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.
Yes, "When we know" the analogy fails. In fact, I think all analogies fail when we know. Are analogies for only teaching or looking at things we do not know? I don't know about that stuff to tell ya truth. Dark matter is a better analogy. Plug dark matter in for the toys. It works much better.
Yes, max, and indeed every science person I ever spoke to, don't reject the idea that we are in a system that can be described as "alive" more than "not alive.". It just has way to much strength of evidence. Thats why I can't list the evidence. It doesn't get them anywhere when a claim like that has so much evidence. They think it enables the enemy.
Who is the enemy? Are you saying science hasn't rejected the idea because its can't be ruled out or hasn't rejected because the evidence for is so strong? The idea that this is all a hologram hasn't been rejected either.
Who is the enemy? Are you saying science hasn't rejected the idea because its can't be ruled out or hasn't rejected because the evidence for is so strong? The idea that this is all a hologram hasn't been rejected either.
Science looks at the evidence only. In a perfect world right? scientist are people so "Trust, but verify" is always in order. Is the claim consistent with what the person is saying. No, its not "not" rejected because it can't be ruled out. That not what trained people really do. Not how we are talking about the subject anyway.
Believe it or not, logical fallacies are more for people that don't know what they talking. The application of "composition fallacy" to mystic's claim is a great example of that. But the thing in question got me stopped from addressing it. That should tell you something too.
The claim that we may be in a living system as more legs than "we are in hologram". I am not allowed to list the evidence that shows you why. If I do that it hurts the cause.
I thought the gold standard for science was that its could be used to predict outcomes. What things might you be able to predict with Everything is God?
Who is the enemy? Are you saying science hasn't rejected the idea because its can't be ruled out or hasn't rejected because the evidence for is so strong? The idea that this is all a hologram hasn't been rejected either.
It has not been ruled out because the people arguing for it have not thought about what is required to run their thought experiment.
Here is a great video explaining the problems you find if one thinks about what is required.
Of course, this is more appropriate in the science section, although a programmer would appear to be like a god to us. But for some reason those pretending to know anything about the science appear to be allergic to the science forum.
Of course, this is more appropriate in the science section, although a programmer would appear to be like a god to us. But for some reason, those pretending to know anything about the science appear to be allergic to the science forum.
You are so steeped in your simulation work you seem unable to extract yourself from its requirements and constraints to recognize that they try to emulate by the limited capabilities we possess what is ACTUALLY going on - EMULATE NOT DUPLICATE. What is required for a simulation of consciousness does not necessarily remotely track with what is actually producing consciousness.
I thought the gold standard for science was that its could be used to predict outcomes. What things might you be able to predict with Everything is God?
If Everything ("ALL"...the Pan in Pantheism) is God...it can be predicted that anything whatsoever that is created/eliminated or happens/occurs, will be by and through God.
It can also be predicted (among other things) that God will be "All Present", at all times.
If Everything ("ALL"...the Pan in Pantheism) is God...it can be predicted that anything whatsoever that is created/eliminated or happens/occurs, will be by and through God.
It can also be predicted (among other things) that God will be "All Present", at all times.
Awe. I was hoping you would predict that anyone that comes in contact with this Ultimate Reality will freak out if anyone disagrees with him.
Of course, this is more appropriate in the science section, although a programmer would appear to be like a god to us. But for some reason those pretending to know anything about the science appear to be allergic to the science forum.
I know tone isn't one of those things easily conveyed on the internet so read in a mildly sarcastic whiny voice.
I just clicked on the link. I can already tell by the title I'm not going to like it. I like the hologram hypothesis and I don't know anything about science so it's in no danger. Thanks to you I now have to either ignore the counterpoint, argue against it (pfft youtube videos, please I'm so above that), or listen to it and incorporate the new information. Fine, I'll watch it. I just wanted to make sure and comment on it before I did so that way I wouldn't know what I was talking about.
You are so steeped in your simulation work you seem unable to extract yourself from its requirements and constraints to recognize that they try to emulate by the limited capabilities we possess what is ACTUALLY going on - EMULATE NOT DUPLICATE. What is required for a simulation of consciousness does not necessarily remotely track with what is actually producing consciousness.
Your knee jerk ad hominem and straw man assertion have absolutely nothing to do with the video. A big clue, Harry and Diogenes are male names, the maker of the video is female, therefore it is not my work.
If you have a problem with her work, I suggest you post on Dr Sabine Hossenfelder's blog. She is a PhD physicist who is 'working on physics beyond the standard model, phenomenological quantum gravity, and modifications of general relativity', and not someone who just steals phrases they do not understand from Youtube videos in an attempt to pretend they are something they are not.
Your knee jerk ad hominem and straw man assertion have absolutely nothing to do with the video. A big clue, Harry and Diogenes are male names, the maker of the video is female, therefore it is not my work.
If you have a problem with her work, I suggest you post on Dr Sabine Hossenfelder's blog. She is a PhD physicist who is 'working on physics beyond the standard model, phenomenological quantum gravity, and modifications of general relativity', and not someone who just steals phrases they do not understand from Youtube videos in an attempt to pretend they are something they are not.
I was referring to your oft-cited work simulating neural networks. But what is this obsession you have with accusing me of pretending to know what I have clearly demonstrated knowing numerous times during my 48000+ posts? It is not as if you have demonstrated any great knowledge here.
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.
