Genesis

[Chesterton]

Thoughts?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thoughts?

I'm trying to offer a thought that I know is my own. Give me a minute..............................

 

[Chesterton]

I'm trying to offer a thought that I know is my own. Give me a minute..............................

I agree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree.

.... Just watch out for the blonde in the red dress, or you'll die.

 

[Leviathan-at-play]

@Chesterton and @2PhiloVoid - okay, I'll bite. Some rando-thoughts:

1. I never fail to get a chuckle out of the enthusiasm and depths of breathless curiosity Secular Materialists get from "esoteric cosmologies" such as Simulation Theory, Multiverses, String Theory, Quantum Entanglement, etc It seems these are all neato and plausible. But suggest that reality might be nested within a Mind? Bah! Go back to the Bronze Age you bunch of Puritans!
2. Friendly derision aside, it's probably a good thing that the sciences are at least open to these novelties - like training wheels for faith as they hopefully plod forward on their journey towards God.
3. Even as Christians we have the same questions plaguing our understanding of God's Creation. For example, when God's "rendering" the moon-dust underneath a random rock on the dark side of the moon, observed by nobody, does he do so in the same level of detail as he might render your face in the mirror? Certainly God doesn't need to cut corners, but that doesn't tell us whether he does or doesn't.
4. Further, under Christianity the very nature of Creation itself is possibly closer to the Simulation Theory than we might initially suspect: God is sustaining and recreating every sub-atomic particle from moment to moment. The pencil on your desk isn't really there as a collection of particles, but is instead "there" as something like a line of poetry song lyric, being sung by God only in relation to the rest of the song.

Anyway, my two cents - your mileage may vary.
Thanks for sharing,
LAP

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@Chesterton and @2PhiloVoid - okay, I'll bite. Some rando-thoughts:

1. I never fail to get a chuckle out of the enthusiasm and depths of breathless curiosity Secular Materialists get from "esoteric cosmologies" such as Simulation Theory, Multiverses, String Theory, Quantum Entanglement, etc It seems these are all neato and plausible. But suggest that reality might be nested within a Mind? Bah! Go back to the Bronze Age you bunch of Puritans!
2. Friendly derision aside, it's probably a good thing that the sciences are at least open to these novelties - like training wheels for faith as they hopefully plod forward on their journey towards God.
3. Even as Christians we have the same questions plaguing our understanding of God's Creation. For example, when God's "rendering" the moon-dust underneath a random rock on the dark side of the moon, observed by nobody, does he do so in the same level of detail as he might render your face in the mirror? Certainly God doesn't need to cut corners, but that doesn't tell us whether he does or doesn't.
4. Further, under Christianity the very nature of Creation itself is possibly closer to the Simulation Theory than we might initially suspect: God is sustaining and recreating every sub-atomic particle from moment to moment. The pencil on your desk isn't really there as a collection of particles, but is instead "there" as something like a line of poetry song lyric, being sung by God only in relation to the rest of the song.

Anyway, my two cents - your mileage may vary.
Thanks for sharing,
LAP

Could be. As a Realist, I'm not real big on studying the Simulation Hypothesis as an alternative Metaphysics. I'm more interested in questions pertaining to Epistemology, like "How in the heck do you think you know that?" and other such probing inquiries. Mainly because the training wheels package I bought is missing some screws so I've had to do without .............

 

[Leviathan-at-play]

Could be. As a Realist, ...

"Could be" should be the driving motto of science - for both why we conduct science ("I wonder if X could be true... let me explore") as well as our stance towards previous findings ("We think X is true, but maybe we could be wrong... let's dig deeper").

 

[sjastro]

Why has this been posted in the mainstream forum on science?

The presenter of this nonsense is a motivational speaker, he should have motivated himself in becoming acquainted with the science.

Quantum entanglement is a successful prediction of quantum field theory which unifies quantum mechanics with special relativity (not general relativity).
Special relativity is built on the premise that spacetime, hence distance is real not an illusion.

His video is a non sequitor, quantum entanglement requires spacetime to be real for the prediction to have been supported by the experimental evidence.

On a different topic the universe is at a uniform temperature because in its very early history it underwent an exponential expansion known as inflation so that spatially separated regions remained in causal contact so that the universe was able to cool uniformly.
It would be extremely difficult to explain this if distance is an illusion.

 

[Bob Crowley]

.... Just watch out for the blonde in the red dress, or you'll die.

Your quote reminded me of an alleged Bob Hope joke during WWII when a Catalina he and other performers were on was forced to make an emergency landing near Laurieton, New South Wales, Australia. He and some other performers did an impromptu appearance at a local theatre somewhere.

From an AI source -

In August 1944, Bob Hope and his troupe were forced to make an emergency landing in a Catalina flying boat on the Camden Haven River near Laurieton, New South Wales, while returning from Guam.

While many of Hope's specific lines from the improvised performances that followed are not fully documented in news reports, he frequently joked about the dramatic nature of the landing and the need to throw cargo, including glamorous clothes worn by his dancers and singer Frances Langford, into the ocean to lighten the plane.

He is supposed to have quipped "There's a shark out there somewhere wearing a red dress, smoking a Chesterfield and singing 'I'm in the mood for love!'".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your quote reminded me of an alleged Bob Hope joke during WWII when a Catalina he and other performers were on was forced to make an emergency landing near Laurieton, New South Wales, Australia. He and some other performers did an impromptu appearance at a local theatre somewhere.

From an AI source -



He is supposed to have quipped "There's a shark out there somewhere wearing a red dress, smoking a Chesterfield and singing 'I'm in the mood for love!'".

In some ways, the semi-quote I've given from The Matrix represents the biblical reality that I think we're in today.

 

[Chesterton]

...Simulation Theory...

...Simulation Hypothesis...

It's no longer a theory or hypothesis.

Why has this been posted in the mainstream forum on science?

But...but...the Nobel Prize in physics. That's better than Snopes.

 

[Leviathan-at-play]

It's no longer a theory or hypothesis.

But...but...the Nobel Prize in physics. That's better than Snopes.

I can’t quite tell your level of seriousness or sarcasm here brother so forgive me when I invariably guess wrong

My understanding of Simulation Theory is that, by definition, it is unprovable and untestable. Presuming there is our “inner reality” (IR) and a simulating “outer reality” (OR), we can never truly know if we’re probing OR because we are IR beings with IR brains and tools. Even if we think we have learned something about OR, the question “How can we tell that that finding isn’t itself just a part of the simulation” looms large and unanswerable. There will always be infinite regress (outgress?) trying to claw ourselves into OR only to then wonder if we’re not just merely in another IR antechamber.

If you’re up on your Hoffman then similar phenomena are already taking place already - e.g. the “reality” that we see with our eyes is certainly not what it really is, sub-atomically. Our brains highly emphasize “good fruit colors” - yellows and reds - so that they stand out, etc. Hoffman’s work isn’t really about simulation, but does at least underscore the challenges of reality-perception by science, even limited to IR.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's no longer a theory or hypothesis.

.... like with the various String Theories that have been promulgated, I'm at pains to call Material Simulation a "well established fact."

I could be wrong though, but my existential Spidey-sense tells me to remain a Realist until such a time that ..............

 

[Leviathan-at-play]

.... like with the various String Theories that have been promulgated, I'm at pains to call Material Simulation a "well established fact."

I could be wrong though, but my existential Spidey-sense tells me to remain a Realist until such a time that ..............

I’m all for science’s exploration of these domains, mind you. To me all science is, finally, a seeking of God and his ways. Science is worship God gave us Creation, and a mandate to shepherd it, and the tools and methods of science for that purpose.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thoughts?

This misleading video doesn't have anything to do with a 2500-year-old Jewish religious text, an English rock band, or a current US government program to trash science by shoving AI into every orifice.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m all for science’s exploration of these domains, mind you. To me all science is, finally, a seeking of God and his ways. Science is worship God gave us Creation, and a mandate to shepherd it, and the tools and methods of science for that purpose.

I appreciate your view, LAP. Unfortunately, I've only been able to ponder over the thinnest, wispiest glimpses of the presence of God's Divine Hand in Creation. It's why I usually identify as an Existentialist and Evidentialist.

But hey, if others think they see God's fingerprints, I won't poke them in the eye over it. I just hope they have some mercy on us who have spiritual cataracts.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's no longer a theory or hypothesis.

It never was. It was bong-hit philosophy and still is. Just because the stoners in question run tech companies doesn't make their nonsense fantasies real.

But...but...the Nobel Prize in physics. That's better than Snopes.

had nothing to do with "simulation theory".

I can state with certainty that no one who ever "seriously" promoted "simulation theory" had ever tried to simulate anything real. (And, no, rendering a semi-convincing image of it is not "simulation".)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This misleading video doesn't have anything to do with a 2500-year-old Jewish religious text, an English rock band, or a current US government program to trash science by shoving AI into every orifice.

I only skimmed the video, and maybe I missed it, but I didn't come across any reference to a 2500 year old Jewish religious text. So, I'm not sure why you're adding that to your list of observations about the paucity of evidence for simulation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I only skimmed the video, and maybe I missed it, but I didn't come across any reference to a 2500 year old Jewish religious text. So, I'm not sure why you're adding that to your list of observations about the paucity of evidence for simulation.

The title of the thread, my friend. It has nothing to do with the video.

 

[Fromissouri]

.... Just watch out for the blonde in the red dress, or you'll die.

I'm more concerned about the bald-headed guy in the red dress in front of Walmart.