(August 20, 2009 at 12:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:There's a point where massive coincidence doesn't work as an explanation any more; I think science passed that mark a few hundred years ago...Tiberius Wrote:If reality is not as it appears, science would not produce results.
So are you kind of ruling out the fact that it could all just be a MASSIVE concidence then? Lol.
EvF
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 13, 2024, 2:40 am
Thread Rating:
|
Non-existence
|
 
Yes lol... (obviously a joke on my part) hehe.
If you were to believe in something as conicidental as a concidence that insane, heck - you might as well believe in God! EvF  (August 20, 2009 at 10:59 am)Tiberius Wrote: The evidence for a reality that is as it appears is the success of science in telling us about reality. We make accurate predictions based on this science, and they hold true. So we are left with the conclusion that reality must be as it appears because it appears to be reality? I am not very sure if I know what you mean by this. This looks to me like you are saying that there are no contridictions-e.g. random scenery changes-hence reality as we know it must be real. I take this as evidence that reality is stable-not quite the same thing when you really think about it, and I don't see how it proves anything beyond stability.
No, I'm saying that science works on the assumption that reality is as it appears, and that by observing it we can learn from it. The success of science is the ultimate test (and conclusion) of this first assumption. If reality wasn't as it appeared, science would have failed; experiments would not have given any results.
I'm not saying it's proof, but it certainly beats the odds of coincidence.
Ah, but here we have the problem. Science works within, not beyond, the material universe. Any flaw or blemish, if you will, that exists in that universe will not be discovered by science in its present form because the blemish will appear, and be disguised, in the results of the scientific enquiry, not through coincidence, but because science is working with the 'contaminated' factor-e.g. the 'fake' universe-or in other words, a flaw in the core function will replicate in all other results. Hope that is clear.
 (August 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm)dagda Wrote: Ah, but here we have the problem. Science works within, not beyond, the material universe. Any flaw or blemish, if you will, that exists in that universe will not be discovered by science in its present form because the blemish will appear, and be disguised, in the results of the scientific enquiry, not through coincidence, but because science is working with the 'contaminated' factor-e.g. the 'fake' universe-or in other words, a flaw in the core function will replicate in all other results. Hope that is clear. It's clear that it's rubbish because, and non of you have adequately dealt with this yet, if the universe is virtual you have a more complex universe because a virtual universe must be "hosted". That means a real universe is simpler and therefore a more realistic assumption. 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  RE: Non-existence
August 22, 2009 at 9:24 pm
(This post was last modified: August 22, 2009 at 10:19 pm by Violet.)
Yes, i agree with most of that  Sorry, i mistook you with Kyu while reading >.< He *is* refusing to consider the uncertainty of our existence, i am sorry i linked his statements to you.However that may be, dagda, is not one equal to one in that 'beyond space' as well? After all... if one is not equal to one, the universe must become either a single mass, or an eventual nothingness. The equality of one and one is the reason science exists, therefore science is likely applicable to the beyondiverse\. Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
RE: Non-existence
August 23, 2009 at 4:27 am
(This post was last modified: August 23, 2009 at 4:33 am by dagda.)
(August 22, 2009 at 3:09 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(August 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm)dagda Wrote: Ah, but here we have the problem. Science works within, not beyond, the material universe. Any flaw or blemish, if you will, that exists in that universe will not be discovered by science in its present form because the blemish will appear, and be disguised, in the results of the scientific enquiry, not through coincidence, but because science is working with the 'contaminated' factor-e.g. the 'fake' universe-or in other words, a flaw in the core function will replicate in all other results. Hope that is clear. Kyu, whta you are doing here is creating my argument for me so that you can dismantle the thread. Stop making this something it is not. I never said that the universe was virtual. This thread is about finding proof for your 'theory' not mine. Even if that were not the case, your post takes as its proof that a 'virtual' universe would be to much like hard work hence we should ignore the possibility. Sorry, lathargy is not a proof. 'The equality of one and one is the reason science exists, therefore science is likely applicable to the beyondiverse\. ' Intresting idea. I had not thought about this. The only problem I can see is that if the byondiverse (I like that, hope you don't mind me using it) is equal to this universe, then it would be hard to distinguish one from the other in scientific results-we would just assume that the readings were anomalies from our own universe hence the reading would slip under the radar.
Nothing happens without a cause, therefore all effects can be linked to their causes, even our very existence. Science no longer allows strange things to go unexplained... all things can be proven by one equaling one (and all the subsequent mathematics that logically follow). It might be difficult to identify the possibly differing physics of another realm (multiple string theory for instance), but the fact remains that it exists, and if it exists it can be identified.
You look into a tent, and you can usually see easily wether a bull is in it or not... however the small mosquito may go unnoticed for quite some time within the tent. Basically, the reading may escape us for a long time, but we would eventually identify it for what it is. Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
(August 22, 2009 at 9:24 pm)Saerules Wrote: Yes, i agree with most of that Um no! Not refusing to consider it ... rejecting it as an assumption of equal validity. 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 |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
