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 is still a massively speculative and controversial area of thought with little or no actual support for it.
That may very well be, but so was the idea that the earth was round instead of flat. The simulation theory fits the data better than the objective reality theory. It's just that reality being objective is the default position, thus is not even questioned by most observers.
There is also no evidence that the theory of evolution is valid.
That is not true, there is a wealth of evidence, argument, data and reasons to support this. If you start a thread on Evolution Theory I am more than happy to present said evidences and discuss them at length with you.
However that said your statement is so broad and general as to be meaningless. It would be like saying "There is no evidence for Chemistry". Evolution is a vast area of science and you would need to be more specific about what you actually want evidence for. However we can discuss that when you start your thread on Evolution Evidence so we can discuss it.
The problem is that when I make the same request of the religious I do not get the same offer back. They do not present the evidence or discuss it with me because there seemingly IS no evidence to discuss. They just deflect, as you are, into topic changes to things like evolution. Anything rather than discuss their own evidence for their own claims.
This is an obvious deflection trick. It goes like follows:
1) Make a claim X
2) Present no evidence for that claim X.
3) If asked for evidence for X change the subject to Y and moan about how no evidence is being provided for Y.
Again... there either is evidence for a god.... or there is not. Simple as that. If there is... then present it. If there is not, then stop pretending there is and deflecting.
That may very well be, but so was the idea that the earth was round instead of flat.
So what? Just because X was once speculative and was later vindicated does not mean Y also will be. This is what is called "Begging the Question".
I can hardly even believe I have to explain that to someone who pretends to have an interest in Science. This comment from you is an insult to both of our intelligence. Thankfully yours more than mine.
And if that is your basis for an argument, what kind of proof do you present for your beliefs? Or, we should take them seriously because they are... beliefs?
The double slit experiment holds the keys to the universe.
If we don't look, matter exists in 2 places at once.
If we look, but destroy the knowledge, it still exists in 2 places at once.
If we look and retain the knowledge, it collapses to only one place.
"Render on demand" is the only theory that I am aware of that explains that behavior. And something being rendered, by definition, means it's being simulated.
Other data points:
Quantum Tunneling (probabilistic rendering)
Planck Time (frame rate)
Planck Length (pixel size)
Speed of light (frame rate * pixel size)
Propagation of waves without a medium
Quantum Entanglement
Identical nature of subatomic particles. (Every electron in the universe is EXACTLY like every other one. No variation whatsoever.)
And more I'm probably failing to think of at this time...
That is not true, there is a wealth of evidence, argument, data and reasons to support this. If you start a thread on Evolution Theory I am more than happy to present said evidences and discuss them at length with you.
However that said your statement is so broad and general as to be meaningless. It would be like saying "There is no evidence for Chemistry". Evolution is a vast area of science and you would need to be more specific about what you actually want evidence for. However we can discuss that when you start your thread on Evolution Evidence so we can discuss it.
The problem is that when I make the same request of the religious I do not get the same offer back. They do not present the evidence or discuss it with me because there seemingly IS no evidence to discuss. They just deflect, as you are, into topic changes to things like evolution. Anything rather than discuss their own evidence for their own claims.
This is an obvious deflection trick. It goes like follows:
1) Make a claim X
2) Present no evidence for that claim X.
3) If asked for evidence for X change the subject to Y and moan about how no evidence is being provided for Y.
Again... there either is evidence for a god.... or there is not. Simple as that. If there is... then present it. If there is not, then stop pretending there is and deflecting.
The double slit experiment holds the keys to the universe.
If we don't look, matter exists in 2 places at once.
If we look, but destroy the knowledge, it still exists in 2 places at once.
If we look and retain the knowledge, it collapses to only one place.
"Render on demand" is the only theory that I am aware of that explains that behavior. And something being rendered, by definition, means it's being simulated.
Other data points:
Quantum Tunneling (probabilistic rendering)
Planck Time (frame rate)
Planck Length (pixel size)
Speed of light (frame rate * pixel size)
Propagation of waves without a medium
Quantum Entanglement
Identical nature of subatomic particles. (Every electron in the universe is EXACTLY like every other one. No variation whatsoever.)
And more I'm probably failing to think of at this time...
Why are there multiple conclusions drawn on Double Slit Experiment? Could there be one that is valid?
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.
