No idea Creation....

[Ormorof]

cant carbon date dinosaur stuff as there is nothing to carbon date it only works on stuff within a certain period and its going to stop working soon ish because of all the nuclear testing (so there is now much more of it than there should be meaning the tests cant be calibrated correctly)

 

[Olgaline]

cant carbon date dinosaur stuff as there is nothing to carbon date it only works on stuff within a certain period and its going to stop working soon ish because of all the nuclear testing (so there is now much more of it than there should be meaning the tests cant be calibrated correctly)

Apparently up to 60.000 years?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Out of pure curiosity, how exactly would that work?
You still have to run through x-billion years of evolution no? so speed it up and slow it down or..?
And in that case then why bother slowing it down at this point, what's the purpose other than force it to account for the current state of existence?

Kind of depends on the type of simulation being run. It could be rerunning original events or testing lots of alternatives which may mean just starting the simulation from a certain point (e.g. Nazis win WWII) with everything prior to the start of the simulation is an implanted memory etc. Weird thing is, that mathematically, if a simulation turns out to be possible, then we're almost certainly in one (because the odds of being the original become effectively zero).

Kind of this. Matrix stuff. If we're AI, then our memories/history can be the writings of a 5 year old.

 

[Olgaline]

So for the sake of argument.
Say we start at WW2, and soemthing is shown to carbondate say 25.000 years, wouldnt this be theoreticly impossible?
since the acual age would be less than 100 years...or am I missing soemthing?

As in you create something to seem old yet, you cannot actually make it so, accordning to science behind carbondating...decay rate and all that

 

[Scouse]

What pisses me off about these sorts of threads is that those who are questioning things refuse to take adequate efforts in ensuring that their questions make actual sense.

Question all you like - but try to be clear about what you're asking and/or saying. This sort of discussion needs clarity more than almost any other type of discussion.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So for the sake of argument.
Say we start at WW2, and soemthing is shown to carbondate say 25.000 years, wouldnt this be theoreticly impossible?
since the acual age would be less than 100 years...or am I missing soemthing?

As in you create something to seem old yet, you cannot actually make it so, accordning to science behind carbondating...decay rate and all that

In that hypothetical virtual reality it would be like being in a videogame really. In a game they can say that a bone is 50million years old, your equipment could show it as well. It's a piece of code in the bone itself, when the reality was created, that it will be that old even if the AI concious only begins at WW2.

 

[Olgaline]

What pisses me off about these sorts of threads is that those who are questioning things refuse to take adequate efforts in ensuring that their questions make actual sense.

Question all you like - but try to be clear about what you're asking and/or saying. This sort of discussion needs clarity more than almost any other type of discussion.

Well, that was an entirely useless addition to the discussion...

 

[Scouse]

Well, that was an entirely useless addition to the discussion...

Really? All I was asking for was for people to make sure they're exact in what they're saying because in discussions of this nature they turn into pointless waffle unless people are clear about what they're asking/saying.

 

[Olgaline]

In that hypothetical virtual reality it would be like being in a videogame really. In a game they can say that a bone is 50million years old, your equipment could show it as well. It's a piece of code in the bone itself, when the reality was created, that it will be that old even if the AI concious only begins at WW2.

Ok, so a kind of failsafe in the scence of protecting a theory from disprovement, yet what evidence would there be to support such a theory?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ok, so a kind of failsafe in the scence of protecting a theory from disprovement, yet what evidence would there be to support such a theory?

Oh the proof stuff goes into a whole different territory. I was simply saying that the only way a 5000 year old earth would work is if the world isn't set in our reality, as in completely made up.

If i wanted to guess though, going on the assumption this is a VR, that the failsafe would be for the subjects of the reality not to know it's a VR. For example to keep them from contaminating some form of experiment. Which would ofcoure mean that there would be a scrubteam of coders removing any sort of bugs etc that would point towards it.

Then the VR would get smarter and smarter, like AI in terminator, and finally realise what's going on.

BAsic sci-fi

 

[Olgaline]

Really? All I was asking for was for people to make sure they're exact in what they're saying because in discussions of this nature they turn into pointless waffle unless people are clear about what they're asking/saying.

We're not publishing a scientific essay..we're discussing belief and thoeires...people can ask what ever they want, in what ever manner they want....it's a prosses..if your unclear about something, or need additional inforamtion to answer a question? ask for it or for clarification instead of bitching over it.

I removed the Facepalm, but please contribute instead

 

[Olgaline]

Oh that goes into a whole different territory. I was simply saying that the only way a 5000 year old earth would work is if the world isn't set in our reality, as in completely made up.

If i wanted to guess though, going on the assumption this is a VR, that the failsafe would be for the subjects of the reality not to know it's a VR. Which would ofcoure mean that there would be a scrubteam of coders removing any sort of bugs etc that would point towards it.

Then the VR would get smarter and smarter, like AI in terminator, and finally realise what's going on.

BAsic sci-fi

Ah, but surely, even the best of programs arent complelty fool proof, or?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ah, but surely, even the best of programs isnt fullproof? or?

Ofcourse(i did edit my post a bit to add some clarification stuff). Bugs will always get through, especially with a big enough program, so that would be where the proof lies. I kind of liked the doctor who thing(spoilers)

Spoiler

Where every person has the same exact dream.

That could, i think, constitute as proof of some kind of programming. Tutorial of sorts?

(I want to clarify to anyone needing that, that i'm not saying this is how things are, just discussing what i think could be in a VR situation.)

 

[Olgaline]

Ofcourse(i did edit my post a bit to add some clarification stuff). Bugs will always get through, especially with a big enough program, so that would be where the proof lies. I kind of liked the doctor who thing(spoilers)

Spoiler

Where every person has the same exact dream.

That could, i think, constitute as proof of some kind of programming. Tutorial of sorts?

(I want to clarify to anyone needing that, that i'm not saying this is how things are, just discussing what i think could be in a VR situation.)

well...
An undisputed thruth, would require said "proof" to not be explainable in any other way, yes?
Take the dream f.exp.

Spoiler

One could argue primal instinct is the culprit...the passing on of "danger" through generation...fear of the dark, whats under the bed..etc..aka awareness of that which we cannot see.
explains why all humans could have the same "dream" experience..unless ofcorse....it's...completly identical...in every sence of the word..or?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah i was talking like something exactly the same happening. That could partly be considered as an abnormal event, or a coded thing. Funny thing there would be that we see proof as something that definetaly is, while a bug in the system would be something that shouldn't be

If that makes sense.

 

[old.user4556]

I give this thread 4 pages before it turns into a Scouse and Toht fest.

 

[caLLous]

Four? Haha.

 

[old.user4556]

I give this thread 5 pages before it turns to utter shite and it's locked.

Edit: anyway, carry on.

 

[Olgaline]

Meh, I'd say it's pretty civil so far...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Meh, I'd say it's pretty civil so far...

Well yeah, expect for the usual people who complain about me ruining threads, posting non-topical nonsense

 

[old.user4556]

I admire your optimism sir!

 

[Embattle]

View: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DI9ImScQGAo

 

[PLightstar]

An old science teacher once said one of the easiest ways of watching evolution is in Viruses, because they can show evolution happening as generations can pass in minutes or hours. Or words to that effect, was over 15 years ago.

As an Atheist I still find Religion interesting and love a good debate with a Jehovah on my doorstep. I am not a military Atheist by any stretch, I enjoy the discussion and will only ask my religious friend to ask questions.

 

[Olgaline]

Well put,

Personally I would probably be defined as an atheist as well, however I don't like the confinement in which it places me.

I guess the best way to explain it would be: Atm the atheist version seems the most logical approach, without feeling the need to ridicule or discredit the beliefs of others?

I do get annoyed though when participants try to tabu a subject as holy or untouchable.

 

[old.Tohtori]

@Olgaline i think that you're more agnostic then atheist. Though i've always found that the word religious isn't for me either, becuase it automatically makes people think jesus and beardy fella(or any other such thing).

 

[Raven]

Why does it need some kind of label? Atheist, Agnostic, NotGivingaFuckist etc.

There is no god. Its not even a matter of belief, there just isn't a god (or gods), its as simple as that.

Religion and gods are inventions of man to try and explain events in nature that they did not understand, which were later used as control mechanisms. I feel sorry for most religious people that they are still shackled to a story that was imprinted on them at a young and suggestible age, its basically child abuse imo.

There is no need to ridicule the religious though, unless they shove it in your face then its open season.

 

[Lakih]

Why does it need some kind of label? Atheist, Agnostic, NotGivingaFuckist etc.

There is no god. Its not even a matter of belief, there just isn't a god (or gods), its as simple as that.

Religion and gods are inventions of man to try and explain events in nature that they did not understand, which were later used as control mechanisms.

No one can prove that, or prove it wrong. It's not as one sided as you make it out to be.

Personally, i'm an agnostic. I think creationism in its current version (earth being 3k years old or something silly) is just plain dumb. There are too many scientific proofs that we've been here longer. But it always comes down to one thing for me.

Why where we put here, for what purpose. Why are we the only animal evolved to reason and feel the way we do (i.e. why are we separate from all the other animals that inhibits the planet). Where did we come from.

Saying it is just pure dumb luck and evolution just don't cut it for me.

 

[Raven]

There are other animals that are as successful as humans in surviving, if not more successful. Intelligence is not necessarily an advantage for a species survival.

Take ants for example, would they have survived for so long and so well if they were as intelligent?

Intelligence is a fluke, its just a small stop up from the tool making and logical thought demonstrated by other animals.

The whole God(s) thing is just utter bollocks though, there is no creator and there is nothing controlling the world, I don't get why people even need to consider it.

 

[Olgaline]

@Olgaline i think that you're more agnostic then atheist.

Well, maybe, an d then again not really, because honestly I accept most of what an athiest believe, or infact all of it tbh.
The difference being that I'm just not arogant enough to claim it as an undisputed truth...Which Imo and ironically enough is the logical and scientific aproach to the matter.

Religion and gods are inventions of man to try and explain events in nature that they did not understand, which were later used as control mechanisms..

I would very much agree with this f.exp.

Why where we put here, for what purpose.....Saying it is just pure dumb luck and evolution just don't cut it for me.

This has always entriuged me..my quetion here would be why? why the need for a "greater" purpouse?

 

[DaGaffer]

Saying it is just pure dumb luck and evolution just don't cut it for me.

Oh, well this would be one of those circumstances that people unfamiliar with the law of large numbers would call a coincidence.