Physicists may prove we exist in a computer simulation

[Guest]

We dont have the answer because this universe is just a part of the real one. only this make sense.

 

[Guest]

I always thought nature worked in a similar manner to computers in that they both share two main states of either on or off. At the core of computers you have transistors which work as either on or off. Nature has a similar structure of something or nothing (aka life or death, or yin and yang, etc..) and everything happens thanks to the two states.

 

[josh-r]

Well it's more worrying to think we might be a simulation of superior beings who are testing to see if they are a simulation of an even superior being who are also testing to see if they are a simulation

 

[Guest]

@ ikesmasher

Ok judging by your other posts on this topic and your arguments along the line of "we don't know so therefore god" aka the argument from ignorance and your reliance on the faulty "first cause argument" both of which are soundly dealt with here:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God I don't want to get into this (because I'm concerned that you are psychologically and emotionally unprepared for dealing with the reality that the world is not 6-10 thousand years old, the bible contains many falsehoods and we were not created in our present form etc ad nauseum) so instead go here http://www.talkorigins.org/ and here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ and put your beliefs to the test.

 

[captaincranky]

Oh goody, the creation versus evolution debate isn't anywhere near resolved, (like it ever will be), and now we have to contend with, "and then there's what's behind door number three".

Myself, I believe the originator of the article / hypothesis is a chronic narcissist who spends way too much time playing video games. This has caused him a huge break with reality. I suggest he should undertake watching professional wrestling at a marathon pace. When he realizes that's the only thing that's indeed real in this world, it will divert him from the collision course he's on with a full blown psychotic break. You'll get my bill.

 

[Guest]

"Sounds like people will be reading about this is a textbook 200 years from now laughing, just like when we laughed at people for thinking the earth was flat or was the center of the universe"

Except there is a big difference between people believing the world is flat... and some guys who know a lot better going "hmm, I wonder if..."

 

[Zoltan Head]

it makes no sense from something to come from nothing, as that breaks the laws of (at least, what we believe) of physics. but if intelligent design was correct (and im not stating any more about my views on that) then it would make sense for a being that always existed (in line with the bible) to have the power to do things beyond human comprehension. Hypothetically, we could fool ourselves into saying we could comprehend it, but we would not be able to. im not saying you are incorrect, im simply offering another argument that it would be interesting to get a response.

I don't think any laws of physics are necessarily violated by "something coming from nothing", this is a well known corner of quantum physics, explaining vacuum fluctuations (to give an experimentally tested example) among many other things.
The problem PH mentions above is harder, I.e. if you accept "the simulation" it only shifts the question to what created the "host" universe (also, is it on local storage or in the cloud....)

 

[captaincranky]

Yeah well, to suddenly stand up and contend that the premise behind the "Matrix" has a distinct possibility of being a reality is derivative at best. Oh well what the hell, I've secretly always known that plagiarism was one of the most overlooked branches of the natural sciences.

 

[Guest]

I know many people would think this article is laughable, but such curiosity is needed, as this may lead to another breakthrough/further understanding of our universe.. I mean, just like people in old time curious how bird can fly and thinking if we put wings to our back so we can fly like a bird, such curiosity lead us to invent what we called airplane nowadays..

 

[Guest]

@Doctor John

"What's a Technological Singularity?"
Matrix stuff is based from 'technological singularity'

 

[Guest]

The dude who simulated the whole thing is as incompetent as God... what an epic troll.

 

[NoraQuick]

Damn it, Slartibartfast, you made a mistake and now they've figured it out!

 

[Doctor John]

@Doctor John
"What's a Technological Singularity?"
Matrix stuff is based from 'technological singularity'

I'm reluctant to post this, as you will think I am a complete imbecile but here goes:- I don't know what "Matrix stuff" means either?! Help!

 

[Guest]

Guess what, the free will that I thought I had as a child is becoming more and more understandingly non-existent. For instance, God. Without any knowledge of the world as a child, I had to "believe" it to be true, I had free will. Now that I know better that decision to believe CAN NOT EXIST. I have only one choice now, the truth that Iv'e learned.

 

[Guest]

Of course people have came back in time! Humans in the future still have follies, like accidentally being seen during a few commercial "Vacation to the Past" trips...

 

[oldikes]

@ ikesmasher

Ok judging by your other posts on this topic and your arguments along the line of "we don't know so therefore god" aka the argument from ignorance and your reliance on the faulty "first cause argument" both of which are soundly dealt with here:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God I don't want to get into this (because I'm concerned that you are psychologically and emotionally unprepared for dealing with the reality that the world is not 6-10 thousand years old, the bible contains many falsehoods and we were not created in our present form etc ad nauseum) so instead go here http://www.talkorigins.org/ and here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ and put your beliefs to the test.

where did I ever say that god existed and science was wrong etc? you obviously were just waiting to throw this out there and attempt to make me go on some religious rant etc etc. But im not saying that God has to exist based on first cause-im saying that God is just as possible as two atoms existing, as science was defined by humans, which are not a flawless creature.
That article I DID find interesting though-he said that the intelligent design argument was the easiest to flatten, because if everything had a creator, who created God? sounds like a solid argument. But assuming everything had a creator, something had to have a permanent existence, whether it was God or two atoms or whatever you believe. That actually just proves my point further, science being the correct answer (And we will never know for sure regardless of what scientists say) is not any more likely than God. You are quite welcome to say, "Well based on this, this element (irrelevantly, conservation of energy for example) makes perfect sense and is therefore is `100% correct. However, there is absoultely no way to be sure that human conclusions of science (or anything at all, really) is correct. Which is why, as I said, religion is synonymous to faith, which is synonymous to believing things we cant see or prove. You place faith in science creating the universe, which is also believing in things you cannot see or prove, regardless if science has told you its proven. You CAN quote quantum physics laws and concepts (such as the uncertainty principle) which I find quite interesting, but in the end there is no way that they can be proved.

 

[Zoltan Head]

That article I DID find interesting though-he said that the intelligent design argument was the easiest to flatten, because if everything had a creator, who created God? sounds like a solid argument. But assuming everything had a creator, something had to have a permanent existence, whether it was God or two atoms or whatever you believe. That actually just proves my point further, science being the correct answer (And we will never know for sure regardless of what scientists say) is not any more likely than God. You are quite welcome to say, "Well based on this, this element (irrelevantly, conservation of energy for example) makes perfect sense and is therefore is `100% correct. However, there is absoultely no way to be sure that human conclusions of science (or anything at all, really) is correct. Which is why, as I said, religion is synonymous to faith, which is synonymous to believing things we cant see or prove. You place faith in science creating the universe, which is also believing in things you cannot see or prove, regardless if science has told you its proven. You CAN quote quantum physics laws and concepts (such as the uncertainty principle) which I find quite interesting, but in the end there is no way that they can be proved.

I don't think any good scientist would ever claim that science is "the correct answer", it is just a system of doubt which homes in on the truth (but never quite gets there!) Unless I've misunderstood (as a good scientist I doubt/test myself).

 

[Guest]

@Doctor John

"I'm reluctant to post this, as you will think I am a complete imbecile but here goes:- I don't know what 'Matrix stuff' means either?! Help!"

And I'm reluctant to post this also, since you will think I am more completely perfect imbecile than you think, Matrix stuff is some serious kicking science-action-stuff, the story is about the fight between Agent Smith and Mr. Anderson (Neo) within simulation-stuff with superhuman-stuff power that can dodge bullet and stuff. *LoL

 

[oldikes]

I don't think any good scientist would ever claim that science is "the correct answer", it is just a system of doubt which homes in on the truth (but never quite gets there!) Unless I've misunderstood (as a good scientist I doubt/test myself).

youd be surprised. just a while ago there was an article on yahoo (yes I know, yahoo journalism) that asked if science was able to disprove God, which is, to any intelligent person, incredibly ridiculous, because even if you place more faith in science, it cannot disprove anything. But so many people were saying yes and things like it. Ive heard many a scientist try and use science to say God does not exist.

 

[Guest]

I have 2 pills each in 1 hand. my left hand I have a green pill that puts u to sleep and in my right hand I have a blue pill that will make u high.

 

[CFSG1]

Wow

 

[PoisonHeadcrab]

I can see what we lead to this conclusion, however, there is no evidence suggesting that a creator does not have humanlike traits. I can also say that the bible states that god created man "in his image"..

Not only there is no evidence, but from logical conclusions you can safely assume that there is no way a possible "creator" would not have certain human traits, aka such of an intelligent life form. Otherwise you wouldn't call it a creator anymore.

When it comes right down to it, there really isnt a way to completely prove either science or intelligent design. which is why religion is synonymous to "faith"-believing something we cannot prove is true. Two atoms coming to existence from nothing isnt any more possible to prove than a God, because that would be implying that everything we know about science is 100% accurate, which is highly, highly unlikely.

Science and intelligent design are not things that would contradict each other. Science is not a belief or religion, it's simply the means of trying to create objective knowledge through logical analysis of verifiable observations. Certainly, nothing can ever be 100% true and accurate, however science goes as close as we could possibly come to that. Religion on the other hand is something completely different, it has different purposes and different applications and has actually absolutely nothing to do with physics or any other natural science, it has nothing to do with explaining the actual origin of our world. Psychology and Philosophy are the (much) closer scientific fields here.
People keep bringing Religion up in these discussions because it spawned the idea of an intelligent creator, if however we take this idea to serious consideration it soon becomes clear how much it gets alienated from original religious beliefs.

The bottom line is: Religion serves no purpose in this matter and was never even meant to do so.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Guess what, the free will that I thought I had as a child is becoming more and more understandingly non-existent. For instance, God. Without any knowledge of the world as a child, I had to "believe" it to be true, I had free will. Now that I know better that decision to believe CAN NOT EXIST. I have only one choice now, the truth that Iv'e learned.

So what you are saying is that you are basing your belief on incomplete knowledge of the universe, since you think you understand the world now that you are no longer a child. :rollseyes:

 

[oldikes]

Not only there is no evidence, but from logical conclusions you can safely assume that there is no way a possible "creator" would not have certain human traits, aka such of an intelligent life form. Otherwise you wouldn't call it a creator anymore.



Science and intelligent design are not things that would contradict each other. Science is not a belief or religion, it's simply the means of trying to create objective knowledge through logical analysis of verifiable observations. Certainly, nothing can ever be 100% true and accurate, however science goes as close as we could possibly come to that. Religion on the other hand is something completely different, it has different purposes and different applications and has actually absolutely nothing to do with physics or any other natural science, it has nothing to do with explaining the actual origin of our world. Psychology and Philosophy are the (much) closer scientific fields here.
People keep bringing Religion up in these discussions because it spawned the idea of an intelligent creator, if however we take this idea to serious consideration it soon becomes clear how much it gets alienated from original religious beliefs.

The bottom line is: Religion serves no purpose in this matter and was never even meant to do so.

thats pretty much what I was initially saying in the first page of comments, but then people (particularly guests) continued to argue that so it got out of hand...

 

[Guest]

God is just a character from a book, doh! :<