there were no central point of origin, as with a big bang, unless you adhere to the expansion of space-time theory. I.E matter filled the universe within moments of the bang, and then the universe expanded, bringing matter along with it...which implies a finite universe. I can't wrap my brain around that. 'Course, I cant' wrap my brain around an infinite universe either. | ||
| Torquehd |
It would seem a pretty boring world if we did have all the answers Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. We'll never get there, but attempting to has given a whole lot of people a sense of purpose for as long as we've been on this rock. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
The entirety of the universe is a means for God to experience itself. | ||
| Torquehd |
there is matter everywhere There is? A cubic inch of lead has the same quantity of matter as a cubic inch somewhere in outer space? The entirety of the universe is a means for God to experience itself. What's your basis for this statement? | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm all for evolution. Makes sense. Oh, not "pure darwin". That's the philosopher/science 19th century "put in all in boxes" running headlong into "How do I explain Chaos Theory without algebra?" I don't expect much more than "survival of the fittest". That's Early days, first draft. The hint of the idea. So on my personal scale of "real hard science" from "we can flip the switch and make it work and the explanations seem to work.... most of the time" to "They have multiple conflicting theories, none of which pass experimental testing, and it's seeming likely that the whole notion is silly" I put Evolution at..."This makes plenty of sense but they're missing huge parts and it may be a century before they have the right questions" Which puts it on a par with Climate Panic, as there are players who have emotional reasons to use it as a human manipulation tool. Genetics came along and, like quantum mechanics, made the old stuff.... suspect? Incomplete to an astonishing degree. Nature vs. Nurture? ( Loved "Trading Places" ) We open more doors and the questions keep on coming. At the Chemical level they are just starting to figure biology out. We have some of the basic reactions mapped out. And Most of Social Science is "We're just faking it for the grant money". The "how it started" part is way out of reach when you think about the depth of compartmentalization, narrow focus, and just plain noise, when you talk "biology"in the 20th century. Explain anti-matter boosted fusion reactions to some random fellow from 200 years ago. Ben Franklin probably would get it. A few more. And they'd be missing all the rest. Not a source for angst. Now, how genetics may be used in marketing? Tremble in fear. The entirety of the universe is a means for God to experience itself. Don't you recognize a classic metaphor? Like "God split himself into a myriad parts so that he might have friends" or "All that groks is God" Not a serious statement. More than whimsy. Meant to provoke thought. Far smarter people than I have tried to figure out the nature of the Deity. | ||
| Aesquire |
A cubic inch of lead has the same quantity of matter as a cubic inch somewhere in outer space? Silly question. Not that "There's matter everywhere" isn't technically incorrect. There are some pretty empty places..... lots more of that than matter. Lots of deep dark out there. But no need to ask a silly question when you know that's not what's meant. https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap161203.html Yeah, lots of stuff out there. Not evenly distributed, I'll have you notice. You may return to your simulation if you wish. | ||
| Aesquire |
Hoot, "Infinity". "I do not think that word means what you think it does". I don't sweat the big arguments about the expansion paradox etc. We have incomplete information. Missing a vital clue. Heck they just figured out a theory that doesn't require Dark Matter. ( I always thought that was a cheat ) | ||
| Torquehd |
I love APOD, I had it set as my home screen for years until I got a new computer. These days I don't stay on the home screen long enough to pay attention. I always thought dark matter was a cheat; the made-up theory doesn't work, so we'll use comic book math straight from the Marvel Universe to explain away what we don't know. At least, I thought that until I read Isaiah 45: 7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." I'd always thought that darkness was simply the absence of light, but here the word of God seems to imply that it is a separate thing which must be created. That made me wonder if dark matter or antimatter are real things. Who knows (God, obviously). Don't you recognize a classic metaphor? No, I've never heard that before. |
