Science is Now a Religion (claim, Muslim, history, arguments)
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.
Guess which the insecure and intellectually lazy prefer. God provides security for the believers while the real universe does not care what anyone believes and scientifically collecting and analyzing evidence can be very difficult.
Science is based on a bunch of opinions with no real facts. Global warming, evolution oh and let's not forget the big bang. (rolles eyes) What will they think of next?
The science comunity reminds me of a flip flopping liberal pollitition that can't make up his mind about anything.
I'm sorry you don't know what science is or how it works.
It explains how a single particle (or photon, or electron, or buckeyball) can appear to be in two places at once and interfere with itself.
No. It does not. It instead baldly asserts (with no evidence) that what we have observed is simply not true. But as far as explanation goes, it offers none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
It explains how when we record "which slit" data, the behavior of said particles magically changes.
We already have an explanation of that in the context of objective reality. How is the simulation theory superior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
It explains how, if we record said data and destroy the data before it becomes available to us, the behavior change disappears.
We concluded in our last conversation that you were unable to actually present an experiment that demonstrated this... in fact you admitted to posting experiments you had not yourself even read, and then you furiously backpedaled.
This is an "explanation" for an affect that has not only not been demonstrated, it is contradicted by several fullerene experiments that I linked to and that you resolutely and embarrassingly ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
It explains how quantum tunneling works, when particles penetrate an impenetrable barrier.
No. It does not. It instead again baldly asserts (again with no evidence) that what we have observed is simply not true. But as far as explanation goes, it offers none.
In contrast, quantum tunneling was actually a prediction of quantum mechanics made in the early 20th century and not actually observed until we were able to actually experiment with nuclear fission decades later.
See how that works? This is what happens in real science... a place where you will never hear the comment, "Screw predictions."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
It explains why, at the planck length, matter does not move smoothly, but rather it ticks. Ditto for the planck time.
How? The Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any currently possible measurement, how is it that you are able to hallucinate an observation of matter moving at that scale?
Are you perchance actually referring to a theoretical prediction of quantum mechanics?
(There's that nasty word again!! "Prediction!" Screw that!!!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
It explains why the speed of light is both limited, as well as constant.
How? Exactly what about the simulation theory explains that detail... other than magic of course?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
It explains why time is relative.
We already have an explanation for that in the context of objective reality. How is the simulation theory superior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
It explains why something came from nothing at T=0.
Why would that require explanation when there is no good reason to believe it is even true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
The objective reality hypothesis explains none of the above. Under the objective reality hypothesis, most, if not all of the above is literally physically impossible.
That statement is a bald and unrefined falsehood. Objective reality has no problem explaining most of what you have listed, and since all of it (that is true) is empirically observable, it is by definition not physically impossible. The assertion that it is "impossible" is simply hand-waving... an assertion deriving entirely from intuition with no actual support in reason or evidence.
It is breathtaking to watch you insist (as if repetition will turn dross into gold) that the simulation theory is a "superior" explanation to objective reality when you simultaneously refuse to meet the most elementary of scientific obligations... make a prediction that would actually permit us to even distinguish between the two. Of course, we both know that the root cause of that particular failing is because you cannot do so.
The simulation theory cannot make predictions because it has no rules. It is dependent entirely upon the arbitrary whim of some unnamed simulator who can pretty much do anything he or she wants within the simulation. In a video game we can do anything we want; ride dragons, smite our foes with arcane energy beams, teleport from one planet to the next or travel backwards in time. We can do anything in a simulation. Therefore in a simulation no observation is trustworthy, no prediction is meaningful, no rules are anything but arbitrary and mutable. Every time WoW releases a new patch, my son complains about how the powers of his Blood Elf Death Knight have been "nerfed" or "buffed." He wakes up every time to a whole new universe with new rules.
We do not actually observe that. We have never observed that.
The simulation theory explains everything and the explanation is always the same; "Because." And in that way, it explains exactly nothing.
And ultimately worse... a simulation theory requires an underlying objective reality after all! Simulations must run on a platform. Video games can exist virtually because hardware and software exists actually. A Blood Elf Death Knight avatar can exist because there is a flesh and blood person to play him, and flesh and blood game designers to program him. The simulation theory merely asserts that we observe objective reality through an impenetrable veneer of arbitrary programming and declares us impotent to discover what is true.
I can't for the life of me imagine actually believing in such a scenario without being compelled to slit my own wrists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
So, sorry, it explains a lot of things that are currently inexplicable. Ergo, it is a reasonable hypothesis.
Only to the same extent that the fairy theory explains "a lot of things that are currently inexplicable."
It is therefore "a reasonable hypothesis" only in the same sense that "fairies do it all" is "a reasonable hypothesis."
HD - I admire your tenacity in your attempts to argue with the FAITHFUL even though it is completely ignored. Being able to ignore or discard any physical observation is a tenant of all religions. To them their magic is TRUTH and mere facts cannot change their reality. They are actually living in their own simulation and quite happy to be there. Occupants of the real world call this delusional.
HD - I admire your tenacity in your attempts to argue with the FAITHFUL even though it is completely ignored. Being able to ignore or discard any physical observation is a tenant of all religions. To them their magic is TRUTH and mere facts cannot change their reality. They are actually living in their own simulation and quite happy to be there. Occupants of the real world call this delusional.
This is the most fascinating thing about the "simulation theory." Other than in its jargon it is indistinguishable from creationism, "Intelligent Design," or any of the many versions of magic that are the foundation of religious cosmologies. It is completely and explicitly unfalsifiable, and therefore thoroughly immune to any and all genuine scientific test or investigation.
And I can honestly tell you... I have never before ever met anyone pretending to be advancing a scientific idea who actually had the temerity to exclaim, "Screw predictions."
The ultimate question comes down to... who cares? Seriously, let's pretend for just a second that the theory was absolutely correct. So what? Does it help us do anything better, faster, more efficiently... differently? The great gift of science is that it is a pragmatic and utilitarian exercise. We actually can use what we learn. We can fight illness, and feed the hungry, and deliver The Avengers in 3D. But what can we do now that we know we're just a simulation... other than be all weirded out and paranoid regarding what "The Great Simulation" (read "God") intends for us?
There is a reason solipsism's primary use across the history of philosophy as been as a tool for mockery, philosopher's calling each other's arguments
"solipsism" as short hand for pointlessness and futility. Even developmentally, infant solopsism is how we all begin our lives, and is something we later outgrow and reject, usually in toddler-hood, as we begin to infer that other people are real and have feelings too.
As the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner it is of entirely no use to anybody.
You may as well just believe in the Muslim/Christian God and get the placebo of eternal salvation as part of the deal.
No. It does not. It instead baldly asserts (with no evidence) that what we have observed is simply not true. But as far as explanation goes, it offers none.
Dude, you don't seem to understand the theory. Only things that are observed are rendered. When not being rendered, they are tracked. Because the electrons behavior is calculated and not physical, and probabilistic and not objective, the calculation results in a single particle "traveling" through both slits at once and interfering with itself.
When we measure and collect the data, we reduce the possibility of it having "traveled" through both slits to zero, so it behaves as regular matter must.
But various quantum eraser experiments have shown that it's not the simple act of measuring which is causing the wave collapse, as they have performed the measurement, but the subsequent erasing of the data causes the interference pattern to reemerge, thus proving the measurement, of itself, is not what's causing the behavioral change, because it was made.
Quote:
We already have an explanation of that in the context of objective reality.
Oh, please share your wisdom with us. I'll be sure to send a copy to the Nobel Prize committee, if you can explain the double slit experiment, you're a shoe-in!
Quote:
How is the simulation theory superior?
Because it makes sense.
Quote:
We concluded in our last conversation that you were unable to actually present an experiment that demonstrated this... in fact you admitted to posting experiments you had not yourself even read, and then you furiously backpedaled.
A bit of an overstatement. I did post a link to a bad paper, without having read it. Shame on me. I won't do that again.
However, in case you forgot, or never saw in the first place, I placed a different link that did in fact back my case.
And I can honestly tell you... I have never before ever met anyone pretending to be advancing a scientific idea who actually had the temerity to exclaim, "Screw predictions."
OK, that was a bit over the top, I had a few drinks in me and got tired of hearing you go "What about predictions, what about predictions, what about predictions???"
As I said, I am not a scientist, and I'm making no effort to make a case that passes peer reviewed standards. Someone smarter than me can figure out the predictions.
Quote:
The ultimate question comes down to... who cares? Seriously, let's pretend for just a second that the theory was absolutely correct. So what?
Ahhhh, now there is an interesting question.
It tells us a number of things. First let's discuss our own sentience. We either exist as part of the simulation, or we exist independent of it. In the former case, that makes us self-aware pieces of "code". (When I use computer jargon it's used metaphorically, and not meant to be literal.) In the latter, we exist in some form in a reality larger than what we are currently able to interact with.
In either case, the death of our body doesn't mean the end of our sentience.
From a practical, here and now perspective, if we can somehow learn to manipulate the sim, we may be able to do things like travel faster than light, perhaps create star trek style teleporters, who knows.
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.
