It's hard not to be impressed.
It's hard not to be impressed.
It's a system built on trust. If a CA is anything less than completely trustworthy, it's useless. A year long suspension looks like a slap on the wrist, when the obvious action is to drop them completely.
I was sacrificing accuracy for clarity.
By pretending to have read a paper and press release don't exist?
Yeah, claiming some non-existent things exist is certainly inaccurate. What I don't understand is what that clarified. Well, it did make it clear that you're not familiar, in the slightest, with the topic under discussion. So I can give you that.
You lied, er, "sacrificed accuracy" to establish, clearly, that you don't have any knowledge about the subject under discussion.
You really are an idiot. Your bizarre definition of creationism is yours and yours alone. Tyson, explicitly, says that it's "very likely" that our universe is a simulation created and designed by an intelligence. Just because that intelligence is not whatever it is you think of as a god or gods changes nothing. It's creationism.
How does that work in your twisted, poorly educated, mind? "The universe has a creator, but it's not a god so it can't be the same as creationism." or "The universe wasn't intelligently designed because the intelligent designer wasn't my idea of a god." It's pretty clear that you're an idiot.
You also forget that this is a falsifiable hypotheses and there are active experiments running to test it.
Not really. Beane's bullshit won't falsify the simulation hypothesis any more than it would lend credence to it. It's empty speculation, after all. Put simply (so you can understand it): "If this is a simulated universe, the simulation might work in a particular way giving this thing a special property. We can test for this property with this experiment." Now, if that property turns out to be as guessed, it tells us nothing related to simulation. Equally, we gain nothing if the experiment does not show that property. See, that property does not depend on the universe being a simulation, nor does the simulation hypothesis depend on the existence of that property. At best, it means one of the many groundless assumptions about what a simulated universe might look like could possibly be incorrect.
This is a real scientific hypotheses
No, no it is not. That would require that it produce predictions. You need to layer on a few more assumptions before you can manage that.
It is as fringe as fringe gets. You're confused, thinking it's mainstream, because you see it discussed in the media. That's because it's fun, not because it's serious science. Neil Tyson, for example, talks about it because he's in the entertainment business, not the science business.
You'll find that very few properly credentialed scientists (possibly none) that actually take the idea seriously. You'll find quite a few laypersons, sure, but they're idiots.
I didn't say Tyson wrote a paper.
You heard a press release. You didn't read the paper. What he says in a press release is the idiots version
There was no paper. There was no press release. You claimed both existed.
I'm being called an idiot by somebody who sincerely believes that some of the greatest minds alive are both creationists and atheists at the same time... somehow
Tyson, as I've pointed out, obviously doesn't realize the obvious implications of his silly ramblings. He's also (very obviously) not one of the greatest minds alive. Remember my entire point?
Now, you are an idiot if you really think you can't be both a creationist and an atheist. Tyson offers one example with his simulation hypothesis. There are others. The Raelian Movement, for example, describes itself as "Intelligent Design for Atheists".
Yes, you are an idiot. A liar as well. Not a very good liar, like most idiots, as its pointless to lie when we both know you're lying.
Even with your interpretation of what Tyson says it still has nothing in common with creationism because there is absolutely nothing supernatural or inexplicable there
Creationism does not imply anything supernatural. See: Tyson's bullshit, The Raelian Movement, etc. (It's like you have an impossibly superficial understanding of these ideas...)
The thing about it is - if indeed this universe was a simulation created by another species - then they are a species just like us.
If we were living in a simulation, we'd have absolutely no reason to believe anything about the universe which houses our simulation nor the creators who produced the simulation. We'd, very obviously, have no basis to form such beliefs. Any such claims would be entirely speculative. Are you an idiot?
Now, please, stop spreading obvious nonsense.
You are so full of shit. There was no paper! There was no press release! The whole thing happened at a debate.
WTF is wrong with you? Why make up such obviously false nonsense?!
It has as much to do with the actual science as the phrase 'survival of the fittest' has to do with origin of species: which is to say nothing at all. That phrase never occurs anywhere in that book, or any of Darwin's other books or any of his papers. He never uttered it at all.
Yeah, there it is. You really are an idiot. While it's an old talking point used by the bottom 1% of Talk Origins fans back in 2007, it's not quite right. Fortunately, I've run across this particular bit of nonsense before and can debunk this bullshit. See, Darwin was well-aware of the term, and thought it was fantastic. He used it in later publications (even crediting Spencer), including later editions of Origin.
That phrase never occurs anywhere in that book
While it did not appear in early editions, it did occur in later editions. Darwin was aware of the term and thought it was fantastic. You're spreading nonsense.
Yeah, you're way off. Neil Tyson argues that it is "very likely" that we are living in a simulation. He does presuppose a civilization that produces such a simulation.
I'm done. If you're going to flat-out lie, you're not worth my time. I'm not going to offer you a platform for your bullshit.
you're the one who seems to have a very odd idea of it - as is not endorsed by any sane scientist in the world.
That's my point. The idea is absurd, yet its endorsed by idiotic science evangelists. It's no different that the creationist nonsense idiots here are complaining about. The only difference is that they give the version that sounds like science a pass. Scientists can be idiots too. Just look at Neil Tyson. He's promoting his own "scientific" brand of creationism, while simultaneously bashing the minority religious version. The problem, as I've stated, isn't with religion. It's with people. People are irrational.
What I gave you was one of the dozens of possibilities they ARE describing
No, sorry. That isn't even a little bit true. I'd ask for a citation, but it's impossible for you to provide one because no such thing exists. I've even looked.
ironically, even YOUR version of what it means doesn't imply those things
You are really bad at this! The simulation hypothesis described by Neil Tyson, as I mentioned, presupposes a civilization which produces a simulation. No where does he suggest the spontaneous simulation of a simulation (like the wall behind me running wordstar). That is, he doesn't just imply creationism -- he states it explicitly.
As to your terrarium nonsense, again, he's talking about a classical computer simulation. This is pretty explicit. By necessity, that denies materialism to the simulated universe. Even Creationists don't reject it so absolutely (they're typically dualists).
This isn't complicated. Why are you struggling so much with this?
As for opposing YECs, I'll continue to do it regardless of whether or not it makes you uncomfortable or violates your safe space or whatever.
Yet you claim that you don't care what they think...
It reminds me of this bit from the summary:
Slashdot reader Layzej says the paper "examines this behavior at the aggregate level, but gives many examples where contradictory ideas are held by the same individual, and sometimes are presented within a single publication."
Again, yammering on like you do makes you look like a raving lunatic. Proclaiming contradictory things and making wildly inaccurate claims about both religion and science loudly, with such conviction, will do that.
Do the world a favor and leave science to properly credentialed scientists, and religious proclamations to the priests.
I think I have a pretty damn good understanding of science and religion,
I know you think that, but you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Your mistake, with respect to religion, is assuming that you know everything about religion because you think you can assume anything about it as it's all bullshit so anything goes. (In reality, you have only an absurdly superficial understanding of one minor variant of an already superficial Christian sect.) Your mistake on science is, obviously, a lack of a formal science education. You have this odd, superficial view of science that disregards basic concepts like the scope of scientific inquiry. To anyone with even a basic understanding of either, you look like an idiot.
I don't give a shit what the YECs believe,
You post seems to indicate that you care a great deal about what they believe. Why else would you spend so much time posting this sort of absurd nonsense?
: I am out to destroy their way of life, make no mistake about it. I'm a foe of bullshit and misinformation and if the YECs think I'm their enemy then that's one thing they managed to get right.
That is just delusional. You might as well shout "I'm a science warrior". (This is what you look like to just about everyone who isn't also so deluded.)
Besides, if you were truly "a foe of bullshit and misinformation", you'd have taken yourself out ages ago.
Guess what? I don't worship Neil DeGrasse Tyson or what he says.
There's hope for you yet. That man has done more harm to the public understanding of science that every creationist in modern history. You'd do well to avoid him. He's the Ken Ham of pretend science. (They're in the same business, after all: Selling bullshit to an audience eager to hear someone validate their preconceptions.)
He's a smart guy
He thinks there wasn't a year zero because there is no way to represent zero in Roman numerals (Link), among other absurdities. (There are many.) His CV looks great, but he's clearly an idiot.
(probably smarter than me)
That I can believe.
You have a very odd idea of the simulation hypothesis as endorsed by its proponents.
Hint: It's not a terrarium.
Show me some real evidence that an intelligent being caused the Big Bang and I'll believe it.
It depends on what you consider to be evidence. Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation is one of the popular paper promoting the simulation hypothesis. You'll find a bunch of other "compelling" bits like the Bostrom equation and a host of other equally pointless arguments.
The simulation hypothesis, if you haven't guessed, is just creationism with a science-flavored candy shell. So sweet, apparently, that pop-sci idiots like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ray Kurzweil buy in to it -- to say nothing of the legions of poorly-educated science fans than keep paychecks flowing to televangelists like Tyson, Dawkins, Harris, etc. I guess it was only a matter of time.
It's as though they've been selling pretend science to pretend scientists for so long they've run out of raw product and had to make some substitutions to meet the demand. A bit like the bear-shaped jar of pretend honey I ran across the other day labeled "honey-flavored syrup". It's cheap to produce, tastes similar, and sells pretty well as most consumers won't examine the product beyond the shape of the bottle. It just doesn't contain any actual honey.
Tyson has the most skin in the simulation game. Presumably, it's because he hasn't yet figured out that he's actively promoting creationism. I wonder what he'll do once someone pulls him aside and points out the obvious...
Neil deGrasse Tyson has, in the past, affirmed materialism and denied creationism and intelligent design. He has, very recently, asserted (in effect) that materialism is "very likely" false, and that creationism and intelligent design are "very likely" to be correct.**
Yeah, the guy who really wants to be Carl Sagan is just as guilty of irrational nonsense as everyone else. You're an idiot if you think scientific credentials automatically makes you more rational than the craziest religious nut you can imagine. (I've got a qualifying sheepskin, for example, and I'll bet you think I'm a nut.)
In your zeal to bash whatever ridiculous parody of religious belief you've imagined you've failed to realize that it isn't religion, politics, or anything else that makes someone irrational. We're all irrational. You, for example, have a an incredibly distorted view of both science and religion. I'm just as bad. Look at my user id number and you can't help but wonder if I'm insane or just a sadist. Any reasonable person would have left this site years ago.
All you're doing here, with your petty, hateful, remarks is to reinforce the beliefs of the few YEC's out there who belief that they're under attack from roving bands of atheists out to destroy their way of life. It also reinforces their, not unjustified, belief that atheists are petty and hateful bullies with nothing better to do than plot against them.
The Dover trial was over more than a decade ago. It's time to let it go. Aren't you tired of posting the same tired, empty, rhetoric on internet forms? What on earth to you hope to accomplish?
(** I'm referring to Tyson's absurd proclamation that we are "very likely" living in a simulation. To believe that we're living in a simulation necessitates that you also deny the material nature of our universe. Equally, a simulation necessitates at least one designer and creator.)
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.