The path of the Middle (from a deist and taoist view)

[Unknownfromheaven]

Hi,

First of all, i really want to apologize since i was so inactive, i moved to a different location and i did not have internet for some time. I think its time for me to give back since i promised that i would share my views.

In this topic i want to solve or at least hope to solve some issues among theists, christians and atheists. The biggest issue within these is the evidence for the existence of ”God”, i examined many, many arguments from christians and theists, seen quite a lot of debates and they do not make sense, at least most of them who try to imply subjective experience as evidence, this was a reason that made me agree more with the atheists while... i am a deist and i am making the claim that i know that a ”god” does exists.

I want to make this really clear, i am not a theist, i am a deist, i trust in science, evidence, nature and reason. I reject religions, dogmas and any type of revelead religion. I really believe that religion is a made man box that contains only a piece of a puzzle and it is quite little. I think that small parts of some cultures have some worth such as art, music, etc but still are outclassed by the dogmatic views, death, prejudice, racism, and so on.

The evidence i will provide here is not rubbish, hence it does not include personal experience (subjective exceptional claims or statements) and it is verifiable.

You may be familiar with the works of dr. Sylvester James Gates on supersymmetry. Well he stated that he has discovered deeply in the equations that are used to describe the universe --computer codes, similar of that of the browsers that we use to surf the internet, bits of 1 and 0. He talked about this at the ”theory of everything” hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson. He also put emphasis that is a very special kind of computer code, not something that just resembles those codes. - The simulation hypothesis is coming up with evidence on the digital big bang, the pixelated universe, quantum bits as a fundamental property of nature and non-locality. Also the fact that idealist or digital argument can easy explain, yet the materialist view has difficulties with - here is a full documentation with much scientific worth on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M

Another interesting fact is that the expansion of the universe generated 13,8 billions of years ago was a precise process, if it would have been slower or faster we would not have been in existence today. The known constants are backing up this argument , also dr. Brian greene said that if there would have been even the smallest difference in these, we would have not came into being.

If we compare the expansion of the universe with a string of dominoes, for the string you must stop at the first impulse which inputs the effect on the string to expand. That impulse, we deists call ”God” and it is composed of energy.

A factual evidence, in nature is the sequence of Fibonacci. This sequence is a proof at least that our universe is not random..since it can be observed not even here on our small blue dot planet. but also in the form of galaxies...the hidden simmetry of 1,618 also known as the” Golden ratio” or ”the golden mean” is the same as relevant in the context.

There are many examples for this pattern.

If you had the patience to take insight on what i have pointed until now, great...but you have to understand i am not talking about a specific god (as in religions) i am not talking about a pointy white beard man in the clouds or the holy ghost.
No.

What i imply is a form of extraterrestrial intelligence as an explanation for our world or/and universe. And if its the case for it..the extraterrestrial nature or essence is obvious if not logical.

Even Richard Dawkins inclined to this deistic view - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pckg3Kud8_A

Think about it. Is it absurd ? Of course not, after all what are we but an emmergent small species in this small blue dot in the vast universe we call Earth. but we were able to create simulations as well..3D, 4D printers and much, much more, our tech was science fiction in the past, and still we were able to evolve based on those lectures. Of course the simulation hypothesis was something that would have been ridiculed in the past, just like the other things that seem not real.

Astronomy, exoplanetology gave us good examples that Terra is not unique..we know of Kepler 22 b, Kepler 186 f, the recent 425 b, Gliese 581 d system...and so on..these are small examples within a reach where kepler had found at least 10.000 exoplanets which can attain life forms.


2. The existence of Jesus issue.. most christians and even atheists have no idea that there are other sources for the Jesus figure instead of the bible alone.

When i hear persons whom say Jesus is fictional i find this absurd since there were many masters including Apolonius of Tiana, Simon the mage, Simon bar Kokhba (which defetead a small roman army, and requested the jews to deny Jesus but accept him as a messiah) after all masters are some quite known by humanity, such as Gandhi, Buddha, Zang San Feng, Osho, etc..there were plenty masters and i have respect for teachers, but thats it.. Jesus Christ was a man who defy the priests of old and was executed by the roman empire.

The evidence of this figure. There are more over 42 authors who mention Christ.
New Testament traditional writers - Matthew, Mark, John, Luke and Paul
20 christians writers aside New Testament (Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp,
Didache, Barnabas, Hermas Pastor, Papias fragments , Justinian the martyr,
Artistides, Athenagoras, Theophilus from Antioch Quadratus, Artisto from Pella, Metito of Sardis, Diognetus,
Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistula Apostolorum.
Talmud ”(it has been taught: on the eye of the passover they hanged Yeshu, but, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of passover.”

Gnostic writing (outside the bible)
Gospel of Thomas, John apocryphal,
Treatise on resurrection, The Book of Enoh, Gospel of Judas, etc

9 non-christian sources - (Josephus, Tacitus (guvernor of Asia in A.D. 112), Pliny the younger, Phlegon, Lucian (greek writer), Celsus
Mara Bar-Serapion, Seutonius, Thallus.
Only 10 authors mention Tiberius Cesar, so the refference falls on 42:10 and nobody questions the existence of Tiberius.

Tacitus - ”To supress therefore the common rumour, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishments upon those people who were...commonly known as christians.
They had their denomination from Christus, who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This permicious superstion, though checked for a while, broke out again, and spread not only over Judea, the source of this ”evil”, but reached the city (Rome) also.”
Lucian.
”You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion
which are so common among them, and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers.
from the moment that they were converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws
All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
Suetonius - roman historian A.D. 69 - 122.
”He banished the jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus being their leader.”
”...punishment by Nero was inflicted on the christians, a class of men given to a new mischievous superstition.”
Pliny the younger A.D.101- 110 roman governoer.
”..made them curse Christ, which a genuine christian cannot be induced to do.
They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when thay sang
in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn death.”
”Not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.”
Thallus carturar secular A.D. 52
”in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably
as it seems to me unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon,
and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.”
Phlegon - pagan historical writer A.D. 138
”During the time of tiberius ceasar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the fool moon.” the same refference can be found on Origen and Philipon

Mara Bar-serapion - syrian stoic philosopher A.D. 70
”What advantage did the athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime.
What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? in a moment their land was covered with sand.
What advantage did the jews gain from executing their wise king? it was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men:
The athenians died of hunger, the samians were overwhelmed by the sea, the jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion.
But socrates did not die for good, he lived on in the statue of Hera, nor did the wise king die for good, he lived on in the teaching which he had given.

Even if the gnostic writings have been considered heresy, these are mentioning the figure of Yeshu.

Valentinus and Thomas a.d. 140-200 were considered pantheistic yet revealed him. This figure is also recognised in islam writings, zoroastrianism and some buddhist writings (such as those who considere that Jesus was in Tibet. At the bottom point..i still believe that any religion label has no place in Deism as knowledge...having respect for something does not require religion.

Since Josephus was after all considered a forgery, lets not forget evolutionists did this as well in many cases (and when i am saying this i do not reject evolution) what i will note here and it can be verified...is that evolution had many forgeries dismissed by evolutionsts. Manipulations came from both sides and a serious war began.

Neanderthal - was advanced as evidence in 1856 and was dismissed in 1960 , Piltdown was advanced as evidence in 1912 and rejected in 1953 Zinjantrophus was promoted as evidence in 1959 and refuted in 1960. Ramapithecus was presented as evidence in 1964 and denied in 1979.

In extent i only have interest for what is true, and christians must think better...since when a resurrection implies sacrifice?..how can something can be considered to be sacrifice if its not lost, or dead for a cause.

The experiment module (from) simulation hypothesis can sustain that this ”god” does not intervine because it collects data, we may be in a giant experiment...scientists collect data from animals in their natural habitat, some care and do love those creatures, they put names...they know them since they are born...and yet if something ”bad” happenes according to the laws of nature...they do not intervine, even if they do weep, they record and collect the data.

At the bottom line our world and universe is made of information and this information we get from our observation and discovery. Science means these, and both the scientific and common understanding, even if are different leaves from observation.

And one last thing. please consider that Science has two sides...do not lie. Here are some examples:

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather,agency -must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a supreme being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

- George S. Greenstein*
(F. Heeren, Show me God, p. 233)

*George S. Greenstein is a professor of Astrophysics in the university of Amherst in the Massachussets in the USA.

"The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: Blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

- Edward R. Harrison*
(Masks of the universe, PP. 252, 263.)

*Ed R. Harrison (1919-2007) is a famous english cosmologist, fellow member of NASA and the well-known "Royal Astronomical Society".

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

- Robert Jastrow*
(God and the astronomers, p. 116)

*Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) is a famous american astronomer and physicist who worked for NASA for more than 20 years.

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

―Max Planck
(1858 – 1947) Max Planck is the originator of modern quantum theories and one of the most important German physicists of all time.

I wish you all well, good health and i do hope to learn something new here, from you, atheist or theist otherwise, exchanging information is the root of our own development.

[brimstoneSalad]

Thanks for the thought out post. This will take me a little bit to reply to (please don't feel ignored).

It'd be cool if anybody else wants to, as well, of course.

[brimstoneSalad]

You may be familiar with the works of dr. Sylvester James Gates on supersymmetry.

String "theory" isn't a theory, it's just a hypothetical mathematical framework, and supersymmetry doesn't have an iota of evidence to it so far, so, no, I don't typically follow borderline quacks in those domains.
He may be a legit scientist, but his credentials leave much to be desired so far as I've seen, so any kind of appeal to scientific authority you may be making here isn't going to go far.

Well he stated that he has discovered deeply in the equations that are used to describe the universe --computer codes, similar of that of the browsers that we use to surf the internet, bits of 1 and 0. He talked about this at the ”theory of everything” hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

This almost makes me think less of Tyson, but I doubt he acted as much of a gatekeeper in whatever that was.

The way you explained it, it's complete pseudoscience. You may have misunderstood him, or he may have explained it poorly, but if not, then he's a complete quack.

It's much like people who call DNA a language.

Here's a pretty decent article on the semantic misunderstanding:
nautil.us/blog/is-dna-the-language-of-the-book-of-life

And see the pseudoscientific bullshit this semantic issue yields:
creation.com/dna-remarkable-language

Misunderstanding the "information" in the universe as comparable to computer code like web browsers use is no less severe a blunder.

quantum bits as a fundamental property of nature and non-locality.

I don't think you know what you're saying.

What do you think nonlocality means?
What has led you to believe it is real?

FYI, relativity forbids it, and nothing in science has ever undermined that. Non-locality is something that doesn't exist, information can not be transferred faster than light speed, and if your "theory" requires or predicts it, it is DOA. It's logically impossible.

here is a full documentation with much scientific worth on the subject youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M

Sorry, that seems to be the opposite: a bad youtube video with zero scientific worth. It's somebody mashing together a bunch of scientific sounding words and concepts without understanding them.

Another interesting fact is that the expansion of the universe generated 13,8 billions of years ago was a precise process, if it would have been slower or faster we would not have been in existence today. The known constants are backing up this argument , also dr. Brian greene said that if there would have been even the smallest difference in these, we would have not came into being.

This is called the argument from fine tuning. This as been debunked so many times, I encourage you to search for that.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... g_argument
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... s-website/

Here's my favorite, though:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

The fine tuning argument is incredibly bad, and made from a position of profoundly misunderstanding science. If you have questions about it, I can try to explain why in more detail.

If we compare the expansion of the universe with a string of dominoes, for the string you must stop at the first impulse which inputs the effect on the string to expand. That impulse, we deists call ”God” and it is composed of energy.

No, because these things are bound by time, and causality (and energy) do not exist outside of time. There is nothing there.
If you define "god" as non-existence, then fine, but that's not a very practical or reasonable definition (definitely not one most people would accept).

The universe was not set into motion by anything, since that's presupposing a causal event. Rather, the universe is an inherent and timeless bubble of time -- more like a book on a shelf, wherein the story includes time, but the book is timeless -- which is one of a potentially infinite number of necessary universes encompassing all possibility.

A factual evidence, in nature is the sequence of Fibonacci.

No, no it isn't. It's just a pattern of growth; and you can find any number of similar patterns if you look for them. It's just how math works.

freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2011/10/19/proof-of-god-by-arbitrary-mathematical-pattern/

This sequence is a proof at least that our universe is not random..since it can be observed not even here on our small blue dot planet. but also in the form of galaxies...the hidden simmetry of 1,618 also known as the” Golden ratio” or ”the golden mean” is the same as relevant in the context.

1. Not all galaxies have spiral arms, and they don't start out that way:
http://www.space.com/24642-spiral-galax ... ained.html
2. Of those that do, they aren't perfect Fibonacci. That's absurd. They're just spirals, and if you stretch the truth you can convince gullible people of that because it's "close enough".
3. There are reasons galaxies so often form roughly spiral arms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_ga ... _structure
And it has to do with gravity
F = G*m1*m2/r^2
The force of gravity decreases with distance as 1/r^2 (r is distance)

Basically, the center has to spin faster than the edges. Of course it forms a spiral over time. If they didn't, then I'd suspect a deity was involved.

That should answer your question, as to WHY galaxies have a spiral shape: or, a question you didn't ask, but should have instead of assuming it was evidence for some kind of mysterious deity who just likes spirals or something for no reason.

Instead of speaking first by making the claim that nobody understands it or it's evidence of your beliefs, listen first and ask why and if anybody has an explanation that doesn't agree with your assumptions.

What i imply is a form of extraterrestrial intelligence as an explanation for our world or/and universe. And if its the case for it..the extraterrestrial nature or essence is obvious if not logical.

No, there is no evidence for this. And beyond that, there is logical evidence against it if you understand very basic physics and astronomy.


As to the Jesus stuff; you don't seem to realize that all of these sources are basically parroting each other, and date well after the supposed fact.

There is no consistent credible contemporary extrabiblical evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus. It doesn't really matter, but the idea that people talking about Christians means Jesus existed misses the point.

There may or may not have been a teacher of that name who rebelled against the church. I don't know what your intention is, but you're misunderstanding how history works, and attributing credibility to sources that don't mean anything.

And one last thing. please consider that Science has two sides...do not lie. Here are some examples:

Those are not examples of anything. They are quotes and anecdotes. None of that has any philosophical or scientific value. People who have happened to be scientists have believed any number of silly things in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Being a scientist doesn't make somebody automatically rational, or mean their arguments on non-scientific topics are good or credible.

[Unknownfromheaven]

Thank you for your time and insight in the subject.

”String "theory" isn't a theory, it's just a hypothetical mathematical framework, and supersymmetry doesn't have an iota of evidence to it so far,

I am sorry, but strings theory is a theory, however wrong it would be by name, M theory is well known and according to many scientists it have some very plausible points...from the same source Krauss assumed the universe came from nothing..yet James Gates has a deeper insight...many would agree that math is how we take into problems and make sense to us, we do not have something else and so far this was used.

I think you should consider to watch that entire discussion to see that is not just some crap here are some links regarding this topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sMBCTpsvH0
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkiy24LqBQ



”The way you explained it, it's complete pseudoscience. You may have misunderstood him, or he may have explained it poorly, but if not, then he's a complete quack.”

I did not misunderstood nothing..i actually watched the whole documentaries, debates and certain articles on the topics...James gates released a book entitled ”Adinkras and the nature of reality ” to explain those pictures of equations.

”It's much like people who call DNA a language.”

Indeed there are many who interpret the letters from DNA as language. if i was to state my view about it, i would say that in its nature is just information, just like the behaviour of the universe.



”Misunderstanding the "information" in the universe as comparable to computer code like web browsers use is no less severe a blunder”.
I don`t think thats an argument



”I don't think you know what you're saying.”

What do you think nonlocality means?
What has led you to believe it is real?

its about the entaglement of two particles at distances, even great ones..what was presented by Heisenberg, Schrodinger and was defended by Bohr, but ridiculed by Einstein was proved to be real.

”FYI, relativity forbids it, and nothing in science has ever undermined that. Non-locality is something that doesn't exist, information can not be transferred faster than light speed, and if your "theory" requires or predicts it, it is DOA. It's logically impossible.”

Even Einsten took insight in the problem since he was the one who unleashed this with, he spent nearly 30 years trying to solve and was unable to do so....in his elderly he wrote that ”the reality is merely an illusion, a very persistent one.”

Unfortunetly you must research this better since you are mistaken.. non-locality is real http://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-spo ... experiment

There are many articles from science sources inserted in the documentary i provided you..but you said its crap and its really not the case...i suggest you treat with critical and cold thinking to watch the sources implied in the program. I know its real because there were many experiments done with it, i know from science...not religion..its not a belief, is something i know based on what i learned from modern science.



”Sorry, that seems to be the opposite: a bad youtube video with zero scientific worth. It's somebody mashing together a bunch of scientific sounding words and concepts without understanding them. ”

I think you did not watched it, otherwise you would not state this. Check the sources contained in it, Many experiments implied are mentioned in Nature, Phys, LiveScience, and many other sources.


”The fine tuning argument is incredibly bad, and made from a position of profoundly misunderstanding science. If you have questions about it, I can try to explain why in more detail.”

Please do so, i am willing to listen, however i will provide in exchange a list with the known constants...and there are not few.
There is no such thing faster than the speed of light, neutrinos were proved to be faulty in 2012, since then we have not heard about something faster.

”No, because these things are bound by time, and causality (and energy) do not exist outside of time. There is nothing there.
If you define "god" as non-existence, then fine, but that's not a very practical or reasonable definition (definitely not one most people would accept).”

Energy has no beginning and no end, we know that...if someone is saying ”x or y” on something that is entirely different it does not discounts the source. Just like the cases people say ”god” to something...remember that some cultures could consider a simple man a god, if its superior with something, either strenght or technology

Humans tend to personalize everything...from objects to animals, toys, robots, even aliens and we can see these examples in the media.

”The universe was not set into motion by anything, since that's presupposing a causal event. Rather, the universe is an inherent and timeless bubble of time -- more like a book on a shelf, wherein the story includes time, but the book is timeless -- which is one of a potentially infinite number of necessary universes encompassing all possibility.”

We may not know that.

The holographic principle is still an interpretation, but it came out from the copenhaga interpretation or the many worlds theory...i really do not have a problem with that, i am quite curious on what science can provide us regarding this subject in the near future.



”No, no it isn't. It's just a pattern of growth; and you can find any number of similar patterns if you look for them. It's just how math works.

freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2011/10/19/proof-of-god-by-arbitrary-mathematical-pattern/

1. Not all galaxies have spiral arms, and they don't start out that way:
http://www.space.com/24642-spiral-galax ... ained.html
2. Of those that do, they aren't perfect Fibonacci. That's absurd. They're just spirals, and if you stretch the truth you can convince gullible people of that because it's "close enough".
3. There are reasons galaxies so often form roughly spiral arms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_ga ... _structure
And it has to do with gravity
F = G*m1*m2/r^2
The force of gravity decreases with distance as 1/r^2 (r is distance)

Basically, the center has to spin faster than the edges. Of course it forms a spiral over time. If they didn't, then I'd suspect a deity was involved.

That should answer your question, as to WHY galaxies have a spiral shape: or, a question you didn't ask, but should have instead of assuming it was evidence for some kind of mysterious deity who just likes spirals or something for no reason.

Instead of speaking first by making the claim that nobody understands it or it's evidence of your beliefs, listen first and ask why and if anybody has an explanation that doesn't agree with your assumptions.”

Interesting, however there is an indication that its a system, and these examples at least, even if it does not applies to all, still indicate non-randomness. When we look at these many examples of patterns, its beyond coincidental.
I did not invoke the fact that a creator would like spirals ) i am just aware that maybe this is an indication of a system.

Thank you for your honest advices, its suits my purpose.

If it were to be aware sims in a game, we would get hit by the mathematical language that was input by the programmer to describe everything.
A rock, a tree, etc.




No, there is no evidence for this. And beyond that, there is logical evidence against it if you understand very basic physics and astronomy.”

I do not agree...if we were to talk about a rock from Mars, for us that rock would beextraterrestrial by nature. i really do not understand this point..after all we know that earth is not unique (meaning) that can sustain life. I take the drake equation and do not agree with the fermi paradox since we have not explored the whole universe


”As to the Jesus stuff; you don't seem to realize that all of these sources are basically parroting each other, and date well after the supposed fact.”

There is no consistent credible contemporary extrabiblical evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus. It doesn't really matter, but the idea that people talking about Christians means Jesus existed misses the point.

There may or may not have been a teacher of that name who rebelled against the church. I don't know what your intention is, but you're misunderstanding how history works, and attributing credibility to sources that don't mean anything.”

Except Josephus, its not crap, i did not implied only about thee people who talked about it, the gnostic writings, or at least some are older than the bible itself. The biggest evidence for that are the coins with the face of Simon bar kokhba, which defetead a small roman army and asked the jews to worship him, not Jesus. What is so absurd about a spiritual learder ? Nothing...what its absurd attached to it is the religion
These have been studied well,


”Those are not examples of anything. They are quotes and anecdotes. None of that has any philosophical or scientific value. People who have happened to be scientists have believed any number of silly things in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Being a scientist doesn't make somebody automatically rational, or mean their arguments on non-scientific topics are good or credible.[/quote]

I will have to agree with this, its true. The point was that science does not mean only Hawking ) there are many scientists out there. And some, i repeat...some seem not to notice that...all i heard is Dawkins, Hawking, or Krauss not to dismiss them of course. i respect these scientists.

I find your response very constructive and i look forward to discuss. Thank you again!
I wish you well! and excuse me for my english, its not my native language.

[brimstoneSalad]

I am sorry, but strings theory is a theory,

"theory" means something else. "string theory" is a hypothetical model, not a theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3][4] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature[citation needed] and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

This is an issue of definition.

Kind of how a "silverfish" isn't actually a fish, but a kind of insect.
"fish" is in the name, but that's not what it is.

Just like string "theory". It's not actually a theory; it hasn't made confirmed testable predictions. It's not even really a hypothesis, due to lack of predictions at all.

It's a model used to explain things, which may some day be useful, but for now is still a work in progress and may never be complete enough to make solid predictions.

many would agree that math is how we take into problems and make sense to us, we do not have something else and so far this was used.

Math is great, but what I'm saying is that we can't make the mistake of misunderstanding what string theory is, and comparing it to true theories like germ theory, or evolutionary theory, which make testable predictions and have been confirmed.

Indeed there are many who interpret the letters from DNA as language. if i was to state my view about it, i would say that in its nature is just information, just like the behaviour of the universe.

Do you understand the difference between pure information in the sense of structure, and language? Language is symbolic -- including the script of web pages -- and must be interpreted in a way that implies design or intelligence.

Anyway, it's wrong to call the quantum fluctuations in the universe anything like a language; it's not being conveyed from anywhere, it's not encoded, and it's not interpreted by anything. They just interact in emergent systems.

It's only information in the sense that it exists and holds a particular state, but the state itself is not meaningful in the way that binary is.

its about the entaglement of two particles at distances, even great ones..what was presented by Heisenberg, Schrodinger and was defended by Bohr, but ridiculed by Einstein was proved to be real.

Einstein was wrong on denying the randomness of "collapse", but he was right that no spooky action occurs at a distance.
Entanglement does not involve any conveyance of information faster than light (or at all).

It's most like breaking a pencil in half, and putting one half in one bag, and another half in another bag, then taking them far apart.
When you open one bag and find the eraser, you know the other bag contains the lead end.

Unfortunetly you must research this better since you are mistaken.. non-locality is real http://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-spo ... experiment

The author of that article you linked to is also ignorant of physics.

I do not deny entanglement. I'll try to explain how this works, but see my pencil example above for the most layman friendly explanation.

So that means when you measure a particle, you're not only determining its nature in that moment, you're also defining the nature of its entangled partner.

Yes and NO. You are determining the nature of both. You do not define either one, because you can not control the outcome of the "collapse".

And that definition happens instantly, no matter how far apart the particles are.

No, the determination happens. Look at my pencil example. Nothing magical is happening here. If one is the eraser, the other is the lead. You didn't cause it to become the lead because you couldn't choose for the other to be the eraser after the fact.

It's for this reason that Einstein, and many other physicists, have doubted the existence of quantum entanglement, because it essentially means that information is passing between the two entangled particles faster than the speed of light (like we said, freaking weird).

Yes and no.

They doubted it, because they thought it meant that. They were wrong. This sentence is what demonstrates the profound ignorance of the writer of the article.
It does not mean information is passing between the particles faster than light. This is not a new experiment, it's just an old experiment done slightly better.

There's a big problem when people who don't understand science write articles about science based on other articles about science from writers who barely understand science. The article that one is based on, the newscientist article, is a little better, you should read it instead:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... xperiment/

This is not new. I studied Bell's inequality around a decade ago, and it's much older than that still.

Everybody was a little wrong, and a little right -- Einstein and Bohr.
Einstein was right that there was no faster than light communication, Bohr was right that the collapse was not predetermined (no hidden variables, which is where the pencil analogy breaks down), but because it is random information is not conveyed, so it doesn't violate relativity.

This is very hard for most people to understand, particularly those who are set on viewing time in a classical or intuitive sense. You need to think a bit outside of the box to understand how time really works, and how quantum events are determined (and how they aren't).

I encourage you to enroll in a physics course at a local university that teaches these subjects if you are interested in them; they will do a better job of explaining it than I.

I think you did not watched it,

Correct. My time is valuable, and I have a very well tuned BS detector.
I'm sorry that I can not watch it, because it is too long. If you would like me to watch a very specific part of it, I can do that.
If you link me to a specific clip, I can debunk it.

otherwise you would not state this. Check the sources contained in it, Many experiments implied are mentioned in Nature, Phys, LiveScience, and many other sources.

I still would have said that. The problem is that they do not understand the science they are trying to explain, so they make a number of rookie mistakes. Quantum physics is very counter-intuitive, and it's very easy to misunderstand.

I know the experiments they will be citing, and also how they have misunderstood them. I have seen these things before.

Please do so, i am willing to listen, however i will provide in exchange a list with the known constants...and there are not few.

Constants represent a lack of a theory of everything; as science advances, we have fewer and fewer unexplained constants.

Anyway, the point is that IF it's possible for the universe to be different from what it is (which is not necessarily true), and IF it were, then there would probably be other very different kinds of beings inhabiting it, maybe made from jelly or "energy" or whatever. Different laws of the universe create different results.
That doesn't mean there's not life there. And then these jelly based beings would be wondering to themselves how the universe is so perfect for jelly people and if it was any different there would be nothing.

Even something as simple as Conway's game of life has complex emergent systems in it. A large enough and long enough simulation with random chaotic input would inevitably develop intelligence, since it's turing complete.

There is no such thing faster than the speed of light, neutrinos were proved to be faulty in 2012, since then we have not heard about something faster.

Information can not travel faster than the speed of light. Space time, however, can expand faster than the speed of light without violating relativity -- this is not a problem in physics.

Energy has no beginning and no end,

Energy constantly begins and ends, it just has to obey the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

if someone is saying ”x or y” on something that is entirely different it does not discounts the source. Just like the cases people say ”god” to something...remember that some cultures could consider a simple man a god, if its superior with something, either strenght or technology

Most people would not accept this definition, so it's not really appropriate in English conversation. We should use definitions of words that most people understand and accept, so we don't confuse people.
When you're talking about something in a limited field, then it becomes more technical and we look at what's acceptable in that field (like science, or theology).

When we're talking about god, that means having at least some grasp of what theologists are talking about when they refer to it. If we define god very differently, and dismiss them, that's insulting and counter productive to discussion on the issue.

Interesting, however there is an indication that its a system, and these examples at least, even if it does not applies to all, still indicate non-randomness.

Emergent properties form patterns from chaos. The initial states and ongoing contribution of quantum chaos is random, however.

When we look at these many examples of patterns, its beyond coincidental.

I think you miss the point. The laws of the universe cause these patterns from very simple properties. Gravity causes all of this by just pulling mass together based on the equation I shared earlier. It's really that simple, and it's beautiful in its simplicity.

[Unknownfromheaven]

Thank you for your patience and insight into this subject.

As far as it seems i know that strings theory can be tested and that some equations worked for the scientists such as dr. Brian Greene. Of course i am a science enthuziast and did not had the priviledge to take part in a course of something, however i get my info from those very sources i cited.

If you are telling me those do not understand science, that really dissapoints me and are making me feel quite unsure about everything..i trust that its a good thing to have a skeptical nature and to question everything, is also a buddhist teaching that say we should do it this way.
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150218 ... e-in-town/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... be-tested/

I have to apologize and to disagree however about the simulation hypothesis..even Sam Harris argued about it and there are many scientists who took interest...i promise you i will make time for this and for you (if you do not have patience to watch it) to give your certain aspects from it

Sam Harris on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKJ92b9Y04 18:23

As i said i promise i will do this, but not now..maybe tonight.

Science means discovery, Science is not atheism, nor theism or even deism. So you should left aside your bs detector and just find out.
I am spending many hours to actualy watch the whole thing...and I AM NOT ignoring atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Krauss, Shermer, etc...i am really seeking the truth and watch all content and after i take the conclusions...Of course i have my side, just as some have their sides being an atheist.

I do not have a problem with that, if someone would put me to choose between atheism and theism...i would choose atheism...but i did had options:) and chose and remained with deism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRqXiQm_INw here a view from friendly atheist, even if its very incomplete in a way...there are many parts in a deist, not only one angle.

Looking forward to discuss.

[brimstoneSalad]

As far as it seems i know that strings theory can be tested and that some equations worked for the scientists such as dr. Brian Greene.

Well, they haven't exactly worked for anything, it's just that the equations can be consistent for what we know so far. That's pretty different.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150218 ... e-in-town/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... be-tested/

From skimming, those are much better articles. They explain some of the trouble in testing string theory, or even finding things to test. This is new stuff, and not really confirmed yet, but it will be exciting if this turns out to be a falsifiable method of testing it.

I have to apologize and to disagree however about the simulation hypothesis..even Sam Harris argued about it and there are many scientists who took interest...i promise you i will make time for this and for you (if you do not have patience to watch it) to give your certain aspects from it

Sam Harris on the topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjKJ92b9Y04 18:23

Thanks. He talks about three key points:

1. Consciousness is the result of information processing
2. Humans of the future will run simulations of the past
3. Simulated universes will outnumber real universes

Do you agree with what he was presenting?
This is an interesting philosophical argument, I'd be glad to discuss it.

Science means discovery, Science is not atheism, nor theism or even deism. So you should left aside your bs detector and just find out.

I pretty much agree on the first point (except that atheism is just lack of belief- essentially it can be not knowing - as opposed to positive atheism or anti-theism), however, there are patterns of mistaken information, cherry picking, word usage and bad reasoning that are indicative of pseudoscience, and that's something you can get good at recognizing without spending too much time on it.

For example, are you familiar with the electric sun hypothesis?
electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

If you aren't, there are two ways to approach this: Either read vast amounts of the material, and waste possibly days of your time, or have a well tuned BS detector which will detect the hallmark signs of pseudoscience, saving you a lot of time to devote to more legitimate scientific learning.

There are a potentially unlimited number of BS claims and pseudosciences out there. It's impossible to keep up with them all, or give them all time. Although I'd like to be able to debunk everything, I have to use my time a bit more carefully, so I focus on more specific arguments and avoid things like that documentary that seem to be in bad intellectual faith.

That said, there are more honest and well informed advocates of some similar theories (like the simulation), and I don't have a problem with tacking better framed arguments.

I suggest you focus your time on the mainstream science first, to learn the most credible basics, and then once you learn that to branch out into the more difficult aspects -- although the fringe may be the most exciting, it's also the easiest to be misled on and lose valuable time.

[Unknownfromheaven]

This is new stuff, and not really confirmed yet, but it will be exciting if this turns out to be a falsifiable method of testing it.

19:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J4QPz52Sfo an excerpt argued by Seth Loyd on the simulation hypothesis.
Sylvester James Gates on the topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA (featured among Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene), etc.

I did not have time to collect all the data from the documentary you refused to watch...that doc is compiled with the same sources and are not bs....if it were a link to you about the flat earth theory..than of course i would have agreed with you..is not something absurd, irrational or unscientific, is just a proposition and it is plausible due to the clues we have so far.

Thanks. He talks about three key points:

1. Consciousness is the result of information processing
2. Humans of the future will run simulations of the past
3. Simulated universes will outnumber real universes

Do you agree with what he was presenting?
This is an interesting philosophical argument, I'd be glad to discuss it.

Of course i agree, Nick Bostrom argued that at least one those is real. The only difference is that i assume either the simulation can be run by humans, or by a higher form of extraterrestrial intelligence.

The obvious question is this. Is there Intelligence in the universe ? Every species is intelligent in its own way, there are many examples in nature...so what i point out and i really believe this, is that being alone in the universe is very unlikely. Even if i reffer to an energy as a source or either another form of life, that is able to create, just like we do. (like the biocentric universe implies)

I pretty much agree on the first point (except that atheism is just lack of belief- essentially it can be not knowing - as opposed to positive atheism or anti-theism), however, there are patterns of mistaken information, cherry picking, word usage and bad reasoning that are indicative of pseudoscience, and that's something you can get good at recognizing without spending too much time on it.

Interesting, because i am also anti-theist, i am against religion for good reasons. yet i am not an atheist )
The information i provided you is not cherry picking since it is studied by scientists, humans makes the science...i just happened to be interested and research about it. So again, if it were to be about some pastors who would imply this for their belief in a personal god i would agree with you.

For example, are you familiar with the electric sun hypothesis?
electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

As a matter a fact, i am..i also researched this as well, and of course just like the flat earth theory is useless since we have strong evidence on the other side. ) Do not get me wrong...when i research these at the arguments of other people...i am just curious what ”evidence” they claim it is for their story...however my case was not like these..since there is evidence for my claim, i am sorry but scientists say this, i just repeat what i`ve heard and researched.

There are a potentially unlimited number of BS claims and pseudosciences out there. It's impossible to keep up with them all, or give them all time. Although I'd like to be able to debunk everything, I have to use my time a bit more carefully, so I focus on more specific arguments and avoid things like that documentary that seem to be in bad intellectual faith.

Of course there are, i know this. I cannot afford to judge you, in fact i seldom do. Everyone has their own priorities and thats ok.

That said, there are more honest and well informed advocates of some similar theories (like the simulation), and I don't have a problem with tacking better framed arguments.

That documentary has it claims from those kind of scientists you would agree in a way...because their sources are taken from those very sites that treats science.. So in this case you should give it a try If this time even you do not want to...is only 50 minutes, then i will waste my time for you
I am saying this,,because i did my research, and i think that everyone who has interest in the truth should do research as well.

I suggest you focus your time on the mainstream science first, to learn the most credible basics, and then once you learn that to branch out into the more difficult aspects -- although the fringe may be the most exciting, it's also the easiest to be misled on and lose valuable time.

Thank you Salad you are a nice person!

I wish you well and good health.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is new stuff, and not really confirmed yet, but it will be exciting if this turns out to be a falsifiable method of testing it.

19:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J4QPz52Sfo an excerpt argued by Seth Loyd on the simulation hypothesis.

I was referring to string theory becoming a legitimate falsifiable theory in the future. But sure, we can talk about the simulation hypothesis.

The excerpt was just a 8-9 second statement

You can actually do a calculation to find out how many bits are necessary to simulate the universe

By "simulate" I assume he meant being able to calculate the number of bits to represent the universe's current state, in a way that we might be able to get something meaningful from it. BUT, that's not actually true for a number of reasons.

1. Bits are binary data; either zero or one. The universe is composed of waves, not collapsed states forced into discrete quantifiable locations/velocities (see Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). Even if you gave the precise location of all particles, you'd be unable to give any data about their velocities, and vice versa. Neither of those options would yield a legitimate representation of the universe. Representing this data in a limited sense could be possible with Qbits (which are not the same as bits), but...

2. As a result of the wave nature of the universe, it's actually a multiverse, which means even a perfect representation of a single "collapsed" state that we may find (if that were meaningful, which it isn't), would not really represent the universe as a whole in all of its parts -- which would take a likely infinite amount of information, unless you infinitely increased the variables contained within a Qbit (which would make it increasingly useless as a 'simulation' that has any meaning to the simulator). But from that I can tell you exactly how many bits it would take: One. One "bit", a Qbit, with an infinite number of states in perfect and perpetual superposition. This is not a Qbit that's actually possible to create in any universe -- but it is legitimately a multiverse (not just a simulation of one).

3. Due to the effects of relativity on enforcing locality, and the nature of a cosmic Qbit itself (which affirm each other in consequence), even if you could create one, simultaneous simulation of an entire universe/multiverse state is impossible if any information is being extracted -- we're talking about collapse of this universal Qbit -- which means it only returns an arbitrarily long string of random data to use to construct a snapshot of a possible universe, which is again useless from a simulation perspective. At best it would give you a glimpse into a possible universe -- out of an infinite number -- but not necessarily one with anything interesting in it. You could spend the entire lifetime of the universe taking endless snap shots out of this Qbit without finding anything useful at all, AND it could even take you the lifetime of the universe (or longer) to get a single snapshot out of it due to the bandwidth limitations imposed by quantum physics and relativity (extracting data from a single point, limited by light speed and laws of quantum physics).

This covers what is impossible, and why. Later I will try to cover what would be possible, and why we know it isn't true.

Sylvester James Gates on the topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA (featured among Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene), etc.

It would be good if you could quote them in text, since that's easier to break down and show why both his claims aren't very meaningful, and why you shouldn't draw the conclusions you're drawing from them (in his own words):

Gates:
What I've come to understand is that there are these incredible pictures that contain all the information of a set of equations that are related to string theory
["incredible" indeed: they lack credibility. These are arbitrary visualizations based on arbitrary parameters. You could use different parameters to make it look like a pirate ship or a dolphin if you wanted. There's nothing essential about visualizations of formulas -- you get out of them what you put in.]

Gates:
and it's even more bizarre than that because when you then try to understand these pictures you find out that buried in them are computer codes just like the type that you find in a browser when you go surf the web
[If you construct a picture from equations based on arbitrary mathematical parameters, when you examine those images, you can get back any arbitrary sequence you want. Using different parameters to visualize the equations and shuffle things around, you could pull Bible verses from images. This is meaningless.]
and so I'm left with the puzzle of trying to figure out whether I live in the matrix or not
[I'm left puzzling whether he's stupid or just dishonest. It's like saying "If I take any number, multiply it by five, I get a number that never has a remainder when I divide it by five! I can't puzzle out why." You get out what you put in. This is all very similar to what Christians do with Biblical Numerology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk3VgQgxiqE they just hack at it until they find something apparently meaningful coming out of it, but it's all very random and since there are so many possibilities there are inevitably some that appear to be codes. Please watch that video clip for more on that.]

Tyson:
wait You're blowing my mind at this moment so you're saying are you saying your attempt to understand the fundamental operations of nature leads you to a set of equations that are indistinguishable from the equations that drive search engines and browsers on our computers

Gates:
Yeah, that is correct

Tyson:
but wait I'm still, wait I have to just be silent for a minute here
so you're saying as you dig deeper you find computer code writ in the fabric of the cosmos

Gates:
into the equations that we want to use to describe the cosmos, yes
[This is very important. That is not what Tyson asked -- very different -- it's not written into the fabric of the cosmos, he's saying he's extracting them from the arbitrary equations he has created that he thinks -- but that are not EVEN evidenced to -- describe the behavior of some things. He's missing the point that nothing is coming out of these equations at all, though, as I mentioned above; he's extracting this "code" in the same way biblical numerologists do it, by arbitrarily manipulating the data, and then finding some random sequence that happens to partially match up with one of many thousands of computer languages (Of course it would match something, just as random numbers can match words).]

Tyson:
computer code

Gates:
Computer code strings of bits of ones and zeros
[No, this is completely different. ANY string of concrete data (like symbolic equations) can be reduced into a string of zeroes and ones. Your username can be reduced into binary and then converted into some code based on arbitrary parameters -- it doesn't mean it was made from that code. Computer code actually executes on a system with instructions and does something meaningful. This leads me to believe he doesn't understand how computers work. Just as you can't randomly assemble letters and call it language, it's not coding if it's a random sequence of meaningless instructions.]

Tyson:
it's not just sort of resembles computer code -- you're saying it is computer code

Gates:
it's not even just is computer code, it's a special kind of computer code that was invented by a scientist named Claude Shannon in the 1940s
that's what we find very very deeply inside the equations that occur in string theory and in general in systems that we say are super symmetric
[Again, there are thousands of computer languages. ANY random string of data, manipulated properly, would inevitably match up to some of them, just as Biblical numerologists can dishonestly extract strings of words by manipulating the bible.
Here is a list of over 400 of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... _languages
And these are only the ones notable enough to have wikipedia articles on them. I don't think Shannon's language is even on there, since it's probably too low level. That makes it even less impressive. If he had extracted something like C++, that would be more of a coincidence. Since Shannon's was probably based on binary anyway, the degree to which Gates' claims are asinine is even more profound.
This is absolutely unimpressive to anybody who knows anything about physics, mathematics, or computer science -- the others in the panel certainly weren't impressed.]

Tyson:
ok
time to go home I think
I'm where are we going to go af
so so are you saying we are all just
there's some entity that programmed the universe and we're just expressions of their code

Gates:
Well I didn't say that...
[Again, even though his claims are asinine at the get go, he's NOT EVEN saying what you're extrapolating them to mean.]

Tyson:
Like the matrix? That's what you said

Gates:
some of those codes are showing on the screen behind you right now, they don't look like codes but these pictures which we call adinkras are graphical representations of sets of equations that are based on codes
So this is in fact to answer your question more directly I have in my life come to a very strange place because I never expected that the movie the matrix might be an accurate representation of the place in which I live
[He isn't even saying it is. He's just sensationalizing his work to get more funding. This is becoming increasingly transparent. I don't think he's crazy, I just think he's twisting the truth to get publicity, and possibly sell books. Usually I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're stupid rather than dishonest, but he's being so careful with his wording that any politician or lawyer would be proud. It's a real shame it's working, and it's a disgrace to the field of physics that he's stooping to this, and everybody else is too polite to call him out on it.]

Lee:
Jim may I may I give you an argument that we don't live in the matrix... etc.
[Lee continues on a bit, arguing about time. Note: This is a poor argument, lee is wrong about his philosophy of time. Tyson understands this.]

Gates:
Lee, you're mistaking -- you keep using the word "IS" and I'm talking about the word "describe"
[-- Lee disagrees strongly "describe it fine but then"--]
Let me finish please since we started with my discussion
the point is that I I you know it's fun to talk about some deep metaphysical essence that sits behind physics
But for some of us it's about trying to find the most accurate way to describe where we live
[This is also important. Again he speaks out agaist prescription -- against making any kind of interpretations like you're doing. He's not saying we're in the Matrix, or that there's a god, or anything like that. These caveats he makes at least redeem him slightly, despite how asinine and deceptive his claim to have found "code" is. Unfortunately, people make a point of ignoring his own words cautioning them not to read too much into this, and turn it into metaphysics instead.]
and so my statement is:
that in the description of our universe that is a super symmetrical universe which we're going to test in the LHC if you believe that description I can show you the presence of these codes
[1. There's not even any evidence yet for his hypotheses, so that should be a full stop. 2. Even if there were, these codes are not IN them, they are being extracted in the same manner of biblical numerology. 3. If you give me a room full of monkeys on typewriters, I can show you the presence of Shakespeare; it's all irrelevant, and I could extract Shakespeare from his equations too, with enough monkeying around like he's doing.]

Nobody there on the panel agreed with Gates, Lee most strongly disagreed, Tyson was very skeptical of his wording and claims about the code (rightly), as was Brian (he wouldn't even comment on what Gates said, but cautioned skepticism of interpretations from human systems of description like our current systems of mathematics).

But still, let me go back to what Gates said earlier, because it does redeem him a little (I'm inclined to dislike him because he's either being stupid or dishonest, but at least he's not being overt about it, and he is cautioning people against drawing conclusions):

Gates:
It's been very interesting sitting on this stage and listening to my colleages um but you know I am far from experimental physicist as you can imagine but this is why experi-

Tyson:
Which means you're a theorist

Gates:
something like that

Tyson:
that's code for I'm a theorist

Gates:
exactly
but my point is that it is always the case that it is our experimental colleagues that prevent us from forming a religion because it is always grounded in what they can measure [String theory is not testable now] as Martello keeps coming back to and so although people can express either enthusiasm or dismay about where we are at the given point in time I think that we need to be a little bit more humble and to understand that the process that we engage in is a constant flight from fantasy about what we would want to happen [Your flight here is unfortunately a bit of a flight to fantasy; keep in mind that you're trying to find things to confirm preconceptions here, and keep Gates' own words in mind] and we query nature for that and that query goes through experiment so although this has probably been very entertaining for my audience here I think that at the end of the day we have to keep grounded and it's got to be about things that affect your lives and those things are measurable things

About Gates: for a guy who says a lot of stupid stuff, at least he couches it in that kind of more sensible empiricism (for a scientist). You should try to pay more attention to his caveats, and less to his sensationalist analogies.

I did not have time to collect all the data from the documentary you refused to watch...that doc is compiled with the same sources and are not bs....

I hope I have adequately debunked Gates' claims, and the other, above. If you have more, I can debunk those too. They are bullshit, but their advocates may not understand why. Scientists aren't always skeptics, and they are rarely philosophers. Scientists can advance some absurd and irrational ideas sometimes; which is why they need to stay grounded in empiricism.

if it were a link to you about the flat earth theory..than of course i would have agreed with you..is not something absurd, irrational or unscientific, is just a proposition and it is plausible due to the clues we have so far.

You have to understand, I see them the same way. Flat Earth is more transparently false to most people, because we learn and understand more about the shape of the Earth. These simulationist claims are transparently false to me, though, for the reasons I mentioned.

Of course i agree, Nick Bostrom argued that at least one those is real. The only difference is that i assume either the simulation can be run by humans, or by a higher form of extraterrestrial intelligence.

I don't know who that is, can you copy or link that argument if you find it credible?
It's irrelevant if it's humans or other beings; that's fine.

The obvious question is this. Is there Intelligence in the universe ? Every species is intelligent in its own way, there are many examples in nature...so what i point out and i really believe this, is that being alone in the universe is very unlikely. Even if i reffer to an energy as a source or either another form of life, that is able to create, just like we do. (like the biocentric universe implies)

That's fine. But it doesn't imply that there are credible simulations, which is what I'll get to shortly.

1. Consciousness is the result of information processing

This is true.

2. Humans of the future will run simulations of the past

This is may be true.

3. Simulated universes will outnumber real universes

This is only partially true.

Simulated "worlds" or "pocket universes" certainly outnumber our own; we see that already in video games. But these are not credible simulations in the way ours is; they are far from complete. They have optimizations and limitations that ours does not have. They are not quantum or wave form, but digital. They aren't realms where the laws of physics are robust and scale to the quantum level; they are crude and Newtonian. And always will be. They are deterministic and atomic worlds at best, and when they include probability, they derive it from local functions or our outside world piercing through the veil.

See Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
The fact is basically a reflection of that. In order for these simulated worlds to have complete physics, down to quantum and primordial forces, they can no longer be consistent, because they are now wave forms of probability, and can not yield real information in the way you would expect from a simulation.
If it's consistent and you can pull information from it, then the laws of physics are incomplete and will be evident as such to its inhabitants. If our world were a simulation, our scientific discovery would have ended at Newton -- full stop -- and we would all be believers in a creator being, because there would be no other explanation for the universe.

The information i provided you is not cherry picking since it is studied by scientists, humans makes the science...i just happened to be interested and research about it.

Have you looked into criticism of these claims? These documentaries don't include other voices, and they don't include other models. It's cherry picking; you're just showing one side of it, and it's missing the most important criticisms: Those cautioning words from the scientists themselves.

As a matter a fact, i am..i also researched this as well, and of course just like the flat earth theory is useless since we have strong evidence on the other side.

My point is that you didn't need to, since it was pseudoscience. You wasted your time researching the electric sun. It should only take a few seconds to recognize pseudoscience. I know that sounds like a snap judgement, but it really isn't. What I'm saying is that there are certain patterns to pseudoscience that you can recognize; a computer can actually analyze the text, and tell you it's pseudoscience, based on the way words are being used, which words, and how the claims are made. Pseudoscience is almost like a style of writing; like I could read two lines of a poem and tell you it's iambic pentameter.

however my case was not like these..since there is evidence for my claim, i am sorry but scientists say this, i just repeat what i`ve heard and researched.

Sorry, it really is. I've shown you how even the main scientist you are citing even says not to do exactly what you did.
In addition to debunking his claims, which are also argued against by others.

I hope you will understand my explanations for how this simulationist stuff is pseudoscience, and bad philosophy too, but please let me know if you have any questions.

[Unknownfromheaven]

First of all, thank you so much for your effort and time to put into this..

I tend to disagree with the debunk on Gates, since he was reffering to a specific self correcting code, you can understand this if you take real insight into this hypothesis, there is a difference between someone who wants the truth and someone who does not care, i met many cases.
And those particular insults on the scientist, i really do not think they could convince me..i avoid to do that even if i dislike something or someone..
(thats different from just extracting what you like or christian numerology which is of course bs)...and that is programming..i have a lot of friends in this domain and i had plenty conversations about this (sure it does not suit as an argument) and when they admited that it is possible, for me it was a solidification of this idea. ”my first subjective claim, yey:))”
.
On the simulation hypothesis its not only Gates..there are many scientists who approached it and this will be your surprise, i can promise you that. This was still back in 2011. Informations do add up in time to confirm or to refute, does it not ? And so far there is more info for it than against it.

I will put this really simple, and i have to make clear something here.. i am not trying to convince you of something, its not like ”hey look i have this church, i invite you to pray or something like that” ) I came here to discuss and to point out that are many other plausible elements in nature that indicate something else, rather than theism or atheism...deists are quite ignored or called delusional by both theists or atheists, so this was a motive for me to come on a site..it just happened to be VeganAtheist since i enjoyed his arguments on his channel about, everything.

Imagine that some day we as a species will reach a level of technology that we will be able to send life on other planets, either to seed them, or even....to simulate ”aware” sims in a game or simulation... Imagine that those sims would argue about what they are or about what created them...this may be our case. We could do this in the future to simulate in order to study how primitive life forms could emerge..so no, is not useless when you consider that an intelligence may have a purpose.


The whole things in a digital frame would be solid, the sim actually would get hit or even feel pain. Look at games today, are the trees and rocks solid in a frame ? Yes, the sim or the horse (heroes of might and magic) cannot go by the tree, because its solid, and it has to go around it....but an aware sim who could analyse his own world...would get hit by mathematical language that was input by the programmer to describe everything..is that valid enough for you ? More, the computer that generates the data, is non-physical to the sims world..what is real for them is their frame.
This idea was pointed out by NASA physicicst Tom Campbell.



Our world makes no difference, and it would explain a lot of things...such as the ”non-intervention”, who cares may we ask ? IF we are lab rats, an experiment, or are not real ?

I am very familiar with the wave-particle issue in quantum mechanics, just as recent i ve found a post and i read that scientists say this problem is unsolvable...just wow. Their conclusion...prior to observation - matter does not seem to exist. Heisenberg also said that the waves are probability distribution...when you look there are particles...when you do not look..they do not necessarily exist.



(Edit - saw the response! ) As a deist, i recognise intelligence, and i trust there is intelligence beyond us, saying we are the only ones who have it, and design things here with our materials, our ideas (wow why is that?) can seem a little arrogant.

We create purpose, if we would not have done this in the past, its very likely that evolution could not go on.

The next stage is transhumanism, and many embrace this, what the future will grant us will make us ”gods”.

Gates recognised that he has arrived in very strange place...it was not his belief prior to this conclusion...after he published his book he said that we have in common such element with ”the matrix” movies.

Its obvious you will not continue with the doc so i will take into it and respond later with other scientists..because now you were clear that you dislike Gates, unfortunetly when humans are facing the truth, its really, really difficult to accept, and denial comes in. I think you missunderstood him and judged him...his collegues know him and who he is and the man is brilliant in his field.

I know about the multiverse, yet i had not seen evidence,,i have no problem with that. and you cannot say its pointless or useless on behalf of intelligence...we have no clue on that....It may well be simulated multiverse to handle more insight into the study...of course is speculation...but is not impossible, since the universe is such a great place, we are little, and we are indeed small.

Thank you again:) and i will return tomorow after i collect the scientists here now is 5:25 AM so yeah, i am quite awake, it happens to me every night i cannot sleep, just cannot stop thinking on existentialism issues )