We Live In An Electrical Simulation

[Larniavc]

The people who made it are clear that it is fiction. (That and the fact that it depicts things that are not part of our reality, so it should be really obvious that it is fiction.)

And there’s that while subtext about escaping one’s socially prescribed identity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And there’s that while subtext about escaping one’s socially prescribed identity.

I wonder if "Devide" knows about the Wachowskis and prescribed identity....

 

[Divide]

Wow indeed "man". Distaste for pseudoscience (of which this video is replete) does not preclude one from enjoying sci fi. (In fact I am watching Star Trek right now.)

Yes sir, professor, lol. Don't you think I know the absurdity the presmise is? I thought about it a lot. That was one of the reasons that I wanted to post it, lol. But if we have any sort of an open mind whatsoever then we would reaize that...it just might be absurd enough to be true. Who knows? Well quantum sicens are the most valid science that we have. And Chuck said they have proven somehow (scientists) that we live in 11 dimensions but only 4 of them are perceivable by the human senses. And their study concluded that our material reality is but a shadow of a larger reality (Scientific American June 2005).

So unless you're a scientist too, I'll continue to take your sarcasm as laughable and narrow minded.

The people who made it are clear that it is fiction. (That and the fact that it depicts th

Lol! I'm sorry you didn't get it, but that a joke. Whoosh!

 

[Divide]

You asked me what the verse means. I answered. In what way is that playing dumb?

By not giving an answer. So you don't believ in that possibility. If I'm wrong and we are not in heavenly places with the Lord right now, then, it means something else to you that you based your critique on of my post.

So surely you do know what you think it means. But dancing around it to not answer would then indicate just a drive by post from a troll. Right?

Give me an answer or be thought of as a troll.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes sir, professor, lol. Don't you think I know the absurdity the presmise is?

Given the variety of claims you made starting with the OP, no, no I don't.

I thought about it a lot. That was one of the reasons that I wanted to post it, lol. But if we have any sort of an open mind whatsoever then we would reaize that...it just might be absurd enough to be true. Who knows?

Absurdity is not a criteria for evaluating the truthfulness or accuracy of a claim.

Well quantum sicens are the most valid science that we have.

I don't know that quantum mechanics (as it is properly known) is more or less "valid" than General Relativity or the Standard Model. (Not to mention the derivative sciences of chemistry, biology, and others.)

And Chuck said they have proven somehow (scientists) that we live in 11 dimensions but only 4 of them are perceivable by the human senses. And their study concluded that our material reality is but a shadow of a larger reality (Scientific American June 2005).

No such thing has been found, let alone "proven". It is a consequence of a very speculative idea about fundamental physics call "string theory" which lacks any experimental evidence.

So unless you're a scientist too, I'll continue to take your sarcasm as laughable and narrow minded.

I am. The tiny bit of the video (about 2 minutes) about "electric simulation" is bunk as has been discussed on this site ad nauseam over the years. (It is literally how I found CF.)

Lol! I'm sorry you didn't get it, but that a joke. Whoosh!

It's hard to separate that bad idea (a joke you claim) from the other bad ideas in the post and in the video.

 

[Divide]

Given the variety of claims you made starting with the OP, no, no I don't.

Absurdity is not a criteria for evaluating the truthfulness or accuracy of a claim.

Huh. Just because something sounds absurd doesn't mean it isn't true necessarily. Can I prove it? No, I'm not a scientist. I don't think you are either.

No such thing has been found, let alone "proven". It is a consequence of a very speculative idea about fundamental physics call "string theory" which lacks any experimental evidence.

How would you even know? Just because you wasn't on the team of scientists that say it is proven doesn't mean they're quacks and your right.

I am. The tiny bit of the video (about 2 minutes) about "electric simulation" is bunk as has been discussed on this site ad nauseam over the years. (It is literally how I found CF.)

So what. I wasnt hereyears ago and I am now. Saying I am doesnt make you a scientist. What's your PHD in?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Huh. Just because something sounds absurd doesn't mean it isn't true necessarily. Can I prove it? No, I'm not a scientist. I don't think you are either.

The "electric universe" parts of misler's claims are just the beginning of the absurd. Anyway, science doesn't work on "proof". (I can tell you're not a scientist, but I most definitely am.)

How would you even know? Just because you wasn't on the team of scientists that say it is proven doesn't mean they're quacks and your right.

They publish. That's how things work. Scientists publish their results. String theory is at best a mathematical speculation. This is widely known in the physics community and among those who follow things in the popular press. So far there is no physical evidence that would suggest string theory is correct.

So what. I wasnt hereyears ago and I am now.

Here's a small taste:

The video mentions as some sort of "gotcha" that the EM force is much much much stronger than gravity. (A fact Missler knows because physicists have actually measured both.) But, fails to recognize that because electric charges come in positive and negative form (and gravitational masses don't) that they neutralize readily such that far outside any system of charges the effective cancellation of charge radically reduces any long distance effect. (Oddly enough, he actually mentions the 2 kind of charge fact in passing, but plows on ahead with his misconceptions.)

If there were really large currents driving galaxies, there would be strong and easily observed synchrotron radiation. No such radiation is observed in the "filaments" between galaxies implied by the Perratt model.

Saying I am doesnt make you a scientist.

Doing it professionally does.

What's your PHD in?

Physics.

 

[Divide]

They publish. That's how things work. Scientists publish their results. String theory is at best a mathematical speculation. This is widely known in the physics community and among those who follow things in the popular press. So far there is no physical evidence that would suggest string theory is correct.

Here's where Scripture comes in. The Bible has been saying the same thing all along...there is a larger reality and it is God and the Kingdom of God. SO of course string theory can has not been proven yet because the Bible says that we are to Believe and have faith in Him. God hid Himself from man. So we can see, what? 5% of our total reality?

No proof doesn't mean it is not true. All you have said is that you do not believe in the unseen world. Are you an Atheist?

Doing it professionally does.

I'll buy that. SO what you just said was that you had your mind already made up even before you watched the video. So it's merely opinion. A professional opinion, yet an opinion.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Well, within the brain I guess we can say it is "an electrical simulation". Our senses relay data to the brain where images are formed with sound, color texture, etc. But the world we experience is a facsimile within our minds based on all that data which may or may not be accurately perceived and transmitted.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here's where Scripture comes in.

Science doesn't work by scripture.

The Bible has been saying the same thing all along...there is a larger reality and it is God and the Kingdom of God. SO of course string theory can has not been proven yet because the Bible says that we are to Believe and have faith in Him. God hid Himself from man. So we can see, what? 5% of our total reality?

Are you saying your god is made of dark matter or dark energy? Also faith has no place in science.

No proof doesn't mean it is not true.

It means there is no proof for it, so we don't assume it is true.

All you have said is that you do not believe in the unseen world.

Actually, I haven't said anything about the "unseen world".

Are you an Atheist?

See that little drop down arrow under everyone's avatar? Click on that to find out about any poster.

I'll buy that.

Thanks for that courtesy..

SO what you just said was that you had your mind already made up even before you watched the video.

I was well aware of this claim and why it is wrong, but I did need to see exactly which parts of it Chuck was claiming.

So it's merely opinion. A professional opinion, yet an opinion.

That's right, it's not some off the cuff reaction. I've read and viewed a lot of analysis of this "claim" and related claims about electricity and cosmology.

 

[sjastro]

Here are mistakes I found in his presentation.

I have left out the molecular biology and evolution aspects for the more qualified to make comments.

(1) “Creation week” violates the second law of thermodynamics, entropy doesn’t decrease over the “creation week” but increases since the observable universe is an isolated system, it doesn’t exchange mass and energy with the “outside” which is causally disconnected.

(2) Each particle having an antiparticle is wrong, bosons such as photons do not have antiparticles.

(3) Zero point energy does not explain why electrons do not spiral into the nucleus, it explains for example why the theoretical energy levels of the hydrogen atom which prevent electrons from spiraling into the nucleus do not precisely match the energy levels observed in experiments.
This is known as the Lamb shift.

(4) Electromagnetic forces are “10³⁶" times greater than gravitational forces, doesn’t take into consideration is that electromagnetic forces are screened by a mechanism known as Debye shielding.
The visible matter in the universe in the intergalactic medium is composed of plasma at a number density of 1 nₑ(m⁻³) which screens the electromagnetic force and greatly reduces its range force down to around 10⁵ m which is insignificant at cosmological scales.
Then there is the simple fact that electromagnetic forces are attractive and repulsive which makes it impossible to explain how ternary or more complicated stellar systems can be stable given repulsive forces are also involved.
On a more advanced level plasma cosmology has been debunked here and here.

(5) Gravity does play a significant role in the universe because galaxies are composed of billions of stars which makes them very massive.

(6) The Planck length is a theoretical boundary when the expanding universe transitioned from a quantum mechanical scale to a macroscopic scale and has not been proven in the lab as it would require energy levels many orders of magnitude beyond current particle accelerators to produce temperatures when the transition occurred.

(7) General relativity postulates space-time is composed of 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension.
Depth and height mentioned in the Bible are on the same vertical axis and not composed of separate dimensions.

(8) Particle physicists use quantum field theory based on 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension, not 10 dimensions which falls in the field of string theory which is not mainstream science and has been largely criticized for being unfalsifiable.

What is clearly obvious the creationist wildly mixes mainstream science with pseudoscience and is unaware of the contradictions in his presentation.
He should stick to the Bible and leave science to the educated.

 

[Divide]

Well, within the brain I guess we can say it is "an electrical simulation". Our senses relay data to the brain where images are formed with sound, color texture, etc. But the world we experience is a facsimile within our minds based on all that data which may or may not be accurately perceived and transmitted.

Right. This could be very true.

I heard somebody say once that the only real possession that we have is our thoughts. And this could easily be true then if that were so.

 

[Divide]

Here are mistakes I found in his presentation.

I have left out the molecular biology and evolution aspects for the more qualified to make comments.

(1) “Creation week” violates the second law of thermodynamics, entropy doesn’t decrease over the “creation week” but increases since the observable universe is an isolated system, it doesn’t exchange mass and energy with the “outside” which is causally disconnected.

(2) Each particle having an antiparticle is wrong, bosons such as photons do not have antiparticles.

(3) Zero point energy does not explain why electrons do not spiral into the nucleus, it explains for example why the theoretical energy levels of the hydrogen atom which prevent electrons from spiraling into the nucleus do not precisely match the energy levels observed in experiments.
This is known as the Lamb shift.

(4) Electromagnetic forces are “10³⁶" times greater than gravitational forces, doesn’t take into consideration is that electromagnetic forces are screened by a mechanism known as Debye shielding.
The visible matter in the universe in the intergalactic medium is composed of plasma at a number density of 1 nₑ(m⁻³) which screens the electromagnetic force and greatly reduces its range force down to around 10⁵ m which is insignificant at cosmological scales.
Then there is the simple fact that electromagnetic forces are attractive and repulsive which makes it impossible to explain how ternary or more complicated stellar systems can be stable given repulsive forces are also involved.
On a more advanced level plasma cosmology has been debunked here and here.

(5) Gravity does play a significant role in the universe because galaxies are composed of billions of stars which makes them very massive.

(6) The Planck length is a theoretical boundary when the expanding universe transitioned from a quantum mechanical scale to a macroscopic scale and has not been proven in the lab as it would require energy levels many orders of magnitude beyond current particle accelerators to produce temperatures when the transition occurred.

(7) General relativity postulates space-time is composed of 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension.
Depth and height mentioned in the Bible are on the same vertical axis and not composed of separate dimensions.

(8) Particle physicists use quantum field theory based on 3 spatial dimensions and a time dimension, not 10 dimensions which falls in the field of string theory which is not mainstream science and has been largely criticized for being unfalsifiable.

What is clearly obvious the creationist wildly mixes mainstream science with pseudoscience and is unaware of the contradictions in his presentation.
He should stick to the Bible and leave science to the educated.

I get it. You think we can from monkeys and before that a mud puddle.

What is clearly obvious the creationist wildly mixes mainstream science with pseudoscience and is unaware of the contradictions in his presentation.
He should stick to the Bible and leave science to the educated.

You got a PhD too? I bet you can't the glaring contradictions in your own presentation.

That video is done by a Christian Pastor. But it seems much of his secular life was in the information sciences. So Yeah, it was a good video and I'll stick with him and the Bible!

 

[Divide]

Thanks for that courtesy..

I've considered the fact that you could be as they say, over-educated?

 

[Divide]

I think essentially I must be asking the question, do you believe in the paranormal? And it looks like a coupe of you guys don't.

 

[sjastro]

I get it. You think we can from monkeys and before that a mud puddle.



You got a PhD too? I bet you can't the glaring contradictions in your own presentation.

That video is done by a Christian Pastor. But it seems much of his secular life was in the information sciences. So Yeah, it was a good video and I'll stick with him and the Bible!

I pointed out the mistakes made in his video and I'm calling your bluff by showing me the "glaring contradictions" made in my presentation.

 

[sjastro]

Nice post
Question: so what in the Bible is in error?

Doesn't it ultimately depend on whether the Bible is interpreted literally or metaphorically?
Most Christians have a metaphorical interpretation and therefore accept the science not as presented by Missler who distorts it to fit his narrative.

A literal interpretation runs into problems more so in the fields of archaeology and geology such as there no archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus from surveys in Egypt and Sinai, or global sedimentation resulting from the Great Flood.

 

[Hans Blaster]

On a more advanced level plasma cosmology has been debunked here and here.

Good times. The Summer 2020 "war" with EU central (boy did we lay into them) and the giant "Olbers paradox" distraction of Jan 2018 where you guys had MM so flustered by his error he thanked me for systematically disassembling the EU paper on SNe Ia that was his reason for the thread.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've considered the fact that you could be as they say, over-educated?

Not for my line of work.

 

[Larniavc]

Nice post
Question: so what in the Bible is in error?

Pi does not equal 3. Exodus is wrong. The Noachian Flood did not happen