We Live In An Electrical Simulation

Jipsah · Nov 16, 2023

Divide said:
Perhaps you've confused me with a scientist?

Not much chance of that.

Divide · Nov 16, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
Observation, in the context of quantum mechanics, does not mean being watched, but with being measured.

True!

ViaCrucis said:
There's no woo involved. The double slit experiment is weird, like a stage magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat it causes us to second-guess reality--but just like the magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat is not doing any magic but there is a perfectly rational explanation,

What is Woo? And second guess what reality? The one we can see or the unseen? And what should I do with this?

2nd Corinthians 4:18
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal..../KJV

Isnt this verse telling us that there is more to this planet (Creation) than meets the eye? So on what do I ignore this verse and disregard the unseen as magicians tricks? It sounds like you are saying that the only reality there is is the material earth and universe. And that's not what that verse is saying. Explain that one.

ViaCrucis said:
Any attempt to spiritualize quantum mechanics is bad.

Are you for real? Oh we have to spiritualize everything is what scripture says. What does it say? Be led by the Spirit? Pray without ceasing? Does that mean do not spiritualize? What do I do with 2 Corinthians 4:18? Should I tear that page out of my bible?

What does that verse mean? Look not at the things which are seen, which would be our material world. But look at the things which are not seen (in this material world)? WHat does that mean sir?

Divide · Nov 16, 2023

Jipsah said:
Not much chance of that.

You know less about Science than I do. All you have done is trash talk. Not one scientific thought.

So where's that leave you?

prodromos · Nov 16, 2023

Divide said:
Never heard of it. No Gilbert & Sullivan either. So what is your point?

You didn't recognise Jipsah's post, and my response to it, were lyrics from The Pirates of Penzance

prodromos · Nov 16, 2023

Divide said:
Then stop posting in my threads. Don't talk to me. Fairly simple. You can do it!

You don't have to read anyone's posts you don't want to. You don't own the threads you start, CF does.

prodromos · Nov 16, 2023

Divide said:
Chuck Missler is harvard educated and is much more credible than I.

Level of education =/= credibility. There are some well educated people posting on this forum who believe in a flat earth enclosed in a dome with an ice wall around the perimeter.

sjastro · Nov 16, 2023

Divide said:
Then stop posting in my threads. Don't talk to me. Fairly simple. You can do it!

This is a public forum and I will choose to post where I please.
If you can't resist the urge of attacking others using terms such as "punk", "trolling" or "all you do is talk crap and have nothing to back it up" you should follow your own advice and disappear.

prodromos · Nov 16, 2023

Divide said:
You know less about Science than I do.

Having read Jipsah's responses on a wide variety of topics, I think you have this backwards.

sjastro · Nov 16, 2023

prodromos said:
Level of education =/= credibility. There are some well educated people posting on this forum who believe in a flat earth enclosed in a dome with an ice wall around the perimeter.

Our resident Chuck Missler fanatic is not only gullible enough to fall for his nonsense but can't even get the facts right.
Accordingly to Missler's biography he is not Harvard educated but received a master's degree in engineering at UCLA.
This goes a long way to explaining the nonsense in his video as engineers are prone to the so called Salem Hypothesis

)) where Missler gets an honorable mention.

Akita Suggagaki · Nov 17, 2023

Divide said:
Ok so the possibility does exist that we do live in a simulation.

Well, we do actually. It is created by our brains. Our senses bring information from the outside world into our brains where it is synthesized into a gestalt. So the world we experience is a facsimile a copy, a recreation or a simulation within our minds.

And we are fortunate to have it. How else would we experience and come to know the universe? But our senses can deceive us. We always must be open to re-evaluation and editing our beliefs about our experience.

ViaCrucis · Nov 17, 2023

Divide said:
True!

What is Woo? And second guess what reality? The one we can see or the unseen? And what should I do with this?

Woo is short for "woo woo" a slang term referring to belief in superstitious, paranormal, or pseudoscientific ideas. Astrology, magic crystals, psychics, the power of positive thinking/manifesting are all examples of woo.

Divide said:
2nd Corinthians 4:18
18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal..../KJV

Isnt this verse telling us that there is more to this planet (Creation) than meets the eye? So on what do I ignore this verse and disregard the unseen as magicians tricks? It sounds like you are saying that the only reality there is is the material earth and universe. And that's not what that verse is saying. Explain that one.

I'm fairly confident we've been over this passage already. No, that isn't what it means. All you have to do is read more of what St. Paul wrote:

"We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you.

Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal."

The "things that are seen" is the suffering, pain, the mortality of our bodies. We cannot see, we cannot behold with our senses the truth of the Gospel and its promises, which are the future glory of the resurrection which has already been given to us by faith, and as hope that we shall be raised bodily even as Christ was. It is that glorious hope that is unseen. The seen--the afflictions, the sufferings, the death that surrounds us--is transient, it is temporary, it isn't what will last; what will last is the unseen hope and promise of God in Christ that we shall have life everlasting, Christ will return, the dead shall be raised, and God shall make all things new.

That's what the passage is talking about.

Divide said:
Are you for real?

Very much for real.

Divide said:
Oh we have to spiritualize everything is what scripture says.

No, it does not say that.

Divide said:
What does it say? Be led by the Spirit? Pray without ceasing? Does that mean do not spiritualize?

Being led by the Spirit and praying without ceasing has nothing to do with spiritualizing quantum mechanics.

Divide said:
What do I do with 2 Corinthians 4:18? Should I tear that page out of my bible?

I'd recommend interpreting it correctly. Applying some rudimentary exegetical skill to the passage would go a long way here. No need to tear it out of your Bible, just read it correctly instead of wrongly.

Divide said:
What does that verse mean? Look not at the things which are seen, which would be our material world. But look at the things which are not seen (in this material world)? WHat does that mean sir?

Already explained. Paul tells you what he means if you just bother to read it in context. It's not a riddle or a puzzle you have to figure out, the text makes it obvious what is being talked about. All you have to do is put in a small amount of work to understand it.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Nov 17, 2023

Divide said:
How do you know that photons are not conscious?

How do I know that invisible pink unicorns aren't dancing around me all the time?

-CryptoLutheran

Jipsah · Nov 17, 2023

Divide said:
You know less about Science than I do.

Very unlikely.

Divide said:
All you have done is trash talk. Not one scientific thought.

No scientifc issues have been raised.

Divide said:
So where's that leave you?

Talking to someone who espouses ridiculous and altogether baseless ideas.

Petros2015 · Nov 18, 2023

Divide said:
Interesting. Especially the virtual scientist part. I think he would see what he expects to see. The spiritual paarrelels between the Matrix and the Bible are all over the movie. Neo is "the One" so is a type of Christ for the movie.

Neo has carried, since his conception, the Matrix's source code known as the Prime Program. This gives him the ability to freely manipulate the simulated reality of the Matrix, similar to the authority a system administrator has over a given system. He manifests these abilities as various superhuman powers. Kind of how Jesus does on earth?

You sound like you might have taken the red pill. I did too so they'll prolly yell at me for this post, lol.

I don't see why (you would be yelled at for this post). Lots of Christian parallels in the movie, but also Buddhist, gnostic and others. Also... it's just a dern fine movie

But if the virtual scientist saw what he would expected to see, each virtual scientist would have a different expectation and see a different thing. They would get confused as to why they couldn't agree on what was down there. One thing we can definitively say about our reality (whether you want to call it physical, virtual or spiritual) is that it is shared. And therefore, it is not our own, and therefore it belongs to Someone Else.

That's the important part.

Also, not all those who take the red pill stay.

15 Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16 Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 18 Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19 but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown.”

Petros2015 · Nov 18, 2023

Divide said:
Exactly. The experiement showed two things, an interference pattern and also a wave pattern so they tried to chart which slit each proton went through so they set up a camera and it foiled the expected results. Almost like it knew that it was being observed.

My favorite vid explaining the Double-Slit experiment

Lots of interesting ramifications... Ultimately what it says to me is that the reality I live in is not incompatible with miracles (in fact it might be VERY compatible with miracles, possibly multiverse at the electron level). But, again, it is not MY (implying ownership) reality.

(from the vid "and what does an Observer have to do with Any of this?")

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

Petros2015 · Nov 18, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
Observation, in the context of quantum mechanics, does not mean being watched, but with being measured

Very true - observation is not the same thing as measurement (and it is often presented that way in qm discussions, including the one I posted). But they are not identical. There are important differences. I found this out the hard way.

I can casually observe a group of women walking down the street without changing their behavior.

But the moment I insist they all step on a scale and let me weigh them...

Divide · Nov 18, 2023

Petros2015 said:
I can casually observe a group of women walking down the street without changing their behavior.

Ok so they don't change their behavior, but can any of them perceive your observation internally? Or all of them?

Divide · Nov 18, 2023

Petros2015 said:
I can casually observe a group of women walking down the street without changing their behavior.

But the moment I insist they all step on a scale and let me weigh them...

So I remember one time that I picked up a girl without one word being spoken. (She was deaf/mute). Much of it was only with my observers (eyes). I seen from a distance that she was signing to her friend so I did know that but I never learned signing. I did it without words and I guarentee she perceived the communication and it did stir her up inside.

Wouldn't something like that be related to the topic?

Divide · Nov 18, 2023

There's al sorts of anecdotes (that I've have and heard about at least) that indicate that these type things happen. I have some myself. Nothing I can prove of course but I know it happened. I was married for 26 years and in the early days it was real and hot like a fire and love and loyalty and attraction were all there. She started this thing with me. She'd walk up to me and say, I know what you're thinking about. And she was always right. Then one day in front of company someone said something and they were talking and I forget what it was about but when he said it I & my wife both exchanged glances and it was trivial but it was like, he's wrong or he was right (I forget) and something about the glance made me know in the core of my being that, that communication took place and so I started wondering about it. Did we actually love each other enough that we were being telepathic with each other? So I tested it several times by just quietly sitting and looking at her and not speaking a word, but I would speak to her from my heart and ask her questions and stuff! Somehow, she managed to stay still long enough and silent just looking back to me and thinking within her own mind or heart. And we had a conversation without words and we both understood it. Part way through the conversation, she changed the subject! And I stayed right with her and went with the flow. It didnt take long before she was asking me what am I doing? So I told her and we compared notes about different conversations...and I was right. Even about her changing the subject. I think it scared her a little bit but I told her I think it was because we love each other.

I had already had training in Body Language and was fairly well versed in it and this was clearly something else. It was, spirit to spirit? Heart to heart? I'm not positive. There was very little body languaage anyway. We wasnt talking out loud.

And I figured if this works while looking at her then maybe it works when we are in different rooms? I tested that. She was upstairs putting the kids to bed. From my heart, I called out to her upstairs and didnt utter a sound. About 10 seconds later she appeared on the stairway saying, do you need something? (She heard me!) And I loved it! I think I was too mischevious about sometimes and did different things and she got tired of that game, lol. It went away after the honeymoon was over so to speak.

And I'm not asking anyone to believe this. I dont care if anyone thinks I'm nutty. However, True Story!

sjastro · Nov 18, 2023

I have been wary of using chatbots given when put to the test on physics and maths questions of varying complexity can make a mess of things as shown in this thread.
I decided to ask ChatGPT 3.5 two questions on the problems with the electric universe "theory" and are Chuck Missler's views on physics correct?

In answer to the first question ChatGPT 3.5 gave a good response.

The Electric Universe (EU) theory is a speculative idea that challenges mainstream scientific explanations for various astrophysical and cosmological phenomena. While it has gained some popularity among a small group of enthusiasts, it is important to note that the vast majority of the scientific community does not consider the Electric Universe theory to be well-supported or credible. Here are some of the criticisms and problems associated with the Electric Universe theory:

1. **Lack of Supporting Evidence:**

- One of the fundamental issues with the Electric Universe theory is the lack of empirical evidence to support its key claims. Scientific theories are typically built on a foundation of observational and experimental evidence, and the Electric Universe theory often lacks this support.

2. **Violation of Fundamental Laws of Physics:**

- The Electric Universe theory proposes electrical forces as the primary drivers of celestial phenomena, often in ways that appear to violate well-established laws of physics, such as gravity. Critics argue that the theory doesn't provide a coherent and consistent framework that aligns with the existing body of scientific knowledge.

3. **Limited Peer Review:**

- Many proponents of the Electric Universe theory publish their ideas in non-peer-reviewed publications or through outlets that are not widely recognized within the scientific community. The lack of rigorous peer review raises concerns about the validity and reliability of the claims made by supporters of the theory.

4. **Selective Data Interpretation:**

- Critics argue that proponents of the Electric Universe theory tend to selectively interpret data to fit their preconceived ideas, rather than following the scientific method, which involves letting observations guide theory development.

5. **Failure to Predict or Explain New Phenomena:**

- Scientific theories gain credibility when they successfully predict new phenomena or explain observations that were not initially understood. The Electric Universe theory has struggled to make successful predictions or provide compelling explanations for a wide range of astronomical observations.

6. **Lack of Academic Support:**

- The Electric Universe theory has not gained widespread acceptance within the scientific community. Mainstream astrophysicists and cosmologists generally do not endorse or support the theory, which is often considered outside the bounds of well-established scientific understanding.

7. **Simplistic Explanations:**

- Critics argue that the Electric Universe theory often relies on overly simplistic explanations for complex phenomena, neglecting the depth and intricacies of the well-established models and theories in astrophysics.

In summary, while the Electric Universe theory has captured the interest of some individuals, it faces significant challenges in terms of empirical support, adherence to fundamental physical laws, and acceptance within the scientific community. It's important to approach such theories with a critical mindset and consider the consensus within the scientific community.

For the second question ChatGPT 3.5 gave a general response which is accurate but did not go into specific detail of how Missler is contradictory and deliberately peddled misinformation as highlighted in this thread.

Chuck Missler's views on physics, like many individuals who integrate science with their religious beliefs, are not widely accepted within the mainstream scientific community. Missler's interpretations often reflect a specific religious and theological perspective rather than a purely scientific one. It's important to understand that while he had a background in business and was a popular speaker on topics related to science and theology, he was not a trained physicist or scientist.

Some of Missler's views on physics, particularly those related to cosmology, astronomy, and quantum mechanics, may align with his interpretation of biblical teachings and his belief in an intelligent designer. However, many of his assertions and connections between scientific concepts and religious beliefs are highly speculative and not supported by the broader scientific community.

In mainstream science, theories and models are subject to rigorous testing, peer review, and scrutiny based on empirical evidence. Chuck Missler's approach, which sometimes involves exploring numerical patterns in the Bible or making connections between scientific principles and religious texts, often falls outside the standard scientific methodology.

It's crucial for individuals interested in the intersection of science and faith to approach such discussions with an awareness of the differences between scientific theories and religious beliefs. While there can be personal and philosophical perspectives on how science and faith relate, it's important to distinguish between empirical scientific findings and interpretations based on religious or theological convictions.

We Live In An Electrical Simulation

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads