24 Jun 2017, 8:58 pm
24 Jun 2017, 9:09 pm
24 Jun 2017, 9:17 pm
24 Jun 2017, 10:05 pm
24 Jun 2017, 10:08 pm
24 Jun 2017, 10:50 pm
24 Jun 2017, 11:37 pm
25 Jun 2017, 1:14 am
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. We didn't really evolve. And we don't actually have ancestors. AND we ourselves don't actually exist. That would be true if this simulation notion were true.
But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?
But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?
I am showing you what high profile physicists think based on their scientific research.
They offer alternate explanations to reality.
People here seem to be thinking that the clearly labeled "Theory of evolution" is actually a fact.
Well...then if that is your point then you failed to prove your point.
Failed to prove your point because even if we live in a "simulation" then evolution is part of the simulation. And therefore evolution would still be just as "real" as anything else in the simulation including you, and I.
Or to put it another way: if we live in a simulation then we ourselves (you and I) would not be real. Evolution would also not be real, but it wouldn't be any less real than you or I. So simulation, or not, evolution would still be, for practical purposes a fact.
My point was never to prove out the workings of a hypothetical computer simulation.
My point was to show how high profile physics researchers think we could be based on "reusable computer code" which clashes with the Theory of Evolution that says we have physical ancestry.
Computer code does not have physical ancestry.
The Windows 10 DVD did not evolve from an earlier Windows DVD.
The point of this discussion is to realize that no one knows how reality works, so the Theory of Evolution "facts" are cheap.
25 Jun 2017, 2:07 am
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Yes. We didn't really evolve. And we don't actually have ancestors. AND we ourselves don't actually exist. That would be true if this simulation notion were true.
But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?
But so what? What does that have to do with anything?
Exactly what point are you making?
I am showing you what high profile physicists think based on their scientific research.
They offer alternate explanations to reality.
People here seem to be thinking that the clearly labeled "Theory of evolution" is actually a fact.
Well...then if that is your point then you failed to prove your point.
Failed to prove your point because even if we live in a "simulation" then evolution is part of the simulation. And therefore evolution would still be just as "real" as anything else in the simulation including you, and I.
Or to put it another way: if we live in a simulation then we ourselves (you and I) would not be real. Evolution would also not be real, but it wouldn't be any less real than you or I. So simulation, or not, evolution would still be, for practical purposes a fact.
My point was never to prove out the workings of a hypothetical computer simulation.
My point was to show how high profile physics researchers think we could be based on "reusable computer code" which clashes with the Theory of Evolution that says we have physical ancestry.
Computer code does not have physical ancestry.
The Windows 10 DVD did not evolve from an earlier Windows DVD.
The point of this discussion is to realize that no one knows how reality works, so the Theory of Evolution "facts" are cheap.
You already said the above. And I have already shown that what you said above is irrelevant, and does not disprove evolution.
If it is a fact that we are "based on resusable computer code" then that does not in any way clash with any other theory of how we got here. It doesn't in anyway contradict evolution for the simple obvious reason that evolution would be part of the simulation. What you're saying is like saying "humans don't really have two arms because humans are actually based on reusable computer code, and therefor humans aren't real, therefore their two arms aren't real". For us creatures in the simulation our two arms are real, and so is the evidence of evolution.
You could say that If we live in a simulation evolution wouldn't be "real" in a sense. But if we're in a simulation you and I, and everything we see with our two eyes would also be NOT be real.
You operate under the assumption that you are "real". So what we see evidence for (like humans having two arms, and humans having evolved) are also real (for the practical purposes for us simulated creatures in this supposed simulation).
This simulation thing is NOT an alternative to evolution (nor to any form of creationism either). Its a separate dichotomy altogether.
Last edited by naturalplastic on 25 Jun 2017, 2:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
25 Jun 2017, 2:11 am
25 Jun 2017, 2:33 am
25 Jun 2017, 2:50 am
25 Jun 2017, 3:14 am
25 Jun 2017, 7:16 am
25 Jun 2017, 8:08 am
25 Jun 2017, 8:47 am
EzraS wrote:
If evolution were real it would have been written about in the bible, instead of a couple of hundred years later by Isaac Newton.
True.
And Elvis never sang about evolushun neither.
So it can't be so!
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| The Evolution of Monkeys |
19 May 2025, 9:43 am |
| Evolution of the word "transgender"? |
28 Jun 2025, 12:08 pm |
| A New Theory Suggests Consciousness Is A Quantum Process |
02 Jul 2025, 6:09 pm |
