Genesis

[Chesterton]

You really still don't get what I'm saying?

Okay. Let's try this.

Quantum simulation - pretty pictures on super smart software to let scientists see how quantum things work.

Simulation as you and the bozo in the video claimed - everything in the universe was made by an intelligent being.

Again, what's the difference?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Again, what's the difference?

... you're doing this intentionally, aren't you?

Because I refuse to accept that you can be as stupid as your are pretending to be right now with what I just wrote out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think all things are possible with men?

No.

And I wish academia would learn that.

We'd have less of their junk that only looks good on paper.

 

[Chesterton]

... you're doing this intentionally, aren't you?

Because I refuse to accept that you can be as stupid as your are pretending to be right now with what I just wrote out.

I'll take that as an "I don't know what I'm talking about".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll take that as an "I don't know what I'm talking about".

Except that I clearly showed you are using the word simulation wrong, when talking about quantum simulation and how it got a Nobel prize.

If you don't understand simple English, than that's entirely and irrevocably and profoundly on you alone. If you don't get how two words can have entirely different meanings based on context and usage, then your English language teachers absolutely failed you.

 

[Chesterton]

No.

And I wish academia would learn that.

We'd have less of their junk that only looks good on paper.

At bottom, don't you think the universe would have to be described as a simulation?

 

[Chesterton]

Except that I clearly showed you are using the word simulation wrong, when talking about quantum simulation and how it got a Nobel prize.

If you don't understand simple English, than that's entirely and irrevocably and profoundly on you alone. If you don't get how two words can have entirel'y different meanings based on context and usage, then your English language teachers absolutely failed you.

You didn't clearly show me anything.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You didn't clearly show me anything.

Yes I did. It's not my fault that you lack the intelligence to understand simple English.

 

[AV1611VET]

At bottom, don't you think the universe would have to be described as a simulation?

For the record, here's a thread of mine that got moved to the Clean Christian Jokes section for some reason:

What role does science play in cartoon physics?

 

[Chesterton]

Yes I did. It's not my fault that you lack the intelligence to understand simple English.

Maybe try it in Esperanto,

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe try it in Esperanto,

You'd pull the same card for sure.

You, sir, are an intellectual tarpit, and I'm putting you Ignore.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd pull the same card for sure.

You, sir, are an intellectual tarpit, and I'm putting you Ignore.

-- solid aurum!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

-- solid aurum!

What issue have you got now? I explained how quantum simulation does not mean the same thing as simulation as he and the video is using it, he refused to accept what I said repeatedly even after I dumbed it down massively so even my four year old nephew could understand it better, and somehow I'm the bad guy for refusing to engage with him further? Is that your issue?

 

[AV1611VET]

What issue have you got now? I explained how quantum simulation does not mean the same thing as simulation as he and the video is using it, he refused to accept what I said repeatedly even after I dumbed it down massively so even my four year old nephew could understand it better, and somehow I'm the bad guy for refusing to engage with him further? Is that your issue?

No.

Sorry.

It's just ... ironic ... considering the other thread you're harping on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No.

Sorry.

It's just ... ironic ... considering the other thread you're harping on.

Then that's entirely a you problem.

 

[Chesterton]

-- solid aurum

What does that mean?

 

[Chesterton]

You'd pull the same card for sure.

You, sir, are an intellectual tarpit, and I'm putting you Ignore.

That escalated quickly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's that word consciousness again which has received a bad rap from the likes of @Hans Blaster and myself when applied to quantum mechanics.
Since this is a science forum an obvious question which arises is what evidence supports consciousness under functionalism?
In the case for physicalism the philosophical or metaphysical question as to why neural activity produces consciousness science cannot answer but empirically there is a connection between neural activity and consciousness, such as how consciousness is affected due to brain damage, the effect of drugs etc.
For functionalism the scope for evidence is far weaker given that the Simulation Hypothesis shares the same problems with AI, namely how do you test either for consciousness which are non biological systems; it may turn out to be unfalsifiable like the using science to show God exists or does not exist.

Another point that needs to be mentioned simulations are not purely confined to the use of computers.
In my field of having used science in forensic engineering, the simulations are based on the use and development of experiments not computers.
Each shares the same objectives of using model based realities for real world problems but with the use of different tools.
I doubt anyone would consider emerging consciousness from a simulation based on an experiment.

Yes, I think you've explained it well.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does that mean?

Solid gold.

In other words ... oh, the irony of what he said.

 

[AV1611VET]

That escalated quickly.

I think I put him in a sour mood.