- 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
0
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:27 am to VolcanicTiger
Keep digging, sport.
You could've just said you didn't get the joke because you don't have a personality, but this is fun, too.
You could've just said you didn't get the joke because you don't have a personality, but this is fun, too.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:28 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
They don’t know how big or how dense that “point” was, and don’t claim to know.
Lulz, welcome to the point.
If they cant even claim to know how it began, and how that point came to be placed there, then its all just an exercise in futility. And youve gotten this far in life, and still dont understand that
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:30 am to TrueTiger
I remember a kid I went to high school with who swore that women had one hole down there, that they peed and pooped out of and had sex in. We were an all guys school. All of us mocked him mercilessly for it, but he would not back down from this idea. I distinctly remember him at one point screaming “Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs too!” at which point we all just laughed harder
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:30 am to Herooftheday
quote:
Evolution does not jive with Christianity on any level
I assume you mean evolution through natural selection.
But you're wrong that it doesn't jibe with Christianity. They used to think heliocentrism didn't jibe with Christianity. After all, Christianity doesn't jibe with Christianity in a scientific sense.
My recommendation to you, and all Christians who believe as you, is to stop trying to get scientific guidance from a spiritual book. After all, you wouldn't be looking for spiritual guidance in a Physics textbook, would you?
quote:
Pretty sure he doubted his own theory of evolution.
He certainly would if he was any kind of proper scientist. He would continue to look for evidence either supporting or disproving his theory throughout his life.
quote:
Doesn't sound like Darwin had a solid grip on science or religion.
He started out as a Unitarian, and went to an Anglican school. Later in life, after having been attacked incessantly by Christians for his theory on the origin of species, he came to see himself as agnostic. He always denied being an atheist.
BTW: "Jive" means bullshite, "jibe" means to agree. Jibe is the word you were looking for, you jive turkey.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:31 am to RobbBobb
quote:
If they cant even claim to know how it began, and how that point came to be placed there, then its all just an exercise in futility.
Well, "science works in mysterious ways" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:33 am to MAADFACTS
quote:
a kid I went to high school with who swore that women had one hole down there
Oh well. That a totally comparable situation.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:35 am to MAADFACTS
quote:The point wasn't Elon's credibility or personality, although he's more likely than most to have the chops to analyze this. I also don't think that the idea is that the conscience is simulated, just the environments.
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:This is unknowable. We are so used to measuring things based on observation that we cannot realistically tease apart the observed results from the unobserved results. One of the few examples of us doing this is the double slit experiment, which also seems to not respect the conventional concept of time, which may also not exist. As for things being in a state of constant collapse - that was my point. If they are in flux, and observation causes collapse, then that is my point. I'm not saying it is a TRS-80 in another dimension that is conserving resources, but in a video game, the loot box takes up fewer resources before it is opened. It could also get into entropy and other more complex properties.
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:We need to get away from the term "infinite" anyway because it is such a bad term, but there is no reason to believe that there is infinite mass in the totality of reality. I'd say the odds of that are lower than that of us being in a simulation. As for the observable universe, what are the odds of staring at a black area in space just seconds before the first bit of light from inexplicably immediately intact galaxies reaching the observer in such a tiny window? In other words, if it becomes observable in a 24 hour window (as it it wasn't there yesterday but it is here today), we would only see its very infant stages.
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:That's not the point, and the Golden Ratio was the least durable of the three I mentioned. We're also not talking about causality, but the patterns (in two cases) and the (arguably) hard limit of the speed of light. What enforces the speed of light? Why does 1/137 appear in so many places? The most relatable comparison in both cases would be code/code re-use.
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.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:37 am to RobbBobb
quote:
If they cant even claim to know how it began, and how that point came to be placed there, then its all just an exercise in futility.
Yeah! We should quit trying to understand nature, give up on learning. Might as well start burning books!
This post was edited on 9/21/23 at 11:01 am
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:37 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:The inability to prove a negative is not evidence of your correctness. All this midwit logic is soooo bad.
I don’t have to prove a negative.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:38 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
A magic superhuman in the sky creating the world out of nothing by speaking it into existence is literally magic.
Supernatural would be a more accurate description.
Sorta like the current explanation of the Big Bang. As an explanation it's every bit as supernatural, by definition, as saying "God did it".
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:38 am to TrueTiger
quote:It's extremely hard to imagine that, as evolution is fact. Exactly how it operates is really the only thing up for debate. Here's a suggested search for you: "whale legs".
But it's not hard to picture evolution theory on the ash heap of science history 50 years from now.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:38 am to Bayoubred
quote:
I believe God. Genesis 1-2
Genesis 1 says woman was created the same day as man, Genesis 2 says she was created on a different day.
Stop trying to learn science from a spiritual book.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:42 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:You think your comment is a "joke" that was so funny that no one laughed, even when you repeated it. You think you have a personality but I don't. I think we're seeing a pattern here.
Keep digging, sport.
You could've just said you didn't get the joke because you don't have a personality, but this is fun, too.
quote:
I started a joke
Which started the whole world crying
But I didn't see
That the joke was on me, oh no
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:44 am to Flats
quote:
Supernatural would be a more accurate description.
Sorta like the current explanation of the Big Bang. As an explanation it's every bit as supernatural, by definition, as saying "God did it".
Today's science was yesterday's magic. Today's magic is tomorrow's science.
These same midwits accuse us of employing "God of the Gaps" but they do the exact same thing with science.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:50 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:
You think your comment is a "joke" that was so funny that no one laughed, even when you repeated it.
K, so you're an idiot and a liar.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:53 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Here's a suggested search for you: "whale legs".
The simulation could deliver whale legs.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:54 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:You and reality parted ways a looong time ago.
K, so you're an idiot and a liar.
Whatever keeps you feeling special, champ!
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:55 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.
I mean no disrespect but you continue to treat simulation theory and evolution theory as mutually exclusive and they are not. Any theory of creation is possible within the simulation. God or a god and the literal word of the Genesis creation story could exist with the frame work of a simulation just as could evolution.
Posted on 9/21/23 at 10:58 am to VolcanicTiger
Keep digging, sport.
Page 13 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News