- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Science is debunking itself again
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:32 am to TrueTiger
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:32 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Simulation is the only countervailing non-religious theory to evolution theory, and it is gaining traction among smart people, like Elon Musk. Long term, who knows? But it's not hard to picture evolution theory on the ash heap of science history 50 years from now.
Simulation theory is retarded. It involves all kinds of unproven assertions, such as computers will one day be able to simulate not only consciousness, but consciousness for billions of people, and not only an entire world, but an entire universe. Is that something computers will one day be able to do? Maybe. Is that something they are currently on track to do? Not really. It’s a stoner thought experiment, it’s not a theory, and there’s really no way to test it other than someone one day doing the thing where they create a simulated reality. There’s no evidence for it. Is it disprovable? No. But there’s no evidence that anyone outside of me has an interior life, or even exists at all when they aren’t interacting with me, and so I take it on faith that I’m not a brain in a jar somewhere and that everyone else actually exists. Simulation theory is no different than that type of thinking
2
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:36 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Please return my boot when you have it surgically removed from your arse.
I'm not trying at all. Normal people would've laughed at my response.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:37 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Please return my boot when you have it surgically removed from your arse.
It's always interesting when someone like you steps back and looks at an interaction with me, and thinks that you've come away with a win.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:45 am to MAADFACTS
quote:It's not that complex. It's based on the idea that our reality is really just what we perceive. the main reasons for believing there may be a simulation:
Simulation theory is retarded. It involves all kinds of unproven assertions, such as computers will one day be able to simulate not only consciousness, but consciousness for billions of people, and not only an entire world, but an entire universe. Is that something computers will one day be able to do? Maybe. Is that something they are currently on track to do? Not really. It’s a stoner thought experiment, it’s not a theory, and there’s really no way to test it other than someone one day doing the thing where they create a simulated reality. There’s no evidence for it. Is it disprovable? No. But there’s no evidence that anyone outside of me has an interior life, or even exists at all when they aren’t interacting with me, and so I take it on faith that I’m not a brain in a jar somewhere and that everyone else actually exists. Simulation theory is no different than that type of thinking
1. The idea that we can create increasingly realistic simulations ourselves, leading to people (including I believe Elon) to think that we can create them indistinguishable from "reality", so this could naturally lead to a simulation within a simulation within a simulation ad infinitum, meaning the odds that we're in the original reality increasingly unlikely.
2. The idea that things do not exist until the are observed, proven in many aspects in quantum theory. This is considered a method to "conserve resources," like when a video game is being played, especially like an open world type, we feel like there are things going on off screen or behind the "camera", but there aren't. The only things being generated by the computer's resources are those which can be perceived. This is also seen in looking at the deep reaches of space, where if a telescope pays attention to a dark, empty area, galaxies will begin to appear (and yes, there could be other explanations).
3. The existence of patterns and limitations in nature that shouldn't be in place unless hard-coded. Like the speed of light, the fine structure constant (~1/137), the Golden Ratio (exaggerated in many respects), etc.
This doesn't contradict the Bible, IMO. If you think about it, at the most fundamental level, there is no distinction between a simulation and reality.
This post was edited on 9/21/23 at 9:52 am
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:47 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Yes, your repeated pretense that I was somehow concerned with the music and shopping tastes of you people was hard to overcome. You simply have to understand that I was just trying to save face in the futility of such wit.
It's always interesting when someone like you steps back and looks at an interaction with me, and thinks that you've come away with a win.
Now get back to work, it's almost time to switch over to the lunch menu.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:48 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Yes, your repeated pretense that I was somehow concerned with the music and shopping tastes of you people was hard to overcome.
It was a joke, retard.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:50 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Not really. Especially when you tried it twice. You were just flailing, trying to grasp at the only thing you could, and that's why I said you were trying too hard. Now bugger off.
It was a joke, retard.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:53 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:
that's why I said you were trying too hard
That's not why you said that. You said that because you're socially retarded and completely missed it. I made the second attempt to give you another opportunity to fall on your face.
To no one's surprise, you eagerly took it.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:57 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
That's not why you said that. You said that because you're socially retarded and completely missed it. I made the second attempt to give you another opportunity to fall on your face.
To no one's surprise, you eagerly took it.
Still trying too hard I see.
Take the L. Add it to your collection.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:58 am to VolcanicTiger
I gave you the shovel. I'm glad to see you continuing to use it. 
Posted on 9/21/23 at 9:59 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Are you this dense/insecure in your personal/work life? Sad.
I gave you the shovel. I'm glad to see you continuing to use it.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:00 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Ezekiel 23:20
quote:
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
My guy...
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:01 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
lol
macro evolution aka neo-darwinism is false. only micro has been proven true.
the big bang violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics
So what's your theory?
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:06 am to dafif
quote:
Nothing emotional... it at some point, a "human" had to be born from another species. That "human had to survive meaning this different species had to be nurtured and raised. Then there had to at least be another ... one male one female.
Define "species", and how is it different from "race" and "breed". Use the genome, if you can.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:07 am to MAADFACTS
quote:
Simulation theory is retarded.
That's not an argument.
All new and provocative theories get pushback.
Galileo faced the inquisition.
Evolution theory also got a huge pushback.
The Scopes Monkey Trial was a huge event.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:16 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:
1. The idea that we can create increasingly realistic simulations ourselves, leading to people (including I believe Elon) to think that we can create them indistinguishable from "reality", so this could naturally lead to a simulation within a simulation within a simulation ad infinitum, meaning the odds that we're in the original reality increasingly unlikely.
Musk definitely believes in simulation theory and for the reasons you stated, but I don’t think of Musk has infallible. He’s very smart, but he’s also a narcissist aneurotypical weirdo who is exactly the type of person who would be flattered thinking he lives in a universe designed by computer engineers. In his rush to advocate for Simulation he usually ignores the other two options Bostrom applied in his original argument. Bostrom said either people lose interest before creating a simulation, destroy themselves before creating a simulation, or they create a simulation. I’d add another obvious option, which is that simulations with conscience agents can’t be made. I don’t care how good the graphics in Red Dead Redemption II looked, none of those characters were conscious.
quote:
2. The idea that things do not exist until the are observed, proven in many aspects in quantum theory.
This is not true. They exist in many states at once until a quantum collapse which can be caused by an observer (which is spooky) but are also caused by interacting with literally any other particle. Literally everything around you is in a state of collapse at the subatomic level all the time. The exact way this influences items at larger scales (or if it influences things at all) is unknown, but suggesting that it is being done by a computer to conserve energy doesn’t make any sense.
quote:
This is also seen in looking at the deep reaches of space, where if a telescope pays attention to a dark, empty area, galaxies will begin to appear (and yes, there could be other explanations).
We can only look as far as light has had time to travel. There’s no scientist in the world that thinks the limits of what we can see are the limits of the universe. That’s why they use the term “observable universe”. What is passed that? Probably more universe, and given the slight curve, a universe that is anywhere from 250 times larger than what we can see to one that is possibly infinite.
quote:
3. The existence of patterns and limitations in nature that shouldn't be in place unless hard-coded. Like the speed of light, the fine structure constant (~1/137), the Golden Ratio (exaggerated in many respects), etc.
The golden ration is neat, but it’s not computer coding. That math describes much of the material universe can be put down to the fact that causality exists in reality. The fact that someone can calculate where a thrown ball will land once they have all the inputs isn’t a sign that the throw was made by a computer.
quote:
This doesn't contradict the Bible, IMO. If you think about it, at the most fundamental level, there is no distinction between a simulation and reality.
you should probably post that on the Reddit board that was shut down because a couple teenagers milled themselves when they heard simulation theory. If you want to believe that the rules of mathematics exist independently of us in some platonic space, sure. If you want to believe that you live in a simulation, that’s great too. If you want to believe that the simulation is another way to get to God, I don’t see it, but you do you. If you are arguing that simulation is a scientific theory that has anything approaching the evidence of evolution, I’m sorry but it isn’t and it doesn’t
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:17 am to TrueTiger
quote:
That's not an argument. All new and provocative theories get pushback. Galileo faced the inquisition. Evolution theory also got a huge pushback. The Scopes Monkey Trial was a huge event.
Lucky for me my post didn’t end there, retard
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:18 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Spoken only by fools and believed by nobody with an ounce of intellect
Says the guy who is unconsciously ignorant and incompetent on the subject matter.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
“God” doesn’t exist.
Prove it.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I don’t have to prove a negative. It is up to the person making the positive assertion to provide evidence to support the argument.
quote:
scientifically stupid assertion you just made, try to scientifically explain the infinite existence of inanimate matter, or its magical construction from nothing.
As previously explained, my dismissiveness of your assertion without evidence is actually scientific. You are projecting. It is your assertions that ignore the scientific method. You also suffering from the “god of the gaps” hypothesis, which states that gaps in our scientific understanding of natural phenomena must mean that a divine supernatural entity is responsible. That is about as idiotic and unscientific as you can get. Lastly, you are also ignoring my previous explanation and you are again projecting creation ex nihilo. Your Bible theology is based on creation ex nihilo, while science makes no such assertion.
This post was edited on 9/21/23 at 10:32 am
Page 12 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News