I've decided to split this off because of the multiple conversations going on in the original thread.
Kyu
Quantum physicists disagree that that reality exists? Really? Let's deal with that.
I've read a bit here and there and watched a few documentaries but the fact is I don't understand quantum physics so I posted your claim over at CFI and interestingly they told me straight, neither do you! Even quantum physicists acknowledge that they don’t understand it all.
They made a couple of observations about the kind of debater you were, the kind that loves to redefine perfectly adequate words to suit their own warped worldview and then they commented on your basic argument.
The core of this particular claim seems to revolve around the idea that on the sub-atomic level matter is vastly more nothing than something so that what we perceive as real surfaces are in fact huge swathes of nothingness that people like you take to advance a view that the universe is somehow not real ... I suppose, having failed to bring your god up to the level of serious science, you do this to try and bring science down to the vaporous level of your god. It's a tactic that creationists have used before, it was a poor strategy then and, despite the apparent sophistication of your argument (and I suspect the reason you hide behind your philosophical psychobabble), it's a poor strategy now. Despite your claim quantum physics has not proven reality to be wrong simply more complicated and wondrous than we had previously envisaged.
String theory (which seems to be at the heart of your reinterpretation of the universe into fairy gah gah land) remains speculative, regarded as hypothesis rather than theory by some and more as a philosophy by others. It allows for many universes but that still doesn't mean that anything is possible or that there alternate universes some with alternate versions of us (or possibility of the same) nor does it mean that the possibility that we might live in a simulation is any more real a possibility than not, rather the opposite actually. That such a scenario cannot allow for all possibilities is fairly reasonable because there are many infinite non-repetitive numbers such as Pi and if anything can happen then we might (for example) be overrun by time-travelling, universe jumping explorers. Concluding that virtual & real universes are indistinguishable based on such shaky foundations is exactly the kind of rubbish I'd expect from you.
Then again of course there is science itself.
All ideas in science (even at the hypothesis level) must be falsifiable (Popper) and any idea that cannot be shown to be false under any circumstance (such as your virtual vs. real universe claim) is meaningless i.e. it caries no value, no information and cannot be meaningfully discussed as there can be no resolution. Maybe there are other quantum universes, maybe the sun will rise tomorrow or not, maybe ... but they cannot be demonstrated and they are therefore pointless and are just another example of, what was it Luke referred to it as? Oh yes, intellectual wankery! The same is true of the ideas raised by metaphysics ... maybe there is a heaven, a hell, a god, a devil, an overarching universal intelligence or whatever but, as I have already pointed out, there is nothing in the observable universe that we can observe that supports the claim that they exist, they carry no value beyond that of a philosophical or spiritual comfort blanket and so they are largely irrelevant top the real universe that we can observe around us.
According to Occam’s Razor any statement or claim that cannot be shown to contribute (in some fashion affect) a set of beliefs (an explanation or a worldview) should be discarded because it does nothing but add complexity which is pretty much what I was saying to you about your claim that the universe could as easily be unreal as real ... not so because (as I pointed out likening it to a real computer vs. a hosted virtual computer) it adds layers of complexity. To give you another example drawn from the computing world ... once we used to operate on DOS, then DOS and Windows 3.x, then Windows 9x, then 2000, then XP, then Vista, and now Windows 7 ... each time it is easier than last, more foolproof, better designed etc. etc. but underneath that glitz, that ease of use, that power the complexity increases (probably exponentially). A virtual universe is a more complicated beast because it has to be hosted by something and you CANNOT ignore than by making sweeping declaration such as it is self-supported ... it just doesn't work that way except in the domains of psychobabble and metaphysics (but then I repeat myself).
No one has ever been able to verifiably demonstrate the existence of any god (doesn't matter which one), no one has been able to demonstrate any metaphysical claim that can affect the real world and as one of the CFI guys says, "Declaration is not demonstration"!
You have faith; you believe what you do without evidence from the physical universe so you must accept your god by faith just as others disbelieve in a god by faith but here's the thing ... given that there is no verifiable evidence in support of your claims it is YOU that must provide the evidence and a reasonable interpretation of the same .. the rest of us can just sit here and say, "Show me the evidence!"
In conclusion ... if, as we know is true (though I suspect you won't admit), there is no way to support (evidence) or disprove (falsify) your claim of a virtual universe, further discussion is meaningless and a waste of time. Even discussing it in a philosophical sense is little more than mental masturbation. There is no way that I can prove (or disprove) the universe is real so that argument is also meaningless and ideas from quantum physics on the sub-atomic world are not relevant so, again, it is a waste of time in a physical world discussion.
Kyu
Kyu
(August 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: the assumption that reality exists (in spite of quantum physicists disagreeing!)
Quantum physicists disagree that that reality exists? Really? Let's deal with that.
I've read a bit here and there and watched a few documentaries but the fact is I don't understand quantum physics so I posted your claim over at CFI and interestingly they told me straight, neither do you! Even quantum physicists acknowledge that they don’t understand it all.
They made a couple of observations about the kind of debater you were, the kind that loves to redefine perfectly adequate words to suit their own warped worldview and then they commented on your basic argument.
The core of this particular claim seems to revolve around the idea that on the sub-atomic level matter is vastly more nothing than something so that what we perceive as real surfaces are in fact huge swathes of nothingness that people like you take to advance a view that the universe is somehow not real ... I suppose, having failed to bring your god up to the level of serious science, you do this to try and bring science down to the vaporous level of your god. It's a tactic that creationists have used before, it was a poor strategy then and, despite the apparent sophistication of your argument (and I suspect the reason you hide behind your philosophical psychobabble), it's a poor strategy now. Despite your claim quantum physics has not proven reality to be wrong simply more complicated and wondrous than we had previously envisaged.
String theory (which seems to be at the heart of your reinterpretation of the universe into fairy gah gah land) remains speculative, regarded as hypothesis rather than theory by some and more as a philosophy by others. It allows for many universes but that still doesn't mean that anything is possible or that there alternate universes some with alternate versions of us (or possibility of the same) nor does it mean that the possibility that we might live in a simulation is any more real a possibility than not, rather the opposite actually. That such a scenario cannot allow for all possibilities is fairly reasonable because there are many infinite non-repetitive numbers such as Pi and if anything can happen then we might (for example) be overrun by time-travelling, universe jumping explorers. Concluding that virtual & real universes are indistinguishable based on such shaky foundations is exactly the kind of rubbish I'd expect from you.
Then again of course there is science itself.
All ideas in science (even at the hypothesis level) must be falsifiable (Popper) and any idea that cannot be shown to be false under any circumstance (such as your virtual vs. real universe claim) is meaningless i.e. it caries no value, no information and cannot be meaningfully discussed as there can be no resolution. Maybe there are other quantum universes, maybe the sun will rise tomorrow or not, maybe ... but they cannot be demonstrated and they are therefore pointless and are just another example of, what was it Luke referred to it as? Oh yes, intellectual wankery! The same is true of the ideas raised by metaphysics ... maybe there is a heaven, a hell, a god, a devil, an overarching universal intelligence or whatever but, as I have already pointed out, there is nothing in the observable universe that we can observe that supports the claim that they exist, they carry no value beyond that of a philosophical or spiritual comfort blanket and so they are largely irrelevant top the real universe that we can observe around us.
According to Occam’s Razor any statement or claim that cannot be shown to contribute (in some fashion affect) a set of beliefs (an explanation or a worldview) should be discarded because it does nothing but add complexity which is pretty much what I was saying to you about your claim that the universe could as easily be unreal as real ... not so because (as I pointed out likening it to a real computer vs. a hosted virtual computer) it adds layers of complexity. To give you another example drawn from the computing world ... once we used to operate on DOS, then DOS and Windows 3.x, then Windows 9x, then 2000, then XP, then Vista, and now Windows 7 ... each time it is easier than last, more foolproof, better designed etc. etc. but underneath that glitz, that ease of use, that power the complexity increases (probably exponentially). A virtual universe is a more complicated beast because it has to be hosted by something and you CANNOT ignore than by making sweeping declaration such as it is self-supported ... it just doesn't work that way except in the domains of psychobabble and metaphysics (but then I repeat myself).
No one has ever been able to verifiably demonstrate the existence of any god (doesn't matter which one), no one has been able to demonstrate any metaphysical claim that can affect the real world and as one of the CFI guys says, "Declaration is not demonstration"!
You have faith; you believe what you do without evidence from the physical universe so you must accept your god by faith just as others disbelieve in a god by faith but here's the thing ... given that there is no verifiable evidence in support of your claims it is YOU that must provide the evidence and a reasonable interpretation of the same .. the rest of us can just sit here and say, "Show me the evidence!"
In conclusion ... if, as we know is true (though I suspect you won't admit), there is no way to support (evidence) or disprove (falsify) your claim of a virtual universe, further discussion is meaningless and a waste of time. Even discussing it in a philosophical sense is little more than mental masturbation. There is no way that I can prove (or disprove) the universe is real so that argument is also meaningless and ideas from quantum physics on the sub-atomic world are not relevant so, again, it is a waste of time in a physical world discussion.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
