

| yrope; erections | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2014, 06:39 AM (3,461 Views) | |
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 16 2014, 05:45 AM Post #121 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
I've already pointed out that, insofar as the the objects, energies, and relations are the same, Firing Gun and !Firing Gun represent the same system, but not the same state. This doesn't compare to 1 = -1. As far as changing states goes, I've used the example of the planet and star to show that I don't think it's necessary for anything to be added or substracted to a system for it to realise a different state. Anyway, I don't see how I can argue against you when what you mean by a static system is one that by definition cannot achieve different states. I guess I just have to disagree that !Firing Gun is in fact a static system in this sense.
The same applies here. There's no sense in me repeating the points I've been making if you're going to keep conflating logical possibility with subjunctive possibilities. We'll never make any progress if neither of us accepts the same premises. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Jam | May 16 2014, 08:56 AM Post #122 |
![]()
Fruit Based Jam
|
If you imagine the gun as only firing when certain conditions are met that means that at minimum these three states exist: the gun is unfired/conditions are not met, the gun has started firing/conditions are met, and the gun has finished firing. In this example I made the gun meeting conditions and the gun starting for fire the same just to avoid a redundant step. It also means that B comes before C. A cannot come directly after B because it is a contradiction that the gun cannot fire after the conditions that cause it to fire are met. A must come directly before B or else the gun always fires immediately and the idea of conditions being met is meaningless. The casual relationship is A to B to C. B is the cause of C; the cause of B is whatever cause the conditions to be met. If we make A the cause of B then the gun always reaches the conditions to fire. If there is an external influence acting on A that converts it to B, then that external influence D is always present then the gun will always reach conditions. If D has a cause then clearly the blame is just being pushed back infinitely which seems to require that at some point there is an 'original cause' that is 'logically necessary' or 'couldn't have not happened', or some other bullshit. To have a gun that fires without cause you cannot have conditions that must be met for it to fire, so B cannot exist. There is only A and C. A becomes C, then C becomes A, then A becomes C again and so on. Note that without B there is no process involved. There is simply A and then there is C. The gun never fires, it just switches between not being fired and having been fired. Without causality linking them, there is no reason why the states are the way they are, they are just arbitrary states. How long does each state last? It can't be a defined amount of time because then a causal process must occur that takes time. So if time exists in the world external to the gun and A at t=0 is the same as A at t=anything, then there is no reason for any single point in time to be the one where the change occurs. If time does not exist, then the duration of A or C is 0 and neither exist. So I can't imagine a gun firing with no cause, but I can imagine something changing instantly with no cause. You guys make me stay up late, imagining things that never were. |
| Long live Carolus | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 16 2014, 09:49 AM Post #123 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
I'm glad you see things this way. I would just like to point out that, if there are no conditions needed for the gun to fire, surely this only means that B doesn't have any conditions to meet, not that it cannot exist at all. In a universe where there are no causal relations, and where anything can arbitrarily come into existence at any time, what makes it categorically impossible for anything to exist, including a gun in the state of being fired? |
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 16 2014, 05:34 PM Post #124 |
|
General
|
This in itself means it is not a closed system. If a furnace is giving heat the heat to cause a fire, then the heat from the furnace is the cause and the bullet exploding is the effect. Area with furnace off is the "is not" situation Area with furnace on is the "is" situation Programming wise: Are the conditions for ignition met furnace: off = no combustion furnace: on = combustion correct me if I am wrong but this is exactly what we have been arguing FOR this entire time. The heat from the furnace is not irrelevant as it itself is the reason the bullet fired. You could go on and say how did the furnace get turned on and we could go through the entire argument again but the outcome is always going to be the same. In your idea with the planets, you are once again trying to use fundamental ideas from this universe and putting them into your "other" universe. If you have a planet circling the sun, it will continue to do so at the same way. If it is in a perfect rotation around the sun, then it will continue to circle the sun for all eternity at the same speed/distance. if its rotation is slightly off and it is getting closer or farther from the sun, it will continue to do so at exponentially increasing/decreasing speeds and distance until 1: the planet crashes into the sun 2: the planet gets too far away from the sun for gravity to keep it in its current coarse and breaks free of the gravity of the sun. Getting to close and crashing or getting to far and breaking free of the suns gravity aren't random and certainly aren't against closed system forces. any one of the three scenarios are inevitable while following a predictable path given the known laws of physics. The only way that relationship can change is another event imposing on the system such as a large star or planet passing by and influencing the gravitational relationship between the original star and planet, meteor or planet collisions, etc. either way, it is still not random and follows laws. [/quote] Edited by ryker, May 16 2014, 06:27 PM.
|
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 16 2014, 06:32 PM Post #125 |
|
General
|
Ultra, We aren't trying to be asses here, but you must understand. GS would have to speak for himself on this one but in asking asking us to accept your logic as a possibility, you might as well be asking me to accept religion and the belief that some bearded guy made the universe 6000 years ago and planted evidence that the earth is much older. The logic isn't there. Can I visualize it? Yes. Can I imagine it? Yes. Can I accept the idea as a possibility? Absolutely not. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 16 2014, 07:03 PM Post #126 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Edited by The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom, May 16 2014, 07:24 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Jam | May 16 2014, 07:03 PM Post #127 |
![]()
Fruit Based Jam
|
I defined B as a state in which the conditions that lead to C are met. So leading to C is inherent to B, the idea that one state must lead to another is determinism. So really I'm saying that there being conditions that cause the gun to fire presupposes causality. If being hot is the condition, there is no reason why you can't have a state 'H' in causeless world where the gun is hot, but it isn't state B. You can also have the states where the bullet is x distance from the gun and some percentage of the gunpowder is spent, however the bullet would have no velocity. The velocity would be the property of the state that requires it to lead to a subsequent state. In the causal world these would be B-type states, which I ignored for redundancy. I understand what you mean. Have you heard of Kant? I have his book, but I've only read the (70 page) summary. His ideas revolve around the idea that philosophy cannot give conclusions about reality unless observation is used as a basis, because you can imagine any system. Like how you can use math equations to prove anything if you arbitrarily add constants and variables. Edited by Jam, May 16 2014, 07:10 PM.
|
| Long live Carolus | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 16 2014, 07:16 PM Post #128 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Yep, I already said that the example was taking place in a world with causal relations. The point of the example was to illustrate that we can imagine cases where the same causes give rise to different effects, demonstrating that there is in fact no necessary relation between any two events.
Alright, I see what you mean. Thanks for clearing things up. |
| |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 16 2014, 07:20 PM Post #129 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Haha, I bought the Critique of Judgment on a whim a couple of years ago. I tried reading it but it did my head in so much that I gave up after a few pages. I'll probably go back to Kant later on when I have more experience with other philosophers. I also agree with the idea about using observation as a basis, although what I've been trying to suggest in this thread all along is that we shouldn't be using what we've learnt from observation alone to make dogmatic assumptions about the nature of reality. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Jam | May 16 2014, 08:01 PM Post #130 |
![]()
Fruit Based Jam
|
It took me a week to get through that summary.
|
| Long live Carolus | |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 17 2014, 11:23 PM Post #131 |
![]()
Slow down
|
yeah, a static system is stable, it won't change by itself. if you're talking about a system that is unstable (then i guess we disagree on what static means, but whatever) then whatever makes the system unstable is the thing causing the change, so you'd have a cause. the fact that a stable system by definition does not change is exactly the fallacy in your argument. if the system isn't stable, then you have a cause. it can't go from stable to unstable for no reason because then it wasn't stable in the first place. anyway i think we've reached a point where it's obvious where we disagree and we won't make any more progress. the way this started made me think you actually think randomness exists, you even mentioned nuclear decay as if it's a random event. but seeing the way you've been arguing for it it's obvious that you do in fact realise that we can be pretty sure that it doesn't exist, which makes the discussion a lot less interesting. obviously we can't be absolutely sure about things like this, we all know this, but arguing about that is more often than not pointless. |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 18 2014, 12:57 AM Post #132 |
|
General
|
and with that, this discussion is officially dead. So what about yrope? |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 18 2014, 06:30 AM Post #133 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
![]() |
| |
![]() |
|
| Incog | May 18 2014, 11:02 AM Post #134 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
you really like that game do'nt you? |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 18 2014, 11:38 AM Post #135 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
lol yup |
| |
![]() |
|
| MaxJ | May 22 2014, 10:07 AM Post #136 |
|
Wij van A414A adviseren A414A
|
I'm a member of a voting agency so I could already vote before 7:30h this morning. Just to balance things out I voted on a party against the EU. |
|
Jouw wereld, jouw A414A forum. | |
![]() |
|
| Vondongo | May 24 2014, 02:20 AM Post #137 |
![]()
Moo.
|
You try to make religion sound so ludicrous, but what do you think created the universe? Random explosion? What created the explosion? What created the thing that created the explosion? And what was it that created that? The most basic laws of science don't even support the popular theories. Spontaneous generation? Magically eternal space? The top physicists and philosophers get wonderfully hung up on complexities and numbers, but ultimately, it's bullshit. Anyone who tries to explain the universe's existence is, naturally, going to get stuck in this paradoxical chain where nothing makes any sense and laws are infinitely broken because nothing can exist without some kind of progenitor--unless, of course, we break those laws. There is something (or Someone) that is possible of circumventing it. If you think explosions and atomic surges and whatnot are why, then boom, you believe in a demiurge. Not a "god" conventionally, but since all "supernatural" powers are natural if they exist, there's nothing more or less magical about a demiurge as any deity you can contrive. I happen to believe that God is why things exist, and don't posit to know much more than that. Oh, by the way, what He actually looks like, I have no credible idea, and any human being who tells you that they know is full of it. Genesis says that He made humans in His image, but how closely that "image" matches up is questionable, to say the least. If I draw a stick figure and label it with my name, BAM. It's in my image. Does it look anything like me? No, and it's not even a three-dimensional entity. We don't have omniscience and omnipotence so clearly something has been left out. Many things have been left out. His visage is probably so complex that we can't even begin to imagine it. Don't mind me. I'm like...the only religious person on this board? You guys are smart, but you're also a bunch of concrete thinkers. Engineers and chemists and mathematicians. You need some more abstract thinkers hanging around. |
![]() |
|
| Incog | May 24 2014, 08:05 AM Post #138 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
concrete can't think, wow you're so wrong, wow![]() nah i get where you're coming from. these days when i get to a level of trying to comprehend the universe and its origins, I just say fuck it and go do something more down to earth |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 24 2014, 11:02 AM Post #139 |
![]()
Slow down
|
the origin of existence is a mystery indeed and i wonder if we can ever really know, much like the question "what is the smallest particle?" but why pretend "god did it" is an answer? how did god come to exist then? it's the exact same paradox. |
![]() |
|
| Vondongo | May 24 2014, 02:05 PM Post #140 |
![]()
Moo.
|
The difference between "scientific explosion" and "all-powerful deity" is that the latter is not bound by any known scientific laws. There's nothing we know about existence that a "supernatural" deity is limited by (unless it is explicitly stated otherwise). I think the latter of the two is infinitely more credible, because if we use the first one, we almost certainly have to concede that it needed a finite cause that can also be scientifically explained, in an endless chain. Does God need a cause? Not really. Because He's God, and not tied to our concept of existence or any subsets thereof. Do you think the universe-creating explosion WAS the ultimate cause of all things? That wouldn't be very scientific either, and basically ascribes god-status to a big kaboom. Which I mean, hey, that's not as ridiculous as I'm probably making it sound. That's more or less how Deism operates, and while I don't believe in Deism, I certainly see why people would conclude that such a thing is possible. |
![]() |
|
| Vondongo | May 24 2014, 02:13 PM Post #141 |
![]()
Moo.
|
Concrete mathematical intellect is very good at solving most real-world problems. Without that kind of thinking, medical science wouldn't really exist. Engineering, physics, you name it, wouldn't exist. Problem is, that it's only limited to our own comprehension of reality. If someone proposes that there is a higher plane of thinking, of existence, of knowledge, then all of our laws and numbers are pretty much nullified outside of the practical sphere in which we live, where we can really draw things up and conclusively prove (in our own mode of knowledge) what's going on. I like to think about universal origins, but I also don't want to claim anything. I don't want to say anything that would be blasphemous, because that wouldn't be good. :P |
![]() |
|
| Incog | May 24 2014, 04:01 PM Post #142 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
You overestimate my intelligence. I meant concrete, as in this shit right here: [img]static.ddmcdn.com/gif/concrete-countertop-5.jpg[/img] isn't a sentient being and thus can't "think". It's just rocks mixed up together with water also mixed in. How can that shit think? |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 24 2014, 05:14 PM Post #143 |
![]()
Slow down
|
do you see god as a conscious being, or as an "event" that caused existence? define god. anyway you say god isn't bound by rules but what if i said the universe isn't. isn't it an infinitely more reasonable assumption that the universe is much more complicated than it would seem based on our current understanding of it, and that our current laws of physics are in some way wrong? these laws though are the most reliable thing we have in our quest for knowledge and for predicting events (which we all do constantly). these rules are useful, but ultimately some of them must be wrong in some way. that doesn't mean that "god did it" suddenly becomes a reasonable explanation. "we don't know (yet)" is the only answer. |
![]() |
|
| Vondongo | May 24 2014, 10:54 PM Post #144 |
![]()
Moo.
|
I see God as being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the same God by which the Trinity exists. However, by the most basic definition, I'd say any supernatural being or entity that can manipulate time, space and existence is a "god" of some kind (though there are exceptions, since angels have more powers than humans but aren't considered deities, at least not by any mainstream Christian). Roman paganism, for instance, drew upon Italian animism and had an infinite number of gods; one for every thing imaginable. The god of doors, the god of doorknobs, the god of touching doorknobs, the god of turning doorknobs, the god of going up to touch a doorknob, etc. I don't believe in Roman paganism, but I have to at least credit the Romans for trying to have some sort of explanation for what's going on. So okay, let's say the universe isn't bound by rules. So whether or not our current laws of science are right or wrong, so what? It can break the core rules that fundamentally govern existence "at will" and do just about whatever and we would have no ability to understand it. No law we conceive would ever be able to contain it, no matter how much evidence to the contrary we could obtain. And I don't think that's crazy at all. That's actually what I believe, although I would replace "the universe" with "God." We have a universe, and we have rules. But we also have a certain level of consciousness and efficacy that is limited. We can't break the rules, but something more powerful can do so. In my personal interpretation, I would say that God *can* break our rules, because His power has no boundaries. But if "the universe" is the infinite rulebreaker and the thing from which all originates, then that'd be a god. It may not be called a god, but it operates in the same pretense as a deity, with the same basic function. Maybe not with consciousness, but that would make it a demiurge, which is also a sort of god. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 25 2014, 03:40 PM Post #145 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
There are two things about the origin of the universe which might be interesting to consider: Firstly, most physicists think that it's meaningless to talk about a time 'before' the beginning of the universe, since our best models indicate that the big bang itself was the origin of space and time. According to this view, we can't learn anything useful about the origin of the universe from trying to imagine what happened before the big bang, because it wasn't until the big bang had actually taken place that events started to arrange themselves sequentially in time. Secondly, unless our universe caused its own existence, then whatever caused the universe happened outside it. Since we have no idea of what the physical laws of this 'outside' environment are like, our current scientific theories can't be used to develop a clear understanding of why the big bang took place. In order to do so, we would have to develop a new theory which encompasses the totally unknown and unfamiliar physical laws of this 'external' universe, which probably isn't possible. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 26 2014, 01:21 AM Post #146 |
|
General
|
If you want my honest opinion, here is my problem with the idea of a divine entity. You would be correct that there are several things about the creation of our universe that are currently unknown. That being said, the idea of a deity not only falls under the same issues as with science but it also creates additional unknowns. For example, can your god create something so heavy that he cannot lift? You see, this thought alone logically invalidates the thought of a deity. If he cannot create such an object, he is by definition not omnipotent due to his lack of ability to make himself non omnipotent. If he can create something he cannot lift, he makes himself non omnipotent, which a truly omnipotent being cannot do. So you see, it is logically impossible to have a truly omnipotent being. Do you believe in free will (and despite my above paragraph still believe in an omnipotent being)? If so then you are completely wrong about one. You can have an omnipotent being, or free will. You cannot have both by definition. An omnipotent being is all powerful, able to see everything past, present, and future. Being able to see the future means that your life is pre-determined. If you truly have free will, then your chosen deity, by definition, is not omnipotent. If he is truly omnipotent however, my path was pre-determined. That means that he created me to be an atheist. If this is true, he created with the purpose of going to hell. I had no choice in the mater. I am going to hell, because I was created to not believe in god, which is the reason that I am going to hell. I am sorry I can’t believe in a god who created me to endure eternal suffering with not choice out of it, kind of sick if you ask me. What makes the idea of your god so much more believable than another? You obviously already know about the roman gods by you previous post but that is just one of many. Your bible says that man was created and god was known from the beginning. This means that it is not possible for there to be other gods worshiped before him. We both know that this is not true. There were several religions before Christianity, or the god of Abraham. What about Allah, another currently accepted belief of a deity? What makes god more true than Allah? Many things from what and the way Christians and Jews worship were stolen from other religions. When you say Amen after a prayer was actually stolen from the Egyptians. At the end of a prayer, Egyptians said Amen, but not as a random close out word. They were actually addressing the lead deity Amen Ra directly. This means that every time you say Amen after a prayer, you are praying to a “false” god… What about the idea of the flood? There are at least 10 other religions that speak of a great flood. All ideas are the same. A guy built an Ark due to divine communication, the flood came for 40 something (days, weeks, etc.) They sent out a bird of some type, which always brings back a branch of some type. They also always land on a mountain. Same story, different names, all false. What is your opinion on new world philosophy? I.E. those who believe the earth/universe is only 6000 years old? Before I go into rebuttal of this, I figure I would get your opinion of it. Do I know how the universe began? No, I am not going to bullshit you. I have no idea. I don’t have a problem however saying I see potential possibilities with a few explanations Big bang for one. It isn’t really a “big bang” as much as a “big inflation”. This does not violate the laws of physics as matter or energy is not created or destroyed. There is a point, pure energy. It existed, always did. It inflated due to an unknown reason. Once it got roomy enough, energy was CONVERTED (not created) into mater. Mater-energy-mater conversion is possible in physics, just not the creation of them. There is some good stuff out there on string theory, or multiverse, etc. I don’t put my faith solely on one more than the other. The thing I like about the idea of the universe creating itself in some way is that it is an event. An event is more likely than a being. People against evolution always throw out that a human being created would be the equivalent of a tornado going through a junk yard and creating a Lamborghini. What they leave out is that the idea (by this logic) of an all-powerful god simply existing is the same as that same Lamborghini simply existing with no event to create it. At least with the tornado idea, there was an event that created it. This pared with the fact that their analogy is simply not true. Evolution follows rules and progress that the tornado analogy cant. Everything is cause and effect in evolution based off the outcome of what works and what doesn’t. The tornado analogy is cause and effect based off of wind patterns, flow, and connection of specific parts. Two completely different processes. Also, please know (I am sure you do) that this post is not a personal attack on you. I actually love debating like this. I have no ill feelings toward you, or your beliefs. I have my opinions, you have yours, neither of us is likely to budge, but it is fun to argue about. For perspective, my wife is a Christian. She knows I am atheist but we leave it at that. She gets sad and depressed thinking I won’t join her in the eternal afterlife she so dearly believes. It is easier for me to just leave it alone as it upsets here, where her belief does not upset me. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 26 2014, 12:08 PM Post #147 |
![]()
Slow down
|
don't you see how scientifically lazy it is to just say "something unbound by rules must be behind this because our rules don't apply here"? and how it's much more reasonable to just question the rules themselves instead of imagining a being unbound by them? the thing that fascinates me most about your argument is that it answers nothing and you seem to think it does. we are struggling with a question, being "how did matter appear out of nothing?". your "answer" doesn't even answer this, it just states that there is something else that did it, but not how. we still have the same question, and added another one. as soon as we understand what caused the big bang and how then we can move on to asking what caused THAT, but what you're doing is answering nothing and creating more questions. - how did god create matter out of nothing? - how did god appear out of nothing? however god made matter out of nothing, that same thing could've simply happened to the universe as we know it without there being an inexplicable extra step in the whole story. again, a much more reasonable assumption! however you answer the question "what caused X?", you're just going to end up with a new question: "what caused (what caused X)?" and so on. this is why it's likely that we will never understand how existence came to be and why the only possible answer is, and probably will always be, "we don't know". what you're doing is pulling a hypothesis without any evidence to support it out of thin air which doesn't really answer the question, and just creates a new one. anyway, i don't consider it at all impossible that we are in some kind of virtual reality made by another, more technologically advanced civilisation, considering how close (relatively, considering the time scale of the universe) we are to building software like this ourselves. the universe's entire history could be the result of an insanely powerful computer program and even with the universe's massive time scale it's possible that only a second of "real" time passed since the program was booted. if one could call this civilisation our god, then i agree that it is possible it exists although this idea seems somewhat incompatible with your idea of god. |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 27 2014, 12:05 AM Post #148 |
|
General
|
GS this is a valid (plausible I might add) belief. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KH95YCSP_c And if you want to get extremely literal, there are probably multiple levels of it. This doesn't solve our argument as it started somewhere, but the people at the top of the pyramid of simulations got so advanced that they created supercomputers so strong they could simulate an entire universe from birth to death... Billions and trillions of years in mere years, or months, days, hours, minutes, seconds, etc. These simulations are so powerful that artificial intelligence could pop up in this simulation and grow in intelligence until it too created the same level of computer, etc. It goes on and on and on. http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm And to make things even better, statistically speaking, we are almost certainly a computer simulation. Say the top universe (non simulated one) created a game and mass produced it. Lets say only 100 people bought it and each person had an average of 10 civilizations that developed in the program to a point where its inhabitants could do the same. that is 1000 simulations already. then of those simulations that did the same, each had an average of 100 people who bought it and of those that bought it, they each once again averaged 10 civilizations get mature enough to do the same. well we are only 3 levels in and we are already at 1 million simulations. go 10 levels in and we are at 1x10^27 simulations..... statistically speaking, if this is happening, odds are severely against us that we are at the top and make the first simulation. If you want to get down to it, if our society ever succeeds in doing this, we can guarantee it has happened before, and we are a simulation creating a simulation. more cool info http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-matrix Isn't it crazy how many things in our reality point to being compatible with being a simulation? Our world is governed by math, our smallest building blocs (ie atoms, electrons/neutrons/protons, quarks, etc (and we are constantly searching for smaller and smaller)) are similar to pixels, and the very thing that makes living things what they are, DNA, acts very much like binary code. Not sure if I actually believe it or not, but I think it is definatley more probable than the idea of a true "god" Edited by ryker, May 27 2014, 12:07 AM.
|
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 27 2014, 07:14 AM Post #149 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
wat |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 27 2014, 08:41 AM Post #150 |
![]()
Slow down
|
he actually brings up a very good point though. just consider that our universe is a program that has only ran for 1 "real" second. we know that with the infinite possibilities of software this is definitely possible (do you agree that it is?). in less than 2 seconds it (we) will have developed its own program to simulate yet another virtual universe and then that program will do the same etc etc. within a 100 seconds you have thousands of virtual universes each with complex civilisations like our own, and it keeps growing exponentially. the odds that we are the real deal are actually tiny. i mean if i wanted to make a new universe in a program i would write all the particles and how they interact, and then i would just cram a bunch of stuff together in 1 tiny spot and see how it turns out (big bang). then if something goes wrong i rewrite it and try again. in this scenario our universe would be either the result of a successful test of this software, or just another instance of this software which has already been tested and rewritten countless times, probably by AI. it actually sounds pretty plausible to me. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:41 PM Jul 13
|













4:41 PM Jul 13