Page 6 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,801
Location: Queens, NYC

25 Jun 2017, 2:50 am

Simulation or no simulation, evolution has been experienced right before our eyes.

I believe I am "real."

I don't know if there are "alternate realities." I haven't chosen to speculate on that question. I've chosen to focus on my mundane, individual life.

It might make me "shallow"-- but I like the "shallow" mode of existence better. I like tasting ice cream and seeing beautiful mountains--taste-pleasing and eye-pleasing aesthetics.

Maybe in a "subsequent" life, I will ponder the "higher" questions, and be bored by the Mundane.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

25 Jun 2017, 3:14 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Simulation or no simulation, evolution has been experienced right before our eyes.

Did you really see it?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,801
Location: Queens, NYC

25 Jun 2017, 7:16 am

Not literally....but I've read about things like the antibiotic
adaptations stated above, and evolution in general, and find it to be plausible evidence of the accuracy of the evolution theorem.

So I have "faith" in it.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,128
Location: Twin Peaks

25 Jun 2017, 8:08 am

If evolution were real it would have been written about in the bible, instead of a couple of hundred years later by Isaac Newton.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,931
Location: temperate zone

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! :D



NewTime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2015
Posts: 1,785

25 Jun 2017, 12:45 pm

Evolution has been directly observed. The Big Bang, on the other hand, hasn't been observed directly, all evidence in favor of it is indirect, and it may well be discarded by scientists in the future in favor of something else, like what happened to the Steady State theory.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

25 Jun 2017, 10:08 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
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?

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. :D


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 youre 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.

The Theory of Evolution is clear; it says the beings must be biological (i.e., there must be physical ancestry).

Read the evolution wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

I have stated many times already, these physicists are discussing "reusable code" simulated existence.

"Reusable code" simulated existence is not biological, so NO it's not compatible with evolution.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,931
Location: temperate zone

26 Jun 2017, 2:53 am

system caused duplicate post



Last edited by naturalplastic on 26 Jun 2017, 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,931
Location: temperate zone

26 Jun 2017, 2:54 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
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?

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. :D


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 youre 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.

The Theory of Evolution is clear; it says the beings must be biological (i.e., there must be physical ancestry).

Read the evolution wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

I have stated many times already, these physicists are discussing "reusable code" simulated existence.

"Reusable code" simulated existence is not biological, so NO it's not compatible with evolution.


As I have stated many times we all get what its resusable code, and we all get that you don't get the fact that would only mean that biology itself would be simulated by this code. So the process of evolution would be built into the simulation. So there would be no conflict. It would not have anything to do with whether evolution (or creationism either) were true or not. Biology, heredity, and time itself, would all be part of the simulation. So there would still be "physical biological descent" from one generation to the next, and there would still be gradual change over time of heredity (ie evolution). This notion is not an alternative to evolution. Its a nonsequitar to evolution.

But even if it were "an alternative to evolution" its still just a fringe hypothesis. Its not a challenge to the mainstream consensus of science that evolution happened. There would still be no "debate" about the truth of evolution in mainstream science being caused by this notion. So for practical purposes evolution would still be a fact.

But that aside -what is the point that youre trying to make? Are you saying that this simulation idea proves creationism? Or are you saying that its a third option (that there is evolution, creation, and this simulation notion)?



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

26 Jun 2017, 3:36 am

naturalplastic wrote:
As I have stated many times we all get what its resusable code, and we all get that you don't get the fact that would only mean that biology itself would be simulated by this code. So the process of evolution would be built into the simulation. So there would be no conflict. It would not have anything to do with whether evolution (or creationism either) were true or not. Biology, heredity, and time itself, would all be part of the simulation. So there would still be "physical biological descent" from one generation to the next, and there would still be gradual change over time of heredity (ie evolution). This notion is not an alternative to evolution. Its a nonsequitar to evolution.

But even if it were "an alternative to evolution" its still just a fringe hypothesis. Its not a challenge to the mainstream consensus of science that evolution happened. There would still be no "debate" about the truth of evolution in mainstream science being caused by this notion. So for practical purposes evolution would still be a fact.

The article's title asks, "are we virtual".
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/

Your response is to argue that virtual things can be biological.

That's opposite of the dictionary definition of "virtual".

VIRTUAL : "not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so".

How can something virtual actually be biological?

By definition, it can't.

naturalplastic wrote:
But that aside -what is the point that youre trying to make? Are you saying that this simulation idea proves creationism? Or are you saying that its a third option (that there is evolution, creation, and this simulation notion)?

I am showing how high profile university physics professors and researchers (scientists) suggest an alternate theory to evolution.

They suggest that reality is virtual, not real, not biological, not evolutionary, but plug-and-chug code.

In the article, they equate this reality to the movie, the Matrix.

Yes, virtual evolution may happen in the Matrix, but it's not real, not biological.

They are basing it off their scientific insights.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,801
Location: Queens, NYC

26 Jun 2017, 9:31 am

I believe, firmly, that we are "real," and not "virtual."

The Bible was written starting about 700-800 BC or so. It was based on events which occurred, starting about 2,000 BC.

Ezra's definitely kidding. Newton had nothing to do with evolution. Charles Darwin, in 1859, was the one who publicized the "natural selection" theory of evolution, even though another person arrived at a similar theory around the same time.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

26 Jun 2017, 9:53 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I believe, firmly, that we are "real," and not "virtual."

Do you say that in view of quantum physics?

-That the same thing can be in two different places at the same time.

-That observation affects outcome in reality.

-That all matter is connected, so there are no people per se, just one entity.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,801
Location: Queens, NYC

26 Jun 2017, 10:05 am

I haven't reached the point where I can be in two places at once.

I've never experienced, personally, the speed of light.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

26 Jun 2017, 10:08 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I haven't reached the point where I can be in two places at once.

I've never experienced, personally, the speed of light.

You might have ....

Atoms can be in two places at the same time
https://www.uni-bonn.de/Press-releases/ ... -same-time



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 64,801
Location: Queens, NYC

26 Jun 2017, 10:16 am

I've never precluded this possibility. I admit I haven't studied quantum physics much.

But I have studied evolution, and believe in its efficacy.