The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Only if something really was found in nature that couldn't have gotten there without being designed by an intelligent creator. And the fact that one publication implies that there are similarities between our understanding of quantum mechanics and how search engines work, is not evidence for that. Sometimes things are similar not because they have both been made by an intelligent creator, nor because of coincidence, but because they have to be that way.

No. In this case, that’s not it.  Not one respected quantum physicist shares your view in this particular case.  They are bewildered by the discovery.  Some say that as more discoveries are made, then this could also eventually be explained but as of now, they have no explanation for it. 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Don’t quote some random poster from Quora. 

Random? He is a doctorate in physics who talks about the very thing that confuses you. What he says is highly relevant. If I can't use his quotes then you can't quote the physicist who claims there are similarities between hos parts of the universe works and search engines.

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why is it next to zero possibility for us humans creating a system that mimics something that already exists in nature? I mean, if the code is supposed to have a specific purpose, and have been optimized for that, why is it impossible for you to fathom that it could then end up similar to something in nature? Have you ever heard of convergent evolution? No, I didn't think so.

There’s a next to zero possibility for a complex algorithm to occur naturally in nature. 

You just don’t get it, do you? 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

No. In this case, that’s not it.  Not one respected quantum physicist shares your view in this particular case.  They are bewildered by the discovery.  Some say that as more discoveries are made, then this could also eventually be explained but as of now, they have no explanation for it. 

What an incredibly bold thing to say, especially since I have already pointed to professor Tristan Hubsch who disagrees that this discovery implies an intelligent designer. I am sure the vast majority would of quantum physicists would disagree, too.

 

[Ace Nova]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Random? He is a doctorate in physics who talks about the very thing that confuses you. What he says is highly relevant. If I can't use his quotes then you can't quote the physicist who claims there are similarities between hos parts of the universe works and search engines.

That was stated by Dr. James Gates himself.  

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What an incredibly bold thing to say, especially since I have already pointed to professor Tristan Hubsch who disagrees that this discovery implies an intelligent designer. I am sure the vast majority would of quantum physicists would disagree, too.

 

Where did I say quantum physicists say this is a result of intelligent design? I said that for the time being, they have no explanation for it. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

There’s a next to zero possibility for a complex algorithm to occur naturally in nature. 

What?  If you were to model how weather behaves you would need a very complex algorithm. Or said differently, the weather follows an incredibly complex algorithm. In fact, most aspects of the natural world can only be modelled using extremely complex algorithms. But sure, the algorithm themselves aren't found in nature. Because algorithms are humans' ways of describing how the natural world works. It is our simulations. Our models. 

Soon I will have to ask for tuition money from you.

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

That was stated by Dr. James Gates himself.  

Ooooh, and I quoted Dr. Hubsch 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

What?  If you were to model how weather behaves you would need a very complex algorithm. Or said differently, the weather follows an incredibly complex algorithm. In fact, most aspects of the natural world can only be modelled using extremely complex algorithms. But sure, the algorithm themselves aren't found in nature. Because algorithms are humans' ways of describing how the natural world works. It is our simulations. Our models. 

Soon I will have to ask for tuition money from you.

Ooooh, and I quoted Dr. Hubsch 

It’s even explained in the link within your Quora link.  Smh. 

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What?  If you were to model how weather behaves you would need a very complex algorithm. Or said differently, the weather follows an incredibly complex algorithm. In fact, most aspects of the natural world can only be modelled using extremely complex algorithms. But sure, the algorithm themselves aren't found in nature. Because algorithms are humans' ways of describing how the natural world works. It is our simulations. Our models. 

 

OUR MODELS.  Not something that is found interwoven within the physical universe.  It’s actually a physical part of the universe, accordingly to Gates’ discovery.  Do you not understand that? 

 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

It’s even explained in the link within your Quora link.  Smh. 

Did you notice that one of the authors on the scientific paper that present the discovery that you have misunderstood to be  evidence in favor of an intelligent designer, is Dr. Hubsch?  The very guy answering on quora and disagreeing with your interpretation of the results?  

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

OUR MODELS.  Not something that is found interwoven within the physical universe.  It’s actually a physical part of the universe, accordingly to Gates’ discovery.  

You actually believe scientists have found an actual algorithm somewhere in the universe, perhaps written on a piece of paper? - and not discovered that their algorithm on how a subset of the universe behaves have superficial similarities to how certain computer codes are optimized?

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Did you notice that one of the authors on the scientific paper that present the discovery that you have misunderstood to be  evidence in favor of an intelligent designer, is Dr. Hubsch?  The very guy answering on quora and disagreeing with your interpretation of the results?  

My interpretation of the results?  I stated Dr, Gates found an algorithm embedded within the fabric of the universe that is the same type of algorithm that modern day search engines use.   

[Ace Nova]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You actually believe scientists have found an actual algorithm somewhere in the universe, perhaps written on a piece of paper? - and not discovered that their algorithm on how a subset of the universe behaves have superficial similarities to how certain computer codes are optimized?

It was a binary code made up of 0’s and 1’s.  That’s what he found. 

 

You can try to rationalize it all you want but unless you know more than the world’s leading quantum physicists, then at best all you can say isn’t that you don’t know how it got there.   

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Kasanova King

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

It was a binary code made up of 0’s and 1’s.  That’s what he found. 

You can try to rationalize it all you want but unless you know more than the world’s leading quantum physicists, then at best all you can say isn’t that you don’t know how it got there.   

How did they observe these 1’s and 0’s? Do you output from the fabric of the universe via HDMI or composite?  

[Ace Nova]

Just now, Dazey said:

How did they observe these 1’s and 0’s? Do you output from the fabric of the universe via HDMI or composite?  

Come on man.  He discoverd a binary code within Quantum String Theory...that basically means there is this “self fixing” algorithm embedded within our universe.   That’s a remarkable discovery.  

Did you watch the video?  Even Neil deGrasse Tyson was nearly floored by it. 

[Dazey]

9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Come on man.  He discoverd a binary code within Quantum String Theory...that basically means there is this “self fixing” algorithm embedded within our universe.   That’s a remarkable discovery.  

Did you watch the video?  Even Neil deGrasse Tyson was nearly floored by it. 

Sorry bud, I was just being a dick. I’ve not watched it yet but I’d be surprised if it’s not basically an argument over semantics. I will watch it though but only cos I love you.  

[SoulMonster]

23 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

My interpretation of the results?  I stated Dr, Gates found an algorithm embedded within the fabric of the universe that is the same type of algorithm that modern day search engines use.   

No, when modelling an aspect of the universe the best model contained an algorithm that had similarities to algorithms used in search engines. 

And Dr. Gates and Dr. Hubsch are colleagues on the same paper. But again, Dr. Hubsch clearly disagrees with you: 

Quote

 

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

Hubsch: No and no. <eye-roll>

 

It doesn't get more explicit than that.

[SoulMonster]

22 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

It was a binary code made up of 0’s and 1’s.  That’s what he found. 

No 

23 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

You can try to rationalize it all you want but unless you know more than the world’s leading quantum physicists, then at best all you can say isn’t that you don’t know how it got there.   

What we have here is your interpretation of results from a very advanced field of physics (and let's be humble now, you have no degrees in physics and are n no way trained to understand results from quantum mechanics) , vs the direct quotations from Dr. Hubsch, an author on the scientific paper presenting said results and a professor in physics.

You argue that scientists have found computer code in nature and that this is evidence for intelligent design. Dr. Hubsch -- and let me remind you again who this guy is, an author on the very paper presenting the results that has been summarized by Dr Gates and misunderstood by you -- says "no". Can it get clearer?

[SoulMonster]

29 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Come on man.  He discoverd a binary code within Quantum String Theory...that basically means there is this “self fixing” algorithm embedded within our universe.   That’s a remarkable discovery.  

No one is saying it isn't an interesting discovery. But remarkable? Not really. It isn't even deserving of its own wikipedia page, yet, nor mentioned on Dr. James own Wikipedia page. The reason why you have heard about it is probably because creationists, like yourself, have misunderstood the results to imply the existence of an intelligent creator. (Has it ever occurred to you that the more likely a person is to believe in an intelligent creator, the less intelligent he is?).

Anyway. Here is another of Dr. Hubsch Quora posts where he refutes the idea that this discovery suggests there is something designed about the world:
 

Quote

James Gates claims that he found code in string theory. Does that imply that we live in a simulation?

A2A.: No. (But –please– do read on.)

To be precise, the (error-detecting and error-correcting [=EDEC] binary doubly-even linear block) codes were discovered/identified within the classification of worldline off-shell supermultiplets without central charge [On Graph-Theoretic Identifications of Adinkras, Supersymmetry Representations and Superfields, by C.F. Doran, M.G. Faux, S.J. Gates, Jr., T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A22 (2007) 869-930, arXiv:math-ph/0512016]. It was then proven that these (minimal) supermultiplets in turn encode the continuum of all possible worldline supermultiplets [On General Off-Shell Representations of Worldline (1D) Supersymmetry, by C.F. Doran, T. Hübsch, K.M. Iga and G.D. Landweber: Symmetry 6 no. 1, (2014) 67–88, arXiv:1310.3258].

All this pertains to all supersymmetric models, including but by far not limited to those in string theory. In turn, it says nothing about non-supersymmetric string theory models. It also says nothing directly of supermultiplets with central charge and/or on-shell. (The induced consequences are subject to the details of central charges admitted and particular action principles specifying the equations of motion.)

This result was subsequently adapted to worldsheet supermultiplets, i.e., to superstring theory. [1. On Dimensional Extension of Supersymmetry: From Worldlines to Worldsheets, by S.J. Gates Jr. and T. Hübsch: Adv. in Th. Math. Phys. 16 (2012) 1619-1667, arXiv:1104.0722, 2. Weaving Worldsheet Supermultiplets from the Worldlines Within, T. Hübsch: Adv. in Th. Math. Phys. 17 (2013) 1–72, arXiv:1104.3135, and 3. Structural Theory of 2-d Adinkras, by K. Iga and Y. X. Zhang: Adv. High Energy Phys. 2016 (2016) 3980613, arXiv:1508.00491, which proves the one remaining conjecture of article #2].

If the appearance of these EDEC codes in such disparate-looking endeavors proves anything, it is that the reasons for their appearance (in those endeavors) probably have something in common. For my own part (I shan’t speak for the other co-authors on the topic), I’ll venture saying that this reason is optimization. In supersymmetry, the minimal supermultiplets have the information that specifies (to wit, encodes) them maximally compacted — which is ultimately the same reason such EDEC codes are used in endeavors such as (human-engineered) internet transfer protocols. There are further (rather mundane) reasons why the EDEC codes appearing in the classification of supermultiplets are binary, doubly-even, linear, and block-codes (read the papers).

Now step back: the EDEC codes appear in the classification (our cataloguing) of supermultiplets. This does limit the possible dynamics of such multiplets, but also leave room even for chaos [Golden Ratio Controlled Chaos in Supersymmetric Dynamics, by T. Hübsch and G.A. Katona: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28 (2013) 1350156 (27p), arXiv:1308.0654].

In turn and amusingly, our Universe indeed being a simulation would at once provide an explanation of The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. That however has not much to say about the question at hand.

BTW and FWIW, please note that no single researcher co-authored all of the above key research papers on the subject. Prof. Gates does however seem to popularize the provoking question.

 

My emphases.

So again, this is analogous to convergent evolution: two independent processes leading to similar results. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by SoulMonster

[Ace Nova]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, when modelling an aspect of the universe the best model contained an algorithm that had similarities to algorithms used in search engines. 

And Dr. Gates and Dr. Hubsch are colleagues on the same paper. But again, Dr. Hubsch clearly disagrees with you: 

It doesn't get more explicit than that.

Of course he’s not going to say it states that there is intelligent design.   But he certainly doesn’t have a scientific explanation for it yet. No one does. 

[Ace Nova]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No 

What we have here is your interpretation of results from a very advanced field of physics (and let's be humble now, you have no degrees in physics and are n no way trained to understand results from quantum mechanics) , vs the direct quotations from Dr. Hubsch, an author on the scientific paper presenting said results and a professor in physics.

You argue that scientists have found computer code in nature and that this is evidence for intelligent design. Dr. Hubsch -- and let me remind you again who this guy is, an author on the very paper presenting the results that has been summarized by Dr Gates and misunderstood by you -- says "no". Can it get clearer?

You’re clearly out of your depth on this issue.  That’s not whatt Hunsch said.  Not even close. 

And Gates specifically stated he found binary code made up of 0’s and 1’s.  Watch the freaking video.  Technically speaking it’s a algorithm but it can be described as a code in layman’s terms. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Of course he’s not going to say it states that there is intelligent design.   But he certainly doesn’t have a scientific explanation for it yet. No one does. 

But no scientists have an explanation for why the gravitational constant (G) is 6.67430(15)×10−11, either, or why E=MC². These are just models that seem to describe aspects of nature very well. But we don't know why they are like this. We don't know why G isn't 6.7, or 2 or 0. Or why E isn't MC³. So there is nothing surprising here.

[Ace Nova]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No one is saying it isn't an interesting discovery. But remarkable? Not really. It isn't even deserving of its own wikipedia page, yet nor mentioned on Dr. James own wikipedia page. The reason why you have heard about it is probably because creationists, like yourself, have misunderstood the results to imply the existence of an intelligent creator. (Has it ever occurred to you that the more likely a person is to believe in an intelligent creator, the less intelligent he is?).

Anyway. Here is another of Dr. hubsch Quora posts where he refutes the idea that this discovery suggests there is something designed about the world:
 

So again, this is analogous to convergent evolution: two independent processes leading to similar results. 

He even jokes about the Universe being a simulation because they don’t have an answer for it yet. 

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But no scientists have an explanation for why the gravitational constant (G) is 6.67430(15)×10−11, either, or why E=MC². These are just models that seem to describe aspects of nature very well. But we don't know why they are like this. We don't know why G isn't 6.7, or 2 or 0. Or why E isn't MC³. So there is nothing surprising here.

I’m tired of answering you.  From now on when you post something wrong, I’ll just post “wrong”.

Wrong. 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

You’re clearly out of your depth on this issue.  That’s not whatt Hunsch said.  Not even close. 

Huh? Dr. Hubsch didn't say "no" to the two questions? Do you need screenshots? Okay:

5 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

And Gates specifically stated he found binary code made up of 0’s and 1’s.  Watch the freaking video.  Technically speaking it’s a algorithm but it can be described as a code in layman’s terms. 

I am confident he didn't stumble upon a sequence of 0's and 1's when studying subatomic particles 

I am confident that you don't understand what he is saying.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

He even jokes about the Universe being a simulation because they don’t have an answer for it yet. 

I’m tired of answering you.  From now on when you post something wrong, I’ll just post “wrong”.

Wrong. 

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.

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Huh? Dr. Hubsch didn't say "no" to the two questions? Do you need screenshots? Okay:

I am confident he didn't stumble upon a sequence of 0's and 1's when studying subatomic particles 

I am confident that you don't understand what he is saying.

You don’t understand what he’s saying.