Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It may not (yet) rise to the level of unambiguous, but there are a number of interesting things that suggest that our reality is simulated. These include, but are not limited to:
Wave/Particle Duality
The experimental results of the double slit experiment
Relativity
The fact that light has a "speed limit"
Quantum Tunneling
And more. And if this "reality" is in fact simulated, it means that our consciousness exist outside of it. Whether or not you want to label that "supernatural" I shall leave to your discretion.
As regards doubts about atheism, in any practical sense,none of this really has much impact on that. I have observed that the double slit experiment rather argues that there is nobody here as an observer but us - that rules out geekgod with his celestial computer - simulation.
As to the speed of light, there are many things in nature wchich get to the stage where increasingly unfeasible effort is needed to get any extra performance out of it - why should matter be any different?
Let's not get trapped into some god made in man's image fantasy to fill in the unexplained. Until we know the answers, stay agnostic and let speculations be no more than just that.
It may not (yet) rise to the level of unambiguous, but there are a number of interesting things that suggest that our reality is simulated. These include, but are not limited to:
Wave/Particle Duality
The experimental results of the double slit experiment
Relativity
The fact that light has a "speed limit"
Quantum Tunneling
And more. And if this "reality" is in fact simulated, it means that our consciousness exist outside of it. Whether or not you want to label that "supernatural" I shall leave to your discretion.
This makes no sense. Whether or not the universe is conscious has nothing to do with whether or not we are. We are conscious because we have brains that are capable of complex thoughts and self-awareness. If your logic leads you to believe that that indicates that the universe is conscious, then your logic is flawed.
Try to keep up . . . we are only talkig about the logical consistency of the two premises and their predicate conclusions. The agenda-driven minions are arguing against God exists . . . while I am simply pointing out the stupidity of claiming that the logical premise is no God (no conscious universe) . . . because it is logically inconsistent as a syllogism. They keep wanting to impose their "philosophically uninformed common sense" belief that the default should be no God and keep calling it logical. Logic is not their friend in that argument.
Please prove that it's only reasonable to believe in claims with valid logical syllogisms supporting them.
I am not trying to do that, KC . . . but I AM trying to get you to see that the inability to produce a logically consistent syllogism for your position MEANS it is NOT the logical default! Comprende?
Quote:
For people who live in the real world, overwhelming evidence is usually enough. But go ahead, show us that we're all wrong and we need to throw out thousands of years of scientific progress.
I never called for throwing out ANY of our scientific knowledge. I incorporate it and hypothesize beyond the data from it. You and your materialist friends simply express your unsupported non-hypothesis beyond the data as if it need not be supported by scientific rationale because it seems like common sense to your philosophically uninformed intellects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Yes, if you assume your conclusions you get to believe whatever you want. But just making stuff up like this isn't a good way to learn about reality, as others are seeing from your example.
See above about the problem of calling your position LOGICAL . . . nothing else. We are both beyond the data . . . I just have tenable and plausible hypotheses for mine . . . you have nothing but what you think is common sense.
Try to keep up . . . we are only talkig about the logical consistency of the two premises and their predicate conclusions. The agenda-driven minions are arguing against God exists . . . while I am simply pointing out the stupidity of claiming that the logical premise is no God (no conscious universe) . . . because it is logically inconsistent as a syllogism. They keep wanting to impose their "philosophically uninformed common sense" belief that the default should be no God and keep calling it logical. Logic is not their friend in that argument.
No sir, what is stupid, illogical, and most importantly, agenda-driven, is believing and insisting that others believe that one instance proves the other. It is a slippery slope, a logical fallacy. Period.
As regards doubts about atheism, in any practical sense,none of this really has much impact on that.
Insofar as, even could the simulation theory be proved, it says nothing about bible-god, or torah-god, or othermanmadebook-god, I agree with you. But it does mean we are a subset of a larger reality, one that, by definition, was created by an intelligence.
Quote:
I have observed that the double slit experiment rather argues that there is nobody here as an observer but us - that rules out geekgod with his celestial computer - simulation.
You're making no sense. At least not to me. Please expound.
Quote:
As to the speed of light, there are many things in nature wchich get to the stage where increasingly unfeasible effort is needed to get any extra performance out of it - why should matter be any different?
Light is not matter. It has zero mass. There's no logical reason for it to have a limited speed, unless it's limited by, say, a frame rate. Incidentally, the same thing happens with time. At 10^-44 seconds (known as a Planck Time), time is not smooth. Rather, like pixels moving across a screen, it ticks.
Quote:
Let's not get trapped into some god made in man's image fantasy to fill in the unexplained. Until we know the answers, stay agnostic and let speculations be no more than just that.
It has yet to be refuted. For that matter, it has yet to have even a single good point made against it, AND it explains many of the deepest mysteries in all of science.
if this "reality" is in fact simulated, it means that our consciousness exist outside of it.
Following that logic, it is equally logical that you don't have a consciousness at all, that in fact you and your consciousness are simulations as well.
Yet Billions of people around the World play on the off chance that they will win, they have sufficient faith based on overwhelming evidence that there is a winner - but that is clearly not the case as the prize does not go off every week. But is the hope of winning enough to keep the spirit alive - for another week at least.
Is it an overwhelming need to believe in something, whether a literal belief in the Bibles at one extreme or an absolute belief in oneself in the here and now at the other, or anywhere in between, that demonstates our inner spirits need to believe or have faith. And aren't those two extremes just the opposite poles of the same thing. So as the pendulum swings, it is still anchored by the same apex. We are all heading in same direction whether we like it, believe it, or not. So the only question that remains, "how long is a piece of string".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
