Jump to content

The Religion/Spirituality Thread


Ace Nova

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That's brilliant! Then these discussions will ebb out quickly. I, on the other hand, will continue to point out where you are wrong when you continue to misunderstand science. Because it is fun. And I learn a lot.

Well, unfortunately in attempt to rationalize this discovery, you have resorted to semantics and deflection.

Fact: James Gates discovered binary code aka an algorithm, interwoven within the fabric of the universe. ...that is currently used within our modern day search engines.   

Soul Monster: it doesn’t mean intelligent design.  This other guy says it’s not because of intelligent design.   And it’s no big deal that an computer algorithm appears naturally within the fabric of the universe.

Me:  Actually, it is.  The probability of it happening randomly is next to zero.  And they don’t have an explanation for it yet.

Soul Monster: Well it occurs in our man made models so it can occur in nature.

Me: :facepalm:

Hit repeat.  That’s the gist of the past several posts.  

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

@action I implore you to watch this video and hopefully many others. I'm disengaging from the discussion for now as I've, with all my flaws(and the fact I am very much only a beginner of vipassana and foolishly haven't been keeping up my practice) become frustrated and agitated so I am sorry for that. I have a long way to go and do not want to be a poor example.

yes, you have a long way to go. Just review your own posts and the condescending way you talk to religious people. How you directly attack the christian "group", because of a couple of thousands of pedophile priests (that no one on here have defended anyway, but that don't stop you). Look them up, please, and seriously review how you started this discussion by slandering a whole group, because of their "ridiculous" belief.

I have no interest in vipassana, it couldn't be further of my interest than say, the instruction manual of an industrial paper shredder, in the hindu language. It doesn't interest me, and I wish not to be involuntarily pointed to any such videos from here on out. I respect that it is useful to some people, to you, but not to me.

Now if you could come to your senses in the future, and you can keep an open mind of "my" beliefs, of kasanova's beliefs without banding around silly terms like "ridiculous" and "nightmarish", then I might pay attention to what you have to say, once more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

You don’t understand what he’s saying. 

I don't understand the word "no"? You think it means "yes"?

So when Dr. Hubsch is asked,

"Did James Gates really find computer code in string theory and does it suggest intelligent design,"

and he answers:

"no and no. <eye-roll>"

that means "yes" somehow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Fact: James Gates discovered binary code aka an algorithm, interwoven within the fabric of the universe. ...that is currently used within our modern day search engines.   

In the words of Professor Hubsch, one of the colleagues of Dr. Gates and co-author on the very paper that you have misunderstood: No. 

What they did was to realize that the algorithm that are used in string theory contains parts that are similar to codes used in search engines.

10 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Me:  Actually, it is.  The probability of it happening randomly is next to zero. 

No, the probability of codes used in search engines being similar to algorithms developed to explain an aspect of string theory, is absolutely not "next to zero" :lol: In the words of Dr. Hubsch, it is "in some sense inevitable."

Again, I tend to believe scientists over you when discussing string theory. Especially professors working on string theory. Especially scientists publishing new results on string theory. Especially scientists being the authors behind papers that present the very results you claim mean something. And one of these scientists says "No" and rolls his eyes. I do too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, action said:

try harder.

in your last sentence, you call our behaviour "despicable"

@SoulMonster

https://www.livescience.com/65832-ai-creates-model-universe-mysteriously.html

look at them apples

Not sure what you're trying to say here. All the article says is that scientists built an AI to work on a model of the universe built on 8000 existing models. They also say they're studying the AI to determine how it works. There's nothing here to support intelligent design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Not sure what you're trying to say here. All the article says is that scientists built an AI to work on a model of the universe built on 8000 existing models. They also say they're studying the AI to determine how it works. There's nothing here to support intelligent design.

no, but it supports the notion that the universe could be a simulation.

Not only is there the computer code found in the fabric of the universe (evidence 1) but also the fact, that the universe can be simulated to staggering accuracy including dark matter which we don't even understand yet (but the AI does) (evidence 2).

The final piece of evidence is the double slit experiment, which proves that reality is a range of possibilities, until observed. This is also indicative of the universe being a simulation.  (evidence 3). Because this phenomenon is a means to save on processing power (simulating a universe demands a whole lot of processing power). Kind of like a video game, which only needs to render what the player is looking at. It seems, god's computer has only limited random access memory, so various tricks and shortcuts are being used to render it all.

The universe also suffers from framedrops here and there, see gravitational waves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, action said:

no, but it supports the notion that the universe could be a simulation.

Not only is there the computer code found in the fabric of the universe (evidence 1) but also the fact, that the universe can be simulated to staggering accuracy including dark matter which we don't even understand yet (but the AI does) (evidence 2).

The final piece of evidence is the double slit experiment, which proves that reality is a range of possibilities, until observed. This is also indicative of the universe being a simulation.  (evidence 3). Because this phenomenon is a means to save on processing power (simulating a universe demands a whole lot of processing power). Kind of like a video game, which only needs to render what the player is looking at. It seems, god's computer has only limited random access memory, so various tricks and shortcuts are being used to render it all.

The universe also suffers from framedrops here and there, see gravitational waves.

Evidence 1

There wasn't computer code found in the fabric of the universe at all! What the scientists were saying is that models they created USING computer code can be used to model a realistic approximation of the universe. 

Evidence 2

Nonsense! The AI is simply a tool employed to improve on existing man made models of the universe that once again uses mathematics and computer code to model what we see in nature. The fact that the scientists don't fully understand how the AI is working is to be expected. The whole point of using such a tool is that it thinks about things in a different way and scientists can then learn from that.

Evidence 3

Total god of the gaps argument. All you're basically saying is that as we don't have a full understanding of particle/wave duality that god or some other intelligent agent must have done it. It's a complete non-sequitur.  

 

 

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, action said:

no, but it supports the notion that the universe could be a simulation.

Not only is there the computer code found in the fabric of the universe (evidence 1) but also the fact, that the universe can be simulated to staggering accuracy including dark matter which we don't even understand yet (but the AI does) (evidence 2).

The final piece of evidence is the double slit experiment, which proves that reality is a range of possibilities, until observed. This is also indicative of the universe being a simulation.  (evidence 3). Because this phenomenon is a means to save on processing power (simulating a universe demands a whole lot of processing power). Kind of like a video game, which only needs to render what the player is looking at. It seems, god's computer has only limited random access memory, so various tricks and shortcuts are being used to render it all.

The universe also suffers from framedrops here and there, see gravitational waves.

So scientists have been working on an experimental model for how the particles in the Universe behave, called String Theory. This is just a mathematical model. It doesn't really exist. It is a model meant to describe how matter interacts with other matter. It isn't something real, ut a scientific approximation on how the Universe might work. So no, there isn't "computer code found in the fabric of the universe". The universe consists of atoms, not code. 

When building up this mathematical model, String Theory, the scientists realize that it seems to be best if they add features that are similar to aspects of how search engines on the Internet works. Basically, a trick found in search engines is also found in their String Thero. But they are written differently, in String Theory it is mathematics, in search engines it is in a programming language. 

On the surface, jokingly, this could suggest that an intelligent designer has created the universe and that it is just a simulation. But that is of course inane. It is about as logical as saying that since we humans make houses out of smaller component, bricks, and the Universe is made out of smaller component, atoms, that is evidence of an intelligent designer. 

The explanation, as told by one of the scientists who published these results, is simply that both the universe and scientists working on String Theory (of which he is one), have arrived at the same solution to solve a problem, independently. Which is that both the Universe is best modelled using String Theory where a particular trick is included, and that search engines work best when the same trick is used. It is just optimization. And, in the words of the scientist, it is almost inevitable that it must be so.

You can ask, but if String Theory is correct, mustn't the universe have been created by an intelligent designer when it uses such clever tricks? But that's like arguing that there must be an intelligent designer because only an intelligent designer could have created a universe that is exactly so that the end result is what we have, which is circular logic. Twist and tweak the fundamental parameters of the universe and yes, things would be very different, and we wouldn't be here, but maybe someone else would? And they would argue that there must be an intelligent designer because how else could a universe have come to be that is exactly the way it needs to be for them to exist?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dazey said:

Evidence 1

There wasn't computer code found in the fabric of the universe at all! What the scientists were saying is that models they created USING computer code can be used to model a realistic approximation of the universe. 

Evidence 2

Nonsense! The AI is simply a tool employed to improve on existing man made models of the universe that once again uses mathematics and computer code to model what we see in nature. The fact that the scientists don't fully understand how the AI is working is to be expected. The whole point of using such a tool is that it thinks about things in a different way and scientists can then learn from that.

Evidence 3

Total god of the gaps argument. All you're basically saying is that as we don't have a full understanding of particle/wave duality that god or some other intelligent agent must have done it. It's a complete non-sequitur.  

 

 

the three pieces of evidence I posted, are nothing more than clues to the nature of the universe.

Nobody knows for certain why we're here, why the universe is here. This uncertainty is the only absolute fact here.

These three clues are very curious and mindblowing. IF the universe is a simulation, these three findings are what would point to that.

I don't claim to have the intellectual high ground here. I accept that I'm not sure either, but I see these scientific findings, and I'm drawing my own conclusions. Ok, you come to different conclusions, fine by me. But everytime they find something new, it's always in line with the simulation theory.

As a sidenote, not being directed at you specific Dazey, all this "ganging up" and fighting among the two camps, is beyond pointless. It's like a paralictic guiding a blind one crossing the street. Both camps (me included) don't know the truth, we probably never will. No interpretation is more ridiculous than the other. Frankly, to make fun of either interpretation is school-level pettiness.

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, action said:

Nobody knows for certain why we're here, why the universe is here.

Why must we or it be here for a reason? This question is based on the premise that the Universe has been created for a reason, which implies a creator. 

The question we should ask isn't, "why are we here?", but "are we here for a reason?", and the answer is, "it sure doesn't seem like it."

One of the main problems for theists is that they have just decided that we must be here for a reason, that there is some deeper explanation, that there is some purpose. And then they can only resolve this this self-afflicted conundrum by inventing a god that has created us. Then it turns to, "what is god's purpose for us?" and of course they can't answer that because god is just a fictional character they have created to try to solve a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, action said:

 No interpretation is more ridiculous than the other. Frankly, to make fun of either interpretation is school-level pettiness.

Of course some interpretations are more ridiculous than others! You can't hear distant hoofbeats and say, "I can hear a unicorn!" without expecting some ridicule. 

This idea that every idea is equally valid is poisonous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't understand the word "no"? You think it means "yes"?

So when Dr. Hubsch is asked,

"Did James Gates really find computer code in string theory and does it suggest intelligent design,"

and he answers:

"no and no. <eye-roll>"

that means "yes" somehow?

He’s talking semantics.  Gates himself refers to it as computer code.  

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

In the words of Professor Hubsch, one of the colleagues of Dr. Gates and co-author on the very paper that you have misunderstood: No. 

What they did was to realize that the algorithm that are used in string theory contains parts that are similar to codes used in search engines.

No, the probability of codes used in search engines being similar to algorithms developed to explain an aspect of string theory, is absolutely not "next to zero" :lol: In the words of Dr. Hubsch, it is "in some sense inevitable."

Again, I tend to believe scientists over you when discussing string theory. Especially professors working on string theory. Especially scientists publishing new results on string theory. Especially scientists being the authors behind papers that present the very results you claim mean something. And one of these scientists says "No" and rolls his eyes. I do too. 

So you take one scientist talking semantics over what Gates himself uses to describe it. Ok. 

Did you even watch the video?  The images of what they found?  Listened to exactly how Gates describes his findings?  Or are you just randomly searching the internet to find something that fits your paradigm of understanding? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Huh? I am saying that @Kasanova King doesn't understand what he is talking about. He doesn't understand the science. He doesn't even understand the popularization of that science. 

Ha!  Dismiss someone with a counter argument by saying they don’t understand the science.  LOL.

I’ll wager I understand the fundamentals of it better than you do.  I’ve read books, articles. Etc on string theory, Superstring theory/M Theory, etc. I also try to keep up to date with new discoveries, theories, hypothesis, etc,   

I’m by no means a physicist but either are you.  Stop acting like you have a doctorate in it and that no one else understands the science....it just makes you look silly.

 

 

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dazey said:

Evidence 1

There wasn't computer code found in the fabric of the universe at all! What the scientists were saying is that models they created USING computer code can be used to model a realistic approximation of the universe. 

 

 

 

Sort of.  It really depends if you believe that Superstring Theory correctly describes the Universe and if whether or not the Universe is based on math.  It’s actually a topic of debate among physicists.  If you believe the universe is based on mathematical principles and Superstring Theory is correct, then there is no difference whether they found it in their models or if it exists within the physical universe itself.   

But either way you look at it, do you not find it to be at least an “interesting” discovery? 

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

Ha!  Dismiss someone with a counter argument by saying they don’t understand the science.  LOL.

Well, there's been nothing in this discussion that suggests you do. From not knowing that some macromolecules can form spontaneously to thinking scientists have found computer code in nature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

Sort of.  It really depends if you believe that Superstring Theory correctly describes the Universe and if whether or not the Universe is based on math.

It's kinda the other way around as I see it. It's not that the universe is based on math but more that math is our way of modelling it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, there's been nothing in this discussion that suggests you do. From not knowing that some macromolecules can form spontaneously to thinking scientists have found computer code in nature. 

Given enough time, almost anything can happen. At least that’s what some theorize, anyway.    The issue with Proteins forming spontaneously to create life is that the Universe is not old enough for it to happen from a mathematical probability perspective....let alone the Earth.  

And like I stated earlier, if you understand Superstring Theory, believe it is correct, and believe the universe is based on mathematical principles, then there is  no difference whether they found it in their models or if it exists within the physical universe itself.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

It's kinda the other way around as I see it. It's not that the universe is based on math but more that math is our way of modelling it.

Could be.  That’s one of the arguments.  Others believe that we “live in the math”.  :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The issue with Proteins forming spontaneously to create life is that the Universe is not old enough for it to happen from a mathematical probability perspective....let alone the Earth.  

I don't know why you keep harping on proteins forming spontaneously :lol: No one else has said anything about that in this thread, and as far as I know no scientific theory relies on proteins forming spontaneously. I am left to conclude this is something you have read somewhere, likely on a creationist website, and which you incorrectly assumes relates to our ongoing discussion.

Still, your argument is wrong (no matter how irrelevant it is to this discussion). Your (and of course it isn't yours, it is something you have found on the net) calculation is based on the probability of random atoms coming together in a specific way to form a specific protein of a specific length, not any protein. This reduces the number of permutations from 30020 (with the length being set at 300 amino acids) to 1, because any protein would do as long as it is long enough. Then it is just reduced to the probability of any protein forming, which resolves itself to the probability of the molecule surviving long enough before shearing forces tears it apart. And that calculation is pretty much impossible to do without knowing the circumstances, but it is significantly less than your number. Scientists are looking at various conditions that might allows polymerization of amino acids into peptides and small proteins: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/36/E7460.full

But let me just repeat: This is entirely irrelevant to our ongoing discussion and no scientific theory, as far as I know, rely on proteins being able to form spontaneously (even from amino acids), including abiogenesis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

And like I stated earlier, if you understand Superstring Theory, believe it is correct, and believe the universe is based on mathematical principles, then there is  no difference whether they found it in their models or if it exists within the physical universe itself.  

The Universe isn't based on mathematical principles! :lol: Scientists use mathematics as a tool to build models that explain the Universe. Take E=mc2 as an example, this is just human's attempt at explaining the relationship between energy and mass and the speed of light. And in this case it seems to explain the Universe perfectly with no contradictions (hence it has become a law). String Theory isn't a law, it is a highly experimental model trying to describe something with very limited experimental data. And like the mass-energy conservation law, it is based on mathematics as a tool.

So scientists making a model attempting to describe a particular aspect of the Universe, String Theory, have discovered that the model work the best when it includes an element that is also, generally speaking, found in certain computer algorithm. Why? Well, we know why computer scientists have added it to their algorithms (because it needs to be there for the software to do as intended). We also know why physicists have added it to their String Theory (because that's when they believe the model is most accurate -- and likely there will be other scientists who disagree). 

39 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Could be.  That’s one of the arguments.  Others believe that we “live in the math”.  :lol:

Maybe they never grew up after having seen The Matrix?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't know why you keep harping on proteins forming spontaneously :lol: No one else has said anything about that in this thread, and as far as I know no scientific theory relies on proteins forming spontaneously. I am left to conclude this is something you have read somewhere, likely on a creationist website, and which you incorrectly assumes relates to our ongoing discussion.

Still, your argument is wrong (no matter how irrelevant it is to this discussion). Your (and of course it isn't yours, it is something you have found on the net) calculation is based on the probability of random atoms coming together in a specific way to form a specific protein of a specific length, not any protein. This reduces the number of permutations from 30020 (with the length being set at 300 amino acids) to 1, because any protein would do as long as it is long enough. Then it is just reduced to the probability of any protein forming, which resolves itself to the probability of the molecule surviving long enough before shearing forces tears it apart. And that calculation is pretty much impossible to do without knowing the circumstances, but it is significantly less than your number. Scientists are looking at various conditions that might allows polymerization of amino acids into peptides and small proteins: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/36/E7460.full

But let me just repeat: This is entirely irrelevant to our ongoing discussion and no scientific theory, as far as I know, rely on proteins being able to form spontaneously (even from amino acids), including abiogenesis.

 

If you prefer we can go back to DNA randomly forming.  I used “proteins” as an example because of the video that was posted.  

Stephen Hawking (known atheist) basically asked the question why DNA formed at a rate of 14 times faster than what it should have here on Earth. (In terms of a time for what it would have taken to happen randomly)  He went on later to state that  “it could have happened”.  But it was an educated guess on his part.  He went on to state if it didn’t happen here on Earth it could have happened somewhere else and we would be asking the same question.  I can respect that point of view.

Why are you so certain it’s a ‘normal’ part of evolution here on Earth?  

 

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The Universe isn't based on mathematical principles! :lol: Scientists use mathematics as a tool to build models that explain the Universe. Take E=mc2 as an example, this is just human's attempt at explaining the relationship between energy and mass and the speed of light. And in this case it seems to explain the Universe perfectly with no contradictions (hence it has become a law). String Theory isn't a law, it is a highly experimental model trying to describe something with very limited experimental data. And like the mass-energy conservation law, it is based on mathematics as a tool.

So scientists making a model attempting to describe a particular aspect of the Universe, String Theory, have discovered that the model work the best when it includes an element that is also, generally speaking, found in certain computer algorithm. Why? Well, we know why computer scientists have added it to their algorithms (because it needs to be there for the software to do as intended). We also know why physicists have added it to their String Theory (because that's when they believe the model is most accurate -- and likely there will be other scientists who disagree). 

Ask some physicists and they will state that they believe the Universe is based on math.  That’s not me saying it. That’s them.  They firmly believe the language of the universe is based on math.  That’s nothing new or shocking.  So when they use models to describe the universe, to them it is no different than it occurring in the universe itself.

And I agree that String Theory is just a theory.  That’s why Prefaced my statements “If you believe it to be correct, then....”

String Theory, now Superstring Theory. m Theory, etc is far from finished, it’s in constant development, etc.  

Anyway, this is getting off topic. I find them discovering “computer code” within String Theory fascinating.  You obviously don’t.  :shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...