For The Atheists

Your thoughts? It's long, but the music's good.

Dude. One forum at a time.

At 5/1/2012 1:46:54 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Dude. One forum at a time.

Well, the video's both scientific and relates to religion. So I put it on both.

I quit watching after the "virtual reality fits the world better than science" part because I felt there probably wouldn't be much benefit past that...

Whenever someone makes up a concept and then say "See this explains it all..." a little bell goes off in my head and I generally stop listening. The virtual reality argument is just like the religious one. The makers of that argument get to make up whatever they want until they feel it fits their level of scientific understand to provide all the answers.

What started the big bang? God did it. Why are their virtual particles? Virtual reality. Why is life so complex? God did it. Why do we have this self awereness that we don't quite understand? It is part of the matrix.

Anyway, sorry I don't have time to watch the whole thing but I feel fairly certain it doesn't really add anything new from how it started. Science starts with not knowing anything and tries to build up knowledge through observation and experiment. That seems to work remarkably well. Other methods that make up an answer and then search the data to see how that data may fit their already assumed answer doesn't see to do as well.

At 5/1/2012 2:11:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:46:54 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Dude. One forum at a time.

Well, the video's both scientific and relates to religion. So I put it on both.

Do you imagine you're going to get a different response?

At 5/4/2012 8:14:19 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/1/2012 2:11:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:46:54 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Dude. One forum at a time.

Well, the video's both scientific and relates to religion. So I put it on both.

Do you imagine you're going to get a different response?

Actually, yes. I was hoping for some more scientific rebuttals to this video on this section.

At 5/4/2012 8:09:10 AM, Floid wrote:
I quit watching after the "virtual reality fits the world better than science" part because I felt there probably wouldn't be much benefit past that...

Whenever someone makes up a concept and then say "See this explains it all..." a little bell goes off in my head and I generally stop listening. The virtual reality argument is just like the religious one. The makers of that argument get to make up whatever they want until they feel it fits their level of scientific understand to provide all the answers.

What started the big bang? God did it. Why are their virtual particles? Virtual reality. Why is life so complex? God did it. Why do we have this self awereness that we don't quite understand? It is part of the matrix.

A bit over-simplified, but okay.

Anyway, sorry I don't have time to watch the whole thing but I feel fairly certain it doesn't really add anything new from how it started. Science starts with not knowing anything and tries to build up knowledge through observation and experiment. That seems to work remarkably well. Other methods that make up an answer and then search the data to see how that data may fit their already assumed answer doesn't see to do as well.

Actually, from what I understand it works both ways. If the evidence fits one theory better then another, then that theory is the more probable one.

At 5/4/2012 2:02:18 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/4/2012 8:14:19 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/1/2012 2:11:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:46:54 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Dude. One forum at a time.

Well, the video's both scientific and relates to religion. So I put it on both.

Do you imagine you're going to get a different response?

Actually, yes. I was hoping for some more scientific rebuttals to this video on this section.

What was wrong with the scientific rebuttals you got in the other section?

At 5/4/2012 2:06:20 PM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/4/2012 2:02:18 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/4/2012 8:14:19 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/1/2012 2:11:31 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/1/2012 1:46:54 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Dude. One forum at a time.

Well, the video's both scientific and relates to religion. So I put it on both.

Do you imagine you're going to get a different response?

Actually, yes. I was hoping for some more scientific rebuttals to this video on this section.

What was wrong with the scientific rebuttals you got in the other section?

I posted this to each section at the same time. I saw the rebuttals on the other thread as being a bit ignorant of the subject at hand and being rather sophomoric. Bu then again, I've just recently started studying this topic. So I'm not really in a position to call anyone sophomoric. Either way, I was hoping for a more definitive objection.

"A materialist world would produce a clockwork physics based on particles floating in nothingness."
This is utterly false: science rejects "nothingness". Nothingness is a contradiction and does not exist. Not a good start.

You do realize that computer simulations are BASED on physics, right? It means that it should NOT surprise us to find so many similarities because one (the simulation) is a reflection of the other (physical reality) and not the other way around. Horse before the cart, anyone?

This is very similar to the problems faced by String theories: in their attempt to explain everything, they leave no room for predictions. In other words, there is so much cherry picking in these theories (M-Theory, String, Many Worlds, etc.) that they predict nothing. Consequently they are not a very good SCIENTIFIC theories.

I love the Ockham's razor bit! Last I checked, Ockham's razor is not a law of physics. It may also surprise you to know that "cause & effect" is also NOT a law of physics.

There are MANY MANY MANY things on the "list of similarities" that are conjecture & speculation and some that are plain false. The one that jumps out at me the most is the "anti-matter runs time in reverse." This is utter non-sense.

I wouldn't even call it quantum mysticism: I think quantum quackery fits better! Not to mention that all a simulation does is "push" things back a level and we are left with the same problem: what is the governing physics of the computer running the simulation! The answers to this in the video are not very compelling.

With things like "quantum tunneling in MPORG", more non sequiturs than you can shake a stick at, and enough false choices to last a life time there's no reason to take this video as a whole seriously! As far as the science part goes, it is pisspoor: think of it as a gigantic non sequitur.