On Jul 17, 2018, Steven Keyl wrote:

Quote:

Sounds like a stalemate.

A stalemate indeed.

Regarding the hand washing, obviously it's a cherry picked anecdote, but can still be illustrative. Found this quick article. From others I've read, he was berated and laughed out of the medical community. It wasn't until a decade or two later that his ideas took root.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot......-s-lives

On Jul 17, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote:

I doubt a single person here believes Bilk does not have a compelling argument.

Sometimes something is just such an obvious load of crap that it is all that can be said.

On Jul 17, 2018, stoneunhinged wrote:
I watched the video, and scarcely understood the science. But the philosophy made complete sense to me. I became an Idealist before my 20th birthday, and have not read anything since (and I have read and continue to read a lot) to persuade me that Idealism is not the best explanation for the nature of Being.

My initial persuasion came not from Plato, nor perhaps the most persuasive Idealist of all, Hegel, but the American theologian Jonathan Edwards.

From Edwards' private notes (perhaps too radical to publish or put into a sermon):

Quote:

And, indeed, the secret lies here: That, which truly is the Substance of all Bodies, is the infinitely exact, and precise, and perfectly stable Idea, in God's mind, together with his stable Will, that the same shall gradually be communicated to us, and to other minds, according to certain fixed and exact established Methods and Laws: or in somewhat different language, the infinitely exact and precise, and stable Will, with respect to correspondent communications to Created Minds, and effects on their minds.

(Italics in the original.)

I might gently suggest that what bothers Bill is the use of computer nerd language--simulation--rather than the idea that the basis of reality is in fact a set of permanent, Designer-defined laws which are essentially idea rather than, for lack of a better word, matter.

Again, this passage from Edwards led me in this direction, but I think Hegel more or less nailed it. Hegel's solving of Kant's noumina/phenomena problem was to make epistemology dialectical: the observer and the observed perform a synthesis which frames Being. This was in. 1807--over a century before Heisenberg and Schrodinger. It was, more or less, the philosophical equivalent of quantum theory.

(On a side note: Karl Marx decided to twist the essence of epistemological dialectic by making it materialistic, which was a bizarre choice, since there is no logical reason whatsoever to make "matter" dialectical, which in turn logical invalidates the most essential part of Marxism. Marxists beware. His critique of capitalism might seem compelling, but there is no logic or science there at all.)

On Jul 17, 2018, Steven Keyl wrote:
Lesson learned.

On Jul 17, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 17, 2018, Steven Keyl wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 14, 2018, S2000magician wrote:
I'm trying to find the words to couch this delicately.

I can't.

What a bunch of crap.

Douglas Hofstadter commented on this sort of thing in Metamagical Themas.

These guys should be ashamed to call themselves scientists. Their scientist licenses should be revoked. As should their university degrees.

Sheesh!

Fascinating. These are the same responses that accompany nearly all theories that are later incorporated into mainstream science, i.e. washing of hands before surgery. No actual refutation, just "what a bunch of crap." Hardly a compelling counterpoint.

I doubt a single person here believes Bilk does not have a compelling argument.

Sometimes something is just such an obvious load of crap that it is all that can be said.

On Jul 17, 2018, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 16, 2018, rockwall wrote:
...

For some reason I thought you were a rocket scientist!

I was.

But I am a mathematician.

On Jul 17, 2018, stoneunhinged wrote:
...Hegel's solving of Kant's noumina/phenomena problem was to make epistemology dialectical: the observer and the observed perform a synthesis which frames Being. This was in. 1807--over a century before Heisenberg and Schrodinger. It was, more or less, the philosophical equivalent of quantum theory.

Does curiosity kill the cat?

On Jul 18, 2018, Steven Keyl wrote:
Thanks, Bill! I appreciate you giving it a go.

Around 9:10 the narrator says that nature is composed of quantized bits, which means that the universe has a finite number of components.
How does it follow that if nature is quantized, the number of bits must necessarily be finite?

On Jul 18, 2018, Steven Keyl wrote:
Bill, I personally don't find the reasoning shoddy at all. To me, those early bits you mentioned are simply setting the stage for the more compelling evidence to follow.

Quote:

Around 9:10 the narrator says that nature is composed of quantized bits, which means that the universe has a finite number of components.
How does it follow that if nature is quantized, the number of bits must necessarily be finite?

My takeaway is that because nature is composed of quantized bits, one cannot rule out the possibility of a finite universe. While an infinite universe may be imaginable, given physicist's current obsession with dark matter, the general consensus (with which I agree) is that the universe is indeed finite.

For me, the more interesting bits come later (such as quantum entanglement), but unfortunately, it doesn't seem we'll be in a position to discuss them. Again, though I wish we could have gotten to some of the meatier ideas, I certainly appreciate your time investment.

On Jul 23, 2018, Pop Haydn wrote:
How does "Creation" differ fundamentally from "Simulation?"

On Jul 24, 2018, Steven Keyl wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 23, 2018, Pop Haydn wrote:
How does "Creation" differ fundamentally from "Simulation?"

I think you're right that they are functionally the same thing.

The only distinction I would draw is that in the West, creation is entwined with our concept of God. By definition, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. The designers of a simulation may be intelligent and highly advanced without necessarily having any of these traits normally attributed to God.

On Jul 24, 2018, S2000magician wrote:

But with respect to the simulation, they would have all of those traits, no?