God
-
-
Incidentally, Bell's test experiment is the most profundly important thing anyone has ever come up with in the whole of humanity. Not that anyone gives a shit or knows much about it. You don't need to know when you've got beardy cunt.
https://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/ -
Surely the moon exists as a quantum field that's highly likely to be there if you observe it, even before you actually observe it? I'm not sure your usage of "exist" is helpful. -
I like the arrogance of your posts btw. They make me want to disagree even when I agree.
-
I don't know the science at all, but from a philosophy standpoint it makes sense to me to separate a raw 'existence' from 'being'. In effect, objects are there but have no specific properties until they are observed. Then only in retrospect can it be said that those properties were there as 'tendencies' all along.
For all I know though that's a completely different concept. -
Something about the brain evolved to this point lack the machinery to understand itself/maths etc. Like trying to see xrays.
-
Show networks- die
- @CustomCosy
- Xbox
- Skerret
- PSN
- Skerret
- Steam
- Skerret
- Wii
- get tae
Send messageI can see xrays in Metroid Prime.Skerret's posting is ok to trip balls to and read just to experience the ambience but don't expect any content.
"I'm jealous of sucking major dick!"~ Kernowgaz -
SpaceGazelle wrote:For Vela. https://maltoni.web.cern.ch/maltoni/PHY1222/mermin_moon.pdf Just deal with it.
I lack the intellect to seriously discuss this but I seem to recall reading a recent (last 2 years) article about how the measurement problem (that is what this is, yes?) had been framed in such a way as to make the observation aspect a non-personal one.
Maybe it was just the way it was written, but it was my understanding that the observation was not dependent on consciousness, merely measurement."Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett -
Anyone read Nagel's book, Mind and Cosmos? I'm guessing it got panned in the Atheistic blogosphere when it came out (he has the temerity to grant credit to theism at a few points, while being an atheist himself) but he's dealing with the "what the fuck is consciousness?" question in it.GT: Knight640
-
I'll give it a look!
-
acemuzzy wrote:Surely the moon exists as a quantum field that's highly likely to be there if you observe it, even before you actually observe it? I'm not sure your usage of "exist" is helpful.
By exist I mean have physical properties, numbers if you like, that you can attribute to a thing. Spin, position etc.
It turns out there are no hidden variables - numbers that define a thing but we can't see or measure for whatever reason, and those numbers are only called into existence upon observation. Reality does not exist until inspection. It's almost like we're living in some kind of computer simulation or something. I wonder why that is? -
And even more crazy, not only to you call reality into existence upon measurement, you actually change past events too. Time is probably an illusion tbh.
-
This is a bit long but it helped me understand how some religious people see religion.
"..the pseudo-Left new style.." -
The lod loading in this universe is well impressive. Must be running in a PC. -
So SpaceGazelle, you're in the universe as a simulation camp?
Or something else entirely?"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett -
Definitely computer simulation, not that it changes anything. Probably in a simulation of a simulation and you can run forever with that kind of thinking. Only one "real" timeline, so the odds are poor.
-
You use the word "definitely" in strange ways.
And in what sense (if any) is the computer not a (theistic) god? I guess that's what I'm getting at with the "whyhow is there a universe" question (in this thread). -
It might do. But anyway, too obtuse, cba despite finding this stuff interesting.
-
I find the simulation theory as enlightening as an infinite stack of turtles. It's just another form of regression. Of course the same could be said of the multiverse models.
The key questions are whether or not we can test it. There were some disproven claims by Penrose IIRC about an imprint of a previous universe in the CMB. Maybe if string theory is ever useful it could allow us to test the multiverse theories.
My inclination is towards a fractal multiverse with infinite bubbles of different types of universes. That's what I like at least, but it's neither here nor there if it's not the case."Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett -
So out of interest is it because the existence of multiverses, is 'neither here nor there' the reason it's preferable to theism? That is, theism has lived implications for its adherents that you find worrying?GT: Knight640
-
Knight wrote:So out of interest is it because the existence, or otherwise, of multiverses, is 'neither here nor there' the reason it's preferable to theism? That is, theism has lived implications for its adherents that you find worrying?
Not at all. I just mean that if I'm wrong about multiverse I don't mind. I have no attachment to the theory.
Theistic considerations play no role. From what I understand the universe is not as described by any religion. There is no evidence for any deity so I don't consider that as a valid concept.
The observations of the broad universe structure though appears incredibly similar to other fractal patterns. It is not structured with intent but is shaped by natural parameters. The idea of multiple universes popping out of nothing with slightly different parameters is interesting. Maybe there's only one.
At the end of the day though it is neither here nor there because there's nothing I can or would do to change it and I don't like to build a moral code based on the patterns of superclusters."Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." ― Terry Pratchett -
I guess I mean deity as something outside the universe. Potentially a computer. But yeah completely agree on turtles, it's the ontological argument all over. I guess I'm really agnostic not atheist, in that I don't reckon we can tell, but suspect the answer is beard-less.
-
I like John Lloyd's Ignosticism: http://www.philosophyforlife.org/john-lloyd-i-think-every-child-should-learn-stoic-philosophy/
These days I'm quote comfortable acknowledging when I don't know something, and thus not feeling the need to have and voice an opinion on it - possibly a lesson I've learnt through exposure to the many, many opinions that people on the internet have. -
SpaceGazelle wrote:Incidentally, Bell's test experiment is the most profundly important thing anyone has ever come up with in the whole of humanity. Not that anyone gives a shit or knows much about it. You don't need to know when you've got beardy cunt. https://www.wired.com/2014/01/bells-theorem/
Does this give us a means to "transmit" data about something over huge distances instantaneously? Or even to flick a switch remotely?Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
Nah info can't travel faster than the speed of light, and I don't think this breaks that
-
I'm pretty much down with that without any kind of science background. Except 'exist' is still probably the wrong word. And the simulation thing... well, likely or not it just doesn't matter in the end.SpaceGazelle wrote:
By exist I mean have physical properties, numbers if you like, that you can attribute to a thing. Spin, position etc. It turns out there are no hidden variables - numbers that define a thing but we can't see or measure for whatever reason, and those numbers are only called into existence upon observation. Reality does not exist until inspection. It's almost like we're living in some kind of computer simulation or something. I wonder why that is?acemuzzy wrote:Surely the moon exists as a quantum field that's highly likely to be there if you observe it, even before you actually observe it? I'm not sure your usage of "exist" is helpful. -
acemuzzy wrote:Nah info can't travel faster than the speed of light, and I don't think this breaks that
Does it not kind of break that? If you make a change to one particle that is reflected in its mate , say at the other end of a galaxy then you are signalling? At least in theory?Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,718
- Games1,881
- Off topic837