The mistake that happens in the imagination is that people use time for past. present, and future. When you get words wrong you give them a magical quality. Then consciousness becomes magical, because you start to think before time happens. If time was a pressure through a hole, then the hose pipe is your consciousness, and that's not very magical at all, in fact it's almost insultingly simple.
Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
The mistake that happens in the imagination is that people use time for past. present, and future. When you get words wrong you give them a magical quality. Then consciousness becomes magical, because you start to think before time happens. If time was a pressure through a hole, then the hose pipe is your consciousness, and that's not very magical at all, in fact it's almost insultingly simple.
Really?
So this isn't an assumption?
Please provide the evidence.
Pardon?
Bullshit.
You want the evidence: If you can't measure and detect thoughts-than they are outside of science reach.
How do you know what energy really is? Sure we all know what is the definition of energy in physics, but what exactly is it? You simply cannot compute energy, only its effects on the environment.
Yes, I admit that that's far fetched, but I read this in an magazine (science magazine several years ago). Most likely they meant to say the most complex of all living organisms, the peak of evolution-that would be more accurate.
Apples and oranges.
Support your (supposed) non-assumption: Consciousness and thoughts are beyond computation and science and always will be.
By your "logic" X-rays, for example are outside of science's reach since, up until recently, they were unmeasurable and undetectable.
One more time: bullshit.
You're the one who is saying apples and oranges. If all the high-tech and science with all the possibility within and outside EM spectrum could not find anything regarding thoughts, consciousness and emotions, this is the end. If they can't see it/detect it on sub-atomic level /and they can't detect anything below quantum level (they say this is the smallest part) than were is it-it's obviously out of range of science. And this is maximum how much scientists can detect, they can't go any deeper. If you can't observe something, it is beyond science reach, because you need to observe to detect and measure something and to see what are its effects. The same can be said for particles (or anything else) that are not, cannot be detected (if there are any these form of particles), the same can be said for computation-you can't compute thoughts, emotions, consciousness/sub-consciousness.
Prove it is BS.
You should start all sentences with "I don't think.... you can compute thoughts, emotions, consciousness/sub-consciousness." You can, you can compute smaller than the quantum scale as well, into a negative scale.
Oh, fail.
We can detect thoughts.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=th....,cf.osb&fp=440660d03c957758&biw=1280&bih=894
Ever heard of physics?
It concerns itself quite a bit calculations on energy.
How do they know they detected thoughts? They don't. However, my main focus is on consciousness/sub-consciousness, nobody detected it, and none ever will, if they haven't by now. This is as far as science has gone, this is the upper limit of science. They send missions to moon and Mars, and they can't figure it out what is consciousness and they can't detect it.
Yes, I heard of physics, but physics can't explain it all can it, but what exactly energy is, it's not just work, you know even the simulation needs to have some energy source, so how do you know something is simulation if it still needs energy to support it?
Well, you can't compute something if you can't detect it and observe it and measure it.
They really didn't detect emotions there is no mention of it.
If you send a link, be more precise:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1085/brain-scans-detect-human-thoughts
The research, which began in July 2005, has been of limited scope: only 21 people have been tested so far. And the team's 71 per cent accuracy rate is only about 20 per cent more successful than woud be expected by random chance.
So, they didn't detected it, not in the way you think they did.
Yeah. Blah blah blah...
Repeated empty claims.
Let's try and get this subject back on track.
The "notion" of a simulated or Emulated reality is based on the assumption that the future exploits of technological development will be able to go beyond the bounds of what we define as "Nature".
Nature is the assumption that things just magically come into being because of some absolute fluke within an infinite entropic structure, which means any magical creation has no reason to exist, no design to follow and no actual plan. In essence nature in this representation would incline to suggest the whole universe to be un-natural considering it's filled of various "systems" like planetary bodies, atomic subsystems and the rules existent within vacuum space.
There is of course counter foil in regards to the suggestion that the planet defined by "nature" can be responsible for generating organised systems that can appear mathematical and/or designed but are actually a biproduct of chaos. Such observations might be causeways that consist of hexagonal pillars of stone caused by lava flows, however there is still mathematics and physics behind their development suggesting the basis of "programming" in how such formations are following a design.
There are therefore two subsequent schools or positions in regards to emulator theory.
One being the development of a simulation independent of the universe in which it is housed, this basically means duplicating observations made in the world you currently view and not arguing the finer points of what defines nature, entropy or systems of order.
The other is anticipating the universe is part of an overall recurrence of building an "emulation", where attempted repeat builds (by parallel universes) are interconnected to generate a higher capacity to process raw data as well as manipulate the very foundations that would make our very existence, while utilising a finite volume of resources to achieve an infinite composition named "The Universe" (But accurately being a Multiworld)
This latter is obviously extravagant, it doesn't see "Nature" through entropy but anticipates "Design" through the conclusion that continuing trends in technology if set with such a lofty goal, can indeed inspire to reach that goal and beyond.
Due to extending beyond the evidence existent from the current experiments that currently exist as the boundary to our reality, it's Fringe nature often limits the very serious nature of what our actual existence is really about and/or capable of.
The "notion" of a simulated or Emulated reality is based on the assumption that the future exploits of technological development will be able to go beyond the bounds of what we define as "Nature".
Nature is the assumption that things just magically come into being because of some absolute fluke within an infinite entropic structure, which means any magical creation has no reason to exist, no design to follow and no actual plan. In essence nature in this representation would incline to suggest the whole universe to be un-natural considering it's filled of various "systems" like planetary bodies, atomic subsystems and the rules existent within vacuum space.
There is of course counter foil in regards to the suggestion that the planet defined by "nature" can be responsible for generating organised systems that can appear mathematical and/or designed but are actually a biproduct of chaos. Such observations might be causeways that consist of hexagonal pillars of stone caused by lava flows, however there is still mathematics and physics behind their development suggesting the basis of "programming" in how such formations are following a design.
There are therefore two subsequent schools or positions in regards to emulator theory.
One being the development of a simulation independent of the universe in which it is housed, this basically means duplicating observations made in the world you currently view and not arguing the finer points of what defines nature, entropy or systems of order.
The other is anticipating the universe is part of an overall recurrence of building an "emulation", where attempted repeat builds (by parallel universes) are interconnected to generate a higher capacity to process raw data as well as manipulate the very foundations that would make our very existence, while utilising a finite volume of resources to achieve an infinite composition named "The Universe" (But accurately being a Multiworld)
This latter is obviously extravagant, it doesn't see "Nature" through entropy but anticipates "Design" through the conclusion that continuing trends in technology if set with such a lofty goal, can indeed inspire to reach that goal and beyond.
Due to extending beyond the evidence existent from the current experiments that currently exist as the boundary to our reality, it's Fringe nature often limits the very serious nature of what our actual existence is really about and/or capable of.