Re: A challenge to non-SRians
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 08/04/04
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Determinism and causality"
- Previous message: Jesper Pedersen: "Re: Colllapse of the wave equation - not!"
- In reply to: sal: "Re: A challenge to non-SRians"
- Next in thread: Martin Miller: "Re: A challenge to non-SRians"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 01:06:56 -0000
sal:
>On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:51:10 +0000, Bilge wrote:
>
>> Paul Stowe:
>> >On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:42:54 GMT, "Bill Hobba":
>>
>> >
>> > Oh how little you understand, sigh. Everything has a cause, we may not
>> > know or understand them yet but they're there.
>>
>> Why is that, paul? Precisely what proof do you have that a radioactive
>> decay is induced by a cause? You might not have investigated your sup-
>> position a great deal, but randomness is not just a synonym for not
>> knowing a cause. Randomness literally means there is _no_ cause. No causal
>> process can produce a random sequence. If a process is causal, then it
>> will be evident in the statistics collected from a large number of
>> observations, regardless of whether you know anything at all about the
>> cause. A log normal distribution is an indicator of a random process, not
>> a process about which the cause is unknown.
>
>Ahem. Either it means there's no cause ... or it just means the computer
>God simulates reality on has a good random number generator and a longer
>word length than yours.
Ahem. That is rather naive. God isn't a scientific explanation.
>Did you ever stop to consider that if reality were stuck in a crash/reboot
>loop we'd have no way to know it?
Then why would it matter?
>Did you ever stop to think that "God" could be a bored computer programmer
>living in Hoboken, New Jersey in the year 2350, and all of "reality" as we
>know it in the year 2004 could be an interactive simulation game being run
>for the fun of his/her friends, who enjoy playing "roles" in the
>simulation? Go ahead, prove it's not so.
Why? I don't believe it and it isn't a scientific hypothesis.
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Determinism and causality"
- Previous message: Jesper Pedersen: "Re: Colllapse of the wave equation - not!"
- In reply to: sal: "Re: A challenge to non-SRians"
- Next in thread: Martin Miller: "Re: A challenge to non-SRians"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|