Biology is a human construct, the means by which we systematise and investigate the behavior of complex organic systems. It doesn't "structure particles" or indeed do anything.Ok. I wanted to talk about the physical process that follows the DNA to arrive from the fertilization to the living being.
Why do fruits taste good? Because those that don't, don't get eaten, so their seeds don't get distributed and the subsequent generation competes with (and eventually starves) its parents instead of expanding the population.The current result is due to human greed. Climate warming and starvation could have been avoided.
Why are landscapes beautiful? Presumably this means natural landscapes rather than the mess left behind by God's Highest Creation in Flanders or Nagasaki, and the reason is because this rather stupid ape recognises places where there might be food and water. We have evolved to recognise green as generally nurturing, and "England's green and pleasant land" is actually the product of thousands of years of forest clearance to grow more food on whatever contours were left by the retreating ice age.
If the universe was created by an intelligent entity, it's hard to see why, but fairly easy to deduce that we are a big mistake, which is why said entity created famine, fire, flood and disease, not to mention religion, to try to get rid of us.
If the universe was created by an intelligent entity, it's hard to see why, but fairly easy to deduce that we are a big mistake, which is why said entity created famine, fire, flood and disease, not to mention religion, to try to get rid of us.In a more cruel configuration, this intelligent entity could plays with us. But what religion says and besides plagues like disease, war and such is that the bad guy would be rid or judged. Please excuse my english.
I find it hard to imagine why choosing chance would make fruits goodIt wouldn't, but that's not how evolution works.
and landscapes beautifulEvolution doesn't make landscapes beautiful.
In the case of an evolution without rules and hazardous would it not be a chaotic world?Yes.
The universe follows rules like biologyOf course.
It wouldn't, but that's not how evolution works.
Evolution doesn't make landscapes beautiful.This gives us a clue of being able to appreciate this. If we have the opportunity to enjoy the pleasures of life then the life is beautiful. Why not the other way around? I speak on behalf of most people who have access to it, even though poverty sometimes brings misfortune and disease. Misery should not have existed if we had wanted it to. So la vie est belle!
Interesting. Where can this code or procedure come from, if it's not a hazard?In the case of an evolution without rules and hazardous would it not be a chaotic world?Yes.The universe follows rules like biologyOf course.
Ok. I wanted to talk about the physical process that follows the DNA to arrive from the fertilization to the living being.That's pretty well understood, at least in principle, and appears to be the inevitable consequence of organic chemistry.
The current result is due to human greed. Climate warming and starvation could have been avoided.No, the climate has been a lot hotter in the past - it's a cyclic phenomenon that has been going n long before humans evolved. The Iceland famine in 1784 was caused by God's volcano erupting. The Bihar famine of 1873 was caused by God's decision to stop the rain falling. And so it goes on: whatever deity you believe in, will sooner or later make life very uncomfortable for you.
poverty sometimes brings misfortune and disease.Does it ever bring anything else?
That's pretty well understood, at least in principle, and appears to be the inevitable consequence of organic chemistry.The inevitable consequence of organic chemistry is to understand that we ourselves are intelligent? From studying our functioning to genetic technological modifications?
No, the climate has been a lot hotter in the past - it's a cyclic phenomenon that has been going n long before humans evolved.No causes of global warming for now?
The Iceland famine in 1784 was caused by God's volcano erupting. The Bihar famine of 1873 was caused by God's decision to stop the rain falling. And so it goes on: whatever deity you believe in, will sooner or later make life very uncomfortable for you.This does not justify the current socio economic state of the world. But indeed you are right, that's already too much death. But we have been given this nature. It is up to us to do what is necessary to survive it despite everything. However, accidents can happen like earthquakes and forest fire too. But measures can be taken to no longer build on these risky areas and/or to adapt the construction accordingly. In another way, there are also epidemics and diseases. But now humanity suffers from what? I an talking about the discomfort of the billions that we are. The humanity suffer from extreme poverty which leads to absolute decline followed wars. These are the arguments that I expose in order to weigh the pros and cons. knowing that current technology allows you to have every chance of living well. Unfortunately, appropriation by patent locks most technical and medical innovations.
Does it ever bring anything else?The happiness of others?
The inevitable consequence of organic chemistry is to understand that we ourselves are intelligent?It is clear that the inevitable consequence is that we have defined ourselves as intelligent. And by observation, more intelligent than any possible creator of the universe.
No causes of global warming for now?Suffice it to say that there is obviously a cause because we can observe an effect, and the effect has recurred roughly every 100,000 years in recent geological history.
This does not justify the current socio economic state of the world.in which poverty, however defined, decreases year on year. Doesn't seem to require much justification, though I'd be happier of it were quicker and sustainable
already too much death.At a senior scientific meeting in the National Health Service, one rising star said his objective was to reduce mortality. The Chief Medical Officer said "If you can get it below 100% I'll recommend you for a Nobel Prize."
But measures can be taken to no longer build on these risky areasVolcanic soil is extremely fertile and geothermal energy is as green as you can get. There are fish in the sea, and also hurricanes. Food doesn't grow in supermarkets.
I an talking about the discomfort of the billions that we are.There's the future problem - too many humans, with unreasonable expectations.
The humanity suffer from extreme poverty which leads to absolute decline followed wars.The USA's most prosperous period, and also that of the USSR, followed the Second World War. Extreme poverty was the root cause of the Russian and Chinese revolutions.
Unfortunately, appropriation by patent locks most technical and medical innovations.No, it protects the inventor from theft. You can't "appropriate" a patent: if you aren't the "true and first inventor" (and very clever government agents spend a lot of time investigating that claim) you have to buy the patent or agree a licence fee to exploit it. I've worked for a number of small innovative companies who survive by licensing our patents to big manufacturers. Without the protection of patent law, we would never have taken the risk of developing the product. And patent protection can be challenged if the inventor hasn't exploited or licensed it.
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 17:32:08We were discussing poverty. Does that ever bring happiness to anyone?QuoteDoes it ever bring anything else?The happiness of others?
We were discussing poverty. Does that ever bring happiness to anyone?Yes.
We were discussing poverty. Does that ever bring happiness to anyone?
Yes.
The rich are happy because they have wealth taken from the poor.
The poverty is the cause of the happiness.
No, it's the effect of theft (rarely - stealing from those significantly worse off than yourself is not likely to be profitable) poor rainfall (frequently) overpopulation (often) sheer bad luck (even the wealthy can make bad decisions or have a crop wiped out by the Hand of God) or meanness (giving your kids' inheritance to the cats' home).I just relied on the expression: "The happiness of some is the misfortune of others". But wealth contributes greatly to happiness.
I don't recall Bill Gates actually stealing anything from anyone, or even cornering the market in essential commodities, but he made a lot of money selling a product into a market he created. Nor have I met anyone actually impoverished by Windows.
Come to think of it, have you ever seen Herr Trumpf or any senior member of the Royal Family looking happy?
It is clear that the inevitable consequence is that we have defined ourselves as intelligent. And by observation, more intelligent than any possible creator of the universe.I didn't understand the meaning of this post. But is defining ourselves as intelligent a problem? Wouldn't it be pretentious to say that we are smarter than what we still don't know? PS: "What is essential is invisible to the eye".
Suffice it to say that there is obviously a cause because we can observe an effect, and the effect has recurred roughly every 100,000 years in recent geological history.A bit of both then.
in which poverty, however defined, decreases year on year. Doesn't seem to require much justification, though I'd be happier of it were quicker and sustainablePoverty decreases? Sources?
At a senior scientific meeting in the National Health Service, one rising star said his objective was to reduce mortality. The Chief Medical Officer said "If you can get it below 100% I'll recommend you for a Nobel Prize."This post was in response to natural disasters.
Volcanic soil is extremely fertile and geothermal energy is as green as you can get. There are fish in the sea, and also hurricanes. Food doesn't grow in supermarkets.Adjustments can be made. The place of work may be different from the place of residence. But accidents do happen.
There's the future problem - too many humans, with unreasonable expectations.Humans with unreasonable expectations?
The USA's most prosperous period, and also that of the USSR, followed the Second World War. Extreme poverty was the root cause of the Russian and Chinese revolutions.So they're the bad guys? Westerners are so good at it.
No, it protects the inventor from theft. You can't "appropriate" a patent: if you aren't the "true and first inventor" (and very clever government agents spend a lot of time investigating that claim) you have to buy the patent or agree a licence fee to exploit it. I've worked for a number of small innovative companies who survive by licensing our patents to big manufacturers. Without the protection of patent law, we would never have taken the risk of developing the product. And patent protection can be challenged if the inventor hasn't exploited or licensed it.No comment.
Humans with unreasonable expectations?Sadly, yes. It seems that most humans aspire to a western lifestyle, a meat diet, and living long enough to enjoy at least four grandchildren. Many of us work to sell and provide these delights to others.However you do the maths and physics, this is not sustainable.
"The happiness of some is the misfortune of others".Schadenfreude provides an occasional diversion but isn't the primary cause of misery or happiness.
coffee breakThat’s a very old argument, but it suggests a very strange god who is prepared to deceive his followers.
__________
... the dinosaurs were there just to deceive you." ;D
That’s a very old argument, but it suggests a very strange god who is prepared to deceive his followers.It is not his followers that it/he/she deceives, but rather his kings blinded by the reflection of gold and diamonds. If I refer eg. in the Abrahamic religion, it would be a question of capturing evil spirits and their master. The end will justifies the means.
It is not his followers that it/he/she deceives, ...Because they already know what to expect ; Everything can be possible.
Come now, Colin, surely you know that fossils, radiocarbon, and all that stuff was invented by Satan after he was cast out of Heaven (for taking the piss, detuning his harp, or whatever he did) in order to encourage human curiosity so that the devout followers of God could assuage their Holy Perversions by torturing and killing those who dared to question the Divine Revealed Bullshit.coffee breakThat’s a very old argument, but it suggests a very strange god who is prepared to deceive his followers.
__________
... the dinosaurs were there just to deceive you." ;D
he was cast out of Heaven (for taking the piss, detuning his harp, or whatever he didI heard it was for playing salacious jazz or heavy rock and hence leading decent folks astray. But that may just be malicious rumours spread by someone else.
... you know that fossils, radiocarbon, and all that stuff was invented by Satan ...It is God who created the dinauzore to deceive the evil spirit. The evil spirit being a flouter of the rules of common sense and is trapped by a reflection based on the impossibility that all of this is in fact virtual. He firmly believes that creation is only a hazardous evolution and therefore believes that everything is permitted.
what could happen to humanity in the future.If we don't kill each other, starve each other, or succumb to a major pandemic, we will be boiled by the expanding sun. Which books have you been reading?
Which books have you been reading?I am simply referring to a certain Abrahamic passages or from other ancient religions.
All written by people with a deep understanding of sustainability, pandemic, and nuclear physics?Personally, I'm a dunce who inquires about Netflix. But what do people with a deep understanding of sustainability say?
Without God, we are headed straight for disaster.
coffee break
__________
Imagine: "Creation is only a decoy, because the dinosaurs were there just to deceive you." ;D
Why without God we are not going to disaster? I would prefer to speak with the objective of a future vision and not a past like wars religious. Despite monotheism, man wanted to imply futile differences. When I say that we are going straight to the wall, it is at the level of the ambition of the policies which is not at the level hoped for by the NGOs and the people. Capitalism and ultra-liberalism is the cause of the disaster.Without God, we are headed straight for disaster.Au contraire, mon ami.
Most disasters to date have been caused by faith in something or other.Like the intuition? Or maybe you also want to talk about ideology rather than faith. If it is written "In God We Trust" on the official motto, do you think that they are not partisan of all that ensues from it?
We are indeed headed for disaster but the remedy is in our hands.Certainly not in the hands of the people. We are victims of political decisions.
Problem is that it costs nothing (so no politician's brother can make a profit from it) and it will upset The Blessed Economy (i.e. the bankers who offer directorships to retired politicians).The oligarchy.
I sincerely hope you don't believe that, ...I'm not saying dinosaurs didn't exist. But it was surely, and by their archaic nature, a simple experiment of our creator to deceive his favorite being who is man. In other words the dinosaurs were useless. It is said in the Abrahamic religion that humans are more important than any other animals. The capacity of man being by nature vastly superior.
... especially since one of your rules for this thread was to allow discussion of philosophy and theology as long as it aligns with common sense. The dinosaurs being a case of divine deception isn't even remotely common sense.I confess. Where then are the limits of common sense if we can no longer explain it? According to the interpretation of the QM we can already see that the creation is only illusion. The collapse of the wave function indicates that before its measurement the state of matter deceives us. The subject is such that we have no possible scientific model. Finally here (see quote below) is what common sense looks like to be able to explain evolution:
I will take seriously any argument that debunks evolution, if and only if it is proposed by someone who looks exactly like both of his/her parents. Anyone else is an embodiment of evolution.
In what way are the dinosaurs a deception?Because you believe in it. You believe what you see and not what is not seen.
Common sense no longer explaining what, exactly?The common sense.
Evolution is not a quantum mechanical theory.Read it again. The QM analogy goes to the same interpretation of the illusion, as much as the dinosaur are a deception. Not the evolution.
Evolution is an observation, not a theory.Yes I agree. But why do you believe, and according to my messages, that evolution is a theory?
Not to be confused with the evolution of species, a theory which consists with common sense but fails any logical test because there is no consistent definition of species.
Because you believe in it.
You believe what you see and not what is not seen.
The common sense.
Read it again. The QM analogy goes to the same interpretation of the illusion, as much as the dinosaur are a deception. Not the evolution.
You literally just said, "I'm not saying dinosaurs didn't exist." So do you accept that dinosaurs existed or not?@Kryptid I don't see what you don't understand. I've always said here in this thread that dinosaurs were or are a sleight of hand. So yes they existed. I never implied that they didn't exist. Their existence was only to deceive men.
What are you talking about?You believe in dinosaurs so much that you can't believe what you can't see. What you see is not the essential.
Common sense no longer explains common sense? That sounds like a contradiction to me.Yes it's the snake who eating its own tail.
I really don't know what you're trying to argue at this point. I dont know if it's a language barrier problem or what.Yes a language barrier problem. But the QM analogy which gives an interpretation of the illusion, is as much as the dinosaurs which are a deceive. A deception to deceive man.
So what are dinosaurs supposed to deceive us into believing?Since I understand that there is no common sense explanation of evolution, I therefore imagine and with the involvement of a creator that: The dinosaurs are supposed to make us believe that we are an evolution among the evolution of species. This reinforces the fact that a creation by a creator is impossible. If it weren't for all this the evil spirit would have understood that it's a trap.
Appearances are deceiving. Things can look different from the way they really are.
So where is your evidence that dinosaurs are a deception?I only discuss. But none.
... I therefore imagine and with the involvement of a creator that ...
Quantum mechanics made me realize that everything was an illusion.Why do you say that?
Due to its factor of uncertainty.
Throughout the main body of his original 1927 paper, written in German, Heisenberg used the word "Ungenauigkeit" ("indeterminacy")which is conceptually quite different, and
Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a related effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the system,
Which is why you should avoid the company of philosophers, whose job is to make the obvious look obscure.What is this gibberish?
What is this gibberish?It isn't gibberish. The point is you can't get a physics education by watching a few YouTubes and skimming a few physics articles. That leads to huge misunderstandings.
Interesting. What huge misunderstandings are you talking about?A lot of what you write. This for instance, "Quantum mechanics made me realize that everything was an illusion. "
Here are some of the other quotes/sources I'm talking about and so you all know the fact:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein
"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it." Pascual Jordan
Quantum experiment in space confirms that reality is what you make it (https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-experiment-space-confirms-reality-what-you-make-it-0)
Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist (https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html)
A century of quantum mechanics questions the fundamental nature of reality (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-theory-history-reality-uncertainty-physics)
What else?You can't learn physics by reading quotes.
What is the harmonic oscillator doing here? What is the relationship with evolution?What else?You can't learn physics by reading quotes.
Pretty much every conclusion you came up with in your harmonic oscillatory thread was wrong.
What is the harmonic oscillator doing here? What is the relationship with evolution?Uh, you asked, "what else", so I gave you a what else. Since you brought up quantum mechanics, which isn't about evolution I didn't think it would be a problem.
he thinks that quantum mechanics is predictable and totally in tune with reality.I don't recall saying that. Seems like you are making stuff up.
So my OP is right.You sure do jump to a lot of unwarranted conclusions...
You sure do jump to a lot of unwarranted conclusions...Like what?
You can't learn physics by reading quotes."imagination is more important than knowledge" Albert Einstein
Since you brought up quantum mechanics, which isn't about evolution...Quantum mechanics is the underlying reason and tool for the constitution of relativistic physics, and allows evolution to occur. The lack of scientific criteria/arguments to develop a viable theory is similar between quantum mechanics and evolution at the level of its interpretation. Indeed without quantum mechanics (without atomic structure) we have nothing left.
There is no need for a "common sense" explanation for evolution because science isn't based on common sense. Instead, it is based on evidence.So what are the scientific evidences in relation to evolution?
... So there is then no point in trying to figure anything out at all.This is not reasoning worthy of a scientist. Don't let go.
And Wrong interpretation leads to wrong translation.Due to its factor of uncertainty.Wrong translation leads to wrong interpretation.
Quantum mechanics is the underlying reason and tool for the constitution of relativistic physics, and allows evolution to occur.Nope. Special relativity, general relativity and evolution all predate quantum mechanics.
"imagination is more important than knowledge" Albert Einstein"Imagination without knowledge is fantasy", Me.
So what are the scientific evidences in relation to evolution?This is a tough one.
Nope. Special relativity, general relativity and evolution all predate quantum mechanics.So you confirm that quantum mechanics stems from classical physics? In other words, it's classical physics that create quantum mechanics?
Indeed without quantum mechanics (without atomic structure) we have nothing left.
"Imagination without knowledge is fantasy", Me.Not bad! But the idea of a creator is not fantasy and does not require any special knowledge.
Type into the search bar 'what are the scientific evidences for evolution'.Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology. What is the common sense to this cause? Divine or accidental? It cannot be accidental simply because the biological process is intelligently ordered.
Read the results.
So you confirm that quantum mechanics stems from classical physics?Of course. Many experimental results and observations could not be answered by classical physics and as a result quantum physics was developed.
But the idea of a creator is not fantasyThere is no evidence of a creator or intelligence involved in evolution, so saying that there is a creator would be fantasy.
What is the common sense to this cause?Natural selection. Neither divine nor accident.
Of course. Many experimental results and observations could not be answered by classical physics and as a result quantum physics was developed.@Origin there was a misunderstanding. I speak at the level of functioning of the mechanics of the physical system (constitution) and not the study of the disciplines. It is thanks to quantum mechanics, the atom to be precise, that matter exists. So I was saying that thanks to the atom, matter exists.
Quantum mechanics is the underlying reason and tool for the constitution of relativistic physics, and allows evolution to occur. The lack of scientific criteria/arguments to develop a viable theory is similar between quantum mechanics and evolution at the level of its interpretation. Indeed without quantum mechanics (without atomic structure) we have nothing left.
There is no evidence of a creator or intelligence involved in evolution, ...One chance out of two.
Quantum mechanics is the underlying reason and tool for the constitution of relativistic physics, and allows evolution to occur. The lack of scientific criteria/arguments to develop a viable theory is similar between quantum mechanics and evolution at the level of its interpretation. Indeed without quantum mechanics (without atomic structure) we have nothing left.That's silly. Quantum mechanics never comes into the explanation of evolution or relativity. Yes you need atoms but that is kind of obvious. You also need the strong force and the weak force or you wouldn't have atoms - but that is besides the point.
There is no evidence of a creator or intelligence involved in evolution
One chance out of two.I have no idea what that answer is supposed to mean.
That's silly. Quantum mechanics never comes into the explanation of evolution or relativity. ...I never wanted to explain evolution with quantum mechanics. Why did you say that?
There is a 50% chance that a creator or intelligence is involved in evolution, and there is a 50% chance that a creator or intelligence isn't involved in evolution.One chance out of two.I have no idea what that answer is supposed to mean.
I never wanted to explain evolution with quantum mechanics. Why did you say that?That's what I thought you were saying, translation issue I suppose.
There is a 50% chance that a creator or intelligence is involved in evolution, and there is a 50% chance that a creator or intelligence isn't involved in evolution.No there isn't. There is no evidence that there is a creator involved at all so how could there possibly be a 50 percent chance?
That's what I thought you were saying, translation issue I suppose.In simple terms I said that the atom makes the matter and that the evolution uses the matter to exist.
No there isn't. There is no evidence that there is a creator involved at all so how could there possibly be a 50 percent chance?I agree.
If I see an unidentified flying object, I guess you could say it is either terrestrial or an alien. It is not a 50% - 50% chance it is an alien or terrestrial, it is almost a 100% chance it is terrestrial.
Quantum mechanics is the underlying reason and tool for the constitution of relativistic physics, and allows evolution to occur.
... the atom makes the matter and that the evolution uses the matter to exist.
Just to understand:Yes, they are different.
Does this quote:Quantum mechanics is the underlying reason and tool for the constitution of relativistic physics, and allows evolution to occur.
is different from:... the atom makes the matter and that the evolution uses the matter to exist.?
You just have to understand that evolution would not exist without the atom (quantum mechanics).Why do you keep bring this up? It is irrelevant.
To imply the illusory aspect of reality to evolution. Did you get it?No.
The illusory aspect of reality due to the rules of quantum mechanics due to the measurement problem eg. Schrodinger's cat.Stop babbling.
Conclusion creation is a decoy and we are in a matrix.Ok, I get it, you don't want a serious discussion. Bye.
That doesn't surprise me. You lack perspective, and your level of reasoning at the level of philosophy leaves something to be desired.To imply the illusory aspect of reality to evolution. Did you get it?No.
You are ignorant of what we are able to understand.Conclusion creation is a decoy and we are in a matrix.Ok, I get it, you don't want a serious discussion. Bye.
I agree, but you must reconsider your certainty.There is a 50% chance that a creator or intelligence is involved in evolution, and there is a 50% chance that a creator or intelligence isn't involved in evolution.No there isn't. There is no evidence that there is a creator involved at all so how could there possibly be a 50 percent chance?
If I see an unidentified flying object, I guess you could say it is either terrestrial or an alien. It is not a 50% - 50% chance it is an alien or terrestrial, it is almost a 100% chance it is terrestrial.
Pretty much every conclusion you came up with in your harmonic oscillatory thread was wrong.I don't give you credit anymore.
So somewhere out there is a real me doing this, and I'm just simulating my actions.No. Eg. the argument posed by Bostrom suggests that we may be living inside a simulation.
One reason for a simulator S is to predict the behavior of the real system R. Very handy for fixing Apollo 13, to pick one spectacular example. So right now your creator is remodelling R in response to what I have done in S (otherwise S' won't be a true representation of R'). So anything I do in S will result in a change in both S and R, so I am in control of R. In other words the "real" world is now a puppet of the simulation. Which rather changes the implied meanings of simulation and creator.Your post leaves me to think that you ignored the topic in force. Read this example below and ask me questions. https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/8/109/htm or on arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12254
Another type of simulator is used to train in hazardous ops without using live ammunition/passengers/whatever, so we can handle the real world as if we were experienced operators. That makes a bit of religious sense if you believe in an afterlife, but it does mean that the afterlife will be damn close to this one, which is exactly what religion doesn't preach. Little point in S being a Cessna150 if R is an Airbus380, or vice versa, though IIRC Buddhism does suggest a progression through various levels of command and Judaeo-Christianity even confers wings on its graduates!
we may be living inside a simulation.I repeat: simulation of what? If you can't answer that question, the hypothesis is meaningless.
I rather think that you want to discredit the simulation hypothesisI presented a logical examination of the "simulation hypothesis" which shows it to be bunk. No expertise needed, just common sense.
I repeat: simulation of what? If you can't answer that question, the hypothesis is meaningless.I don't know which of the two choices is more problematic. In 1 you simply have to buy a pair of glasses to see more clearly, or in 2 if you have been distracted. Indeed I have already answered your question here (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=84146.msg670833#msg670833). But I repeat the context. The simulation of the observation.
I presented a logical examination of the "simulation hypothesis" which shows it to be bunk. No expertise needed, just common sense.Yes, it's true. But you didn't follow the thread completely. Read this page carefully. This is to highlight that we have a 50/50 chance of being in a simulation. Here is the info to give to people. Secondly, there is the technique used by the simulator, the problem of which only you posed above. But it doesn't work eg. like those already used in aviation, because the one studied here comes from quantum physics (see video on the same page).
Repeating a meaningless collection of words doesn't add meaning.Give me an example. You will not be able.
Simulation of the observation of what?From what you see.
So what is the real system of which you think we might be a simulation?I don't think it, I'm sure. By math Bostrom suggests we have a 50/50 chance of living inside a simulation. The real system is quantum. On the other hand, I don't know for the base reality.
So what are the scientific evidences in relation to evolution?
This is to highlight that we have a 50/50 chance of being in a simulation.
I don't think it, I'm sure. By math Bostrom suggests we have a 50/50 chance of living inside a simulation.
This is not reasoning worthy of a scientist. Don't let go.
There are an awful lot: biogeography, genetic patterns (including those of endogenous retroviruses), patterns in the fossil record, and observations of evolution in real time.Yes evidence for evolution: anatomy, molecular biology, biogeography, fossils,... are direct observations.
Where do you get those odds from?
50-50 odds aren't at all being "sure" of something.From an equation. Google "Live in a Simulation 50 50 chance"
Says the guy who states that physical evidence was planted by a higher being specifically to be a deception. If the dinosaurs are a deception, then anything can be a similarly-planted deception and it would be impossible to prove otherwise.I agree.
Do you dispute the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics? Or not?
Quote from: alancalverd on 02/03/2022 23:19:28So I am a simulation of my observation of myself, which itself must be a simulation of my simulation observing ....er... a simulation of.....QuoteSimulation of the observation of what?From what you see.
... but I do dispute that it is probable.Can you argue your position? Thank you.
No, my friend, a simulation must have an objective system to simulate. An observation is not a system.Hello!! Hello!! Anybody home? I was talking about the simulation of the observation and not of the system. You are confusing my dear.
Can you argue your position?
Lack of evidence for us being in a simulation, I'd say.However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation. It happens as soon as you see and observe matter.
the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics?Quantum physics is a mathematical abstraction of the real world, evolved to correspond with our observations of it and to predict what happens next. It seems to work pretty well.
However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation. It happens as soon as you see and observe matter.To add to what Alan is saying:
So, back to the question. If I am a simulation, what is the system that I simulate?Everything you see. It's like the principle of virtual reality glasses. The simulated system is that of the atom and all the other particles.
However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation.
Yes I made a mistake. I thought it was due to observation. Observation does not change the state of matter. Here is what I learn thanks to you. If the state of matter does not change under the effect of observation, then simulation is no longer possible.However wave function collapse is direct evidence of a simulation.I don't see how.
The simulated system is that of the atom and all the other particles.
Observation does not change the state of matter. Here is what I learn thanks to you. If the state of matter does not change under the effect of observation, then simulation is no longer possible.Again, to expand on what Alan is saying:
So I am a simulation of myself.Yes. But I guess only the mind isn't and is rightly stimulated by the simulation.
Again you are misunderstanding the use of the word observation, but you are not alone.I integrate well the idea of measurement in relation to visual observation. But can you please answer me this question : If I look at the double-slit experiment with my eyes open, the result of the interference figure will be the same as if I have my eyes closed?
Observation in QM would be better described as a measurement or interaction rather than the act of seeing/observing.
If I look at the double-slit experiment with my eyes open, the result of the interference figure will be the same as if I have my eyes closed?The photons don't know whether your eyes are open or closed, so how could they decide what to do? If a tree falls in a forest and there's nobody to witness it, does it make a sound?
How does it know whether and when you are looking at it? And why would it care enough about you to change its nature?I have the same question with this experience. Observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Relational_interpretation
We can now see the light emitted by a galaxy 13.5 billion light years away. Did the galaxy change from wave to particle 13.5by ago in the certain knowledge that homo sapiens might evolve and look at it, did it change yesterday, or will it change in another 13.5by when it learns that we have seen it?I guess as soon as you don't look at all it goes back to its original state. But how during the slit experiment does the electron know that it is being observed?
Remember what I said some way back: "wave function collapse" is not reality but a mathematical model of reality.The mathematical model represents reality well.
So it would seem.
But can you please answer me this question : If I look at the double-slit experiment with my eyes open, the result of the interference figure will be the same as if I have my eyes closed?
I have the same question with this experience. Observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object.Why do you say ‘however’? The video camera is the measuring device, the photon is the ‘object’ being observed; the photon interacts with the video camera sensor. So far, so simple.
The measurement is however made with a simple video camera.
But how during the slit experiment does the electron know that it is being observed?It doesn’t. Don’t make the mistake of anthropomorphising inanimate objects.
The mathematical model represents reality well.It does, but it is the interpretation of those models into an assumed reality that causes the problems.
Relational_interpretationis obviously wrong.
I guess as soon as you don't look at all it goes back to its original stateMy question was what do you mean by "as soon as". And how does it remember what its original state was 13.5 or 27 billion years ago? If the light came from an explosion, are you suggesting that the bits recombine when I stop looking? Or when you stop looking? How does the object choose its observer?
The video camera is the measuring device, the photon is the ‘object’ being observed; the photon interacts with the video camera sensor. So far, so simple.Matter is in a quantum superposition before observation.
is obviously wrong.Wikipedia.
My question was what do you mean by "as soon as". And how does it remember what its original state was 13.5 or 27 billion years ago? If the light came from an explosion, are you suggesting that the bits recombine when I stop looking? Or when you stop looking? How does the object choose its observer?Yes. Because Einstein said that "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." — Albert Einstein
The video camera is the measuring device, the photon is the ‘object’ being observed; the photon interacts with the video camera sensor. So far, so simple.It must be understood that the sensor is on the side and in no way interferes with the photon beam. In other words, the sensor does not receive the light directly on it. How then do you explain the fact that the sensor informs the wave of its presence? Otherwise ironically where would be the difficulty of this experiment if only in its interpretation of the measurement of the observation!?
2 - The observation by the eyes makes that the quantum superposition do not collapse and we see the quantum superposition state of matter.Necessarily the case of figure n°2 is false and the mathematical model of the wave function collapse also applies to the human eye in the same way as the video camera (case of figure n°1), namely the correlated matter in a unique determined quantum state.
Do you dispute the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics? Or not?@Kryptid are you now convinced and after having understood through the Double-slit experiment that the observation is only a simulation of wave which transits in particle when it is observed?I don't dispute that it's possible, but I do dispute that it is probable.Can you argue your position?Lack of evidence for us being in a simulation, I'd say.
1 - The observation by the camera causes the quantum superposition to collapse and generate a single quantum state of matter.In almost all interpretations that posit wave function collapse, the wavefunction of the measured thing (electron/photon/whatever) collapses upon interaction with its target, which is unlikely to be the camera. The camera plays no significant role here.
2 - The observation by the eyes makes that the quantum superposition do not collapse and we see the quantum superposition state of matter.The eyes have no effect here. They're just more superfluous cameras. I couldn't really parse your statement here.
That quote is specific only to a single quantum interpretation, and is not something that quantum theory itself would suggest.How does it know whether and when you are looking at it? And why would it care enough about you to change its nature?I have the same question with this experience. Observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Relational_interpretation
Your argument from incredulity is noted, but it hardly constitutes evidence against the interpretation.Relational_interpretationis obviously wrong.
Admittedly, wiki probably wouldn't list an interpretation that has been falsified, so this retort is not empty. But the interpretation's presence in a wiki article is no evidence that it is the correct interpretation, or that any quote specific to the interpretation (like the one you quoted above) is some kind of accepted scientific fact.Quote from: alancalverdis obviously wrong.Wikipedia.
Because Einstein said that "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." — Albert EinsteinThat wasn't a statement from any scientific paper, but rather a quip about his personal preferences. I can think of no valid interpretation of QM that suggests that the moon would not be there even if nobody was looking at it.
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 14:53:22Wikipedia also has articles on Nazism, Does that make the Nazi philosophy right?Quoteis obviously wrong.Wikipedia.
Yes.is not an answer to the questions I posed. If you aren't prepared to discuss scientific matters in a scientific manner, or even acknowledge simple logic, I won't waste any more time with you.
Matter is in a quantum superposition before observation.we can describe our knowledge of the state of a particle by a superposition of 2 or more other states. That does not mean that it actually exists in that superposition, and there are examples where particles are in a known state before measurement.
1 - The observation by the camera causes the quantum superposition to collapse and generate a single quantum state of matter.I don’t follow your arguments.
2 - The observation by the eyes makes that the quantum superposition do not collapse and we see the quantum superposition state of matter.
Correct?
This conflicts with your statement above “The observation by the camera ...”The video camera is the measuring device, the photon is the ‘object’ being observed; the photon interacts with the video camera sensor. So far, so simple.It must be understood that the sensor is on the side and in no way interferes with the photon beam. In other words, the sensor does not receive the light directly on it.
How then do you explain the fact that the sensor informs the wave of its presence? Otherwise ironically where would be the difficulty of this experiment if only in its interpretation of the measurement of the observation!?You’ve just said the sensor is not receiving any photons, so it can’t inform anyone or anything.
are you now convinced and after having understood through the Double-slit experiment that the observation is only a simulation of wave which transits in particle when it is observed?No, you have provided no evidence of that.
Finally we deduce that our nature is formed of waves and is captured by the eye to determine the "desired / unexpected" result in the form of a particle. The Double-slit experiment is an undeniable argument for the interpretation of a simulation. I remind you that the probability that our world is simulated have a fifty-fifty chance. Eg. arXiv paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12254Again, you have provided no such evidence.
@Kryptid are you now convinced and after having understood through the Double-slit experiment that the observation is only a simulation of wave which transits in particle when it is observed?
The Double-slit experiment is an undeniable argument for the interpretation of a simulation.
I remind you that the probability that our world is simulated have a fifty-fifty chance.
As Colin2B already pointed out, that paper says that the chance is less than 50%.Pipo...
Google "Live in a Simulation 50 50 chance"
As far as I can tell, it's just a relabelling of an old question.Yes nothing in particular. Just the usual prophetic messages to kings, like this:
And centuries of argument have never shown any convincing argument for a God, nor have they shown anything that can't be explained without one.
Wikipedia also has articles on Nazism, Does that make the Nazi philosophy right?In any case what I know is that when I see @alancalverd, then I know that his speech is not right.
Some scientists consider the chance of living in a matrix to be 50%.Again you are misquoting the paper which says very clearly that the probability is less than 50%
Yes, that's exactly the sort of nonsense that has got us nowhere for centuries.As far as I can tell, it's just a relabelling of an old question.Yes nothing in particular. Just the usual prophetic messages to kings, like this:
And centuries of argument have never shown any convincing argument for a God, nor have they shown anything that can't be explained without one.
Jeremiah 4:7
English Standard Version
A lion has gone up from his thicket, a destroyer of nations has set out; he has gone out from his place to make your land a waste; your cities will be ruins without inhabitant.
Jeremiah 5:12-31Spoiler: show
Some scientists consider the chance of living in a matrix to be 50%.Again you are misquoting the paper which says very clearly that the probability is less than 50%
“Using Bayesian model averaging, it is shown that the probability that we are sims is in fact less than 50%, tending towards that value in the limit of an infinite number of simulations.“
Why do you insist on consistently misquoting and misrepresenting articles and papers?
There's a 50% chance we're living in The Matrix, Bank of ...https://www.thesun.co.uk › news › t...Do you realise that the Sun isn't even a newspaper?
13 sept. 2016 — There's a 50% chance we're living in The Matrix, Bank of America claims. Analysts claim humanity could be trapped in simulated reality ...
And your references include:Some scientists consider the chance of living in a matrix to be 50%.Again you are misquoting the paper which says very clearly that the probability is less than 50%
“Using Bayesian model averaging, it is shown that the probability that we are sims is in fact less than 50%, tending towards that value in the limit of an infinite number of simulations.“
Why do you insist on consistently misquoting and misrepresenting articles and papers?
Sorry, but you are wrong about the final conclusion.