The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Benson
Banned
Banned
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:30 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #1

Post by Benson »

Let's chat about origins and creation.

It is not possible to explain the ancient geological evidence in the Earth, or the Massive numbers and size of Megalithic ruins all over the Earth with a Young Earth narrative. Additionally, recent discoveries of hominid bones and their retrieved DNA, recovered with crafted artifacts, from numerous sites do not support a theory of human evolution, but shows strong evidence of hominids on Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago suddenly arising.

Even retrieved clay and stone records list kings and their populations living for many successive tens of thousands of years. The successively distinct categories of fossilized reptiles and lower life forms shows multiple repetitive appearances and extinctions, far apart from any do called Evolution unto modern creatures. The recently discovered incredible resilience of microlife denies its theorized creation only for today's low stress biome.

The only theory which gives sense to all of this is the following:

1.) Earth has for close to half a million years been a Petri dish for propagation of various carbon based species.

2.) Successive planetary catastrophies have each time wiped out most life, but have occasionslly left living survivors, and have left many physical artifacts.

3.) The creation and manipulation of the physical Earth and its life have been puposefully accomplished by various sentient agencies able to plan and execute with intricacy.

4.) The most recent recreation if the biome and life has been done by the Superior Great Creator YHWH/Elohim/God as recorded in Genesis, when God said "Let Us Make Man In Our Image," which had never before been done. After all of the previous experimentation by other beings, God then created a far superior Man in His own Image.

5.) Researched oral traditions and artifacts show every major ancient culture had an enduring narrative of both extra terrestrial action upon creation, and a world wide flood.

Today, we have a huge data base of non God supernatural beings tampering with the life forms and the DNA of God's superior humans, in order to corrupt and control us for their Satanic purposes. Large eye socketed and oversized humanoid skulls from Egypt, South America, Central Europe, and other recesses show there were greatly nontypical humanoids living in ancient empires. Even a very small nonhuman, nonape biped Egyptian mummy has been found.

Yes, the fallen angels and Satan can manipulate existing life forms, as shown in the Pre Noah accounts of Genesis and the Book of Enoch. It continues through today. Jesus will now return when the Earth again becomes "As The Days of Noah" were with its corrupted life forms.

Unfortunately, Christendom denies this all, as part of their high road to spiritual superiority and tidy Theology. Unfortunately as well, the corrupt Roman Catholic church being The Beast of Babylon actually has a leg up on the reality of some of this. They will use it as a tool of the emerging One World Order.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #101

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Benson in post #98]
No other Religion can honestly make the statements above in my list.
Yet nearly all of them do in one form or another. What monotheist does not claim that their religion is the only "true" religion, and the others that differ substantially are all false? This is essentially what you are doing with the statement above. If only you could show this to be the case in some way, rather than simply claiming it to be so. Why should anyone believe your claim over the same claim by another monotheist?
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..
Carl Sagan

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

blackstart
Student
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:23 pm
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #102

Post by blackstart »

William wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:10 pm Maybe...shall we see...
Hi William,

It looks like you're having second thoughts. No problem.
That is not good reasoning as far as I can tell.
Why do you think it isn't good reasoning? If the basic physical laws of the universe were fake, then it follows that examining those laws(i.e. scientific enquiry) wouldn't produce anything worthwhile in this context. One can disagree with the premiss of course, but that doesn't make the reasoning bad.
One only need to examine what we already know about this universe with in mind that it could indeed be a Simulated Reality, and uncover what might be found therein, which would support the theory.
Indeed, everything about this Universe tells us that it is a Simulated Reality we are experiencing.
I have already suggested that it is a possibility, but I see no reason to go further than that. I find nothing in the universe which would point to it being a simulation, and certainly not 'everything'. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Even so - where I think scientists have the difficulty in integrating the one with the other is that they cannot then see what to do with it or question what they are currently doing with it.
Perhaps many of them might not agree with the idea, or even think that it's not a particularly worthwhile course to pursue.
But certainly, it is then not just a matter of science process. The question is then "Why do we find ourselves within this simulation"? Scientists generally do not care for such questions...they have things to do, places to be, reality to work out...
Amusement? Creating it for the sheer hell of it? Testing some sort of experiment?
But why should such a thing have you decide that you do not exist within a creation?
It's possible but I don't see any evidence which convinces me that it's probable.
One only has to look at the science being done to get the evidence that this is most likely actually the case.
Such as?
The very strong evidence has ben with us for a long time. It did take the natural enough occurrence of humans being able to create simulations in order for that point to dawn on people, but the thought has been with humanity all along, however inadequate such fireside stories have managed to be in explaining the concept.
Yes, the idea has been with us a long time, at least since Plato's forms. Ideas of gods have been with us a long time also. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily true that we live in a simulation or that gods exist.
If you show me any scientific evidence I will do my best to explain why that evidence fits in with the idea we exist within a created environment.
I'm afraid that's not up to me, William. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
We can start by doing the math. The evidence is in the fact that we can do the math. Everything can be reduced to its mathematical code.

The Universe runs on some type of coding which can be observed in the very things in which it manifests itself through...
You realise that there is considerable debate amongst scientists and philosophers as to whether mathematics has been invented or discovered. Mathematics certainly is the basis of understanding how our universe works, but whether, for instance, atomic and sub atomic particles actually exist in their own right is an entirely different matter. I simply don't know.

Max Tegmark has written a fascinating book called 'Our mathematical Universe' where he explores the idea that not only does mathematics underly the universe but that, in effect, it is the universe. He links this to the current ideas of multiverses.

I remember a reading an interesting public discussion on the internet about universe simulations with guest speakers including Max Tegmark and David Chalmers amongst others. I think it was chaired by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Frankly I was much more interested in ideas about consciousness at the time I came across it. I do remember though at the end they were asked to give as a percentage the probability that simulated universes exist.

Finally, if we do live in a simulated universe there is every possibility that either or both of us are simulated characters, in which case this whole debate might well tend towards solipsism,

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 292 times
Contact:

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #103

Post by William »

blackstart wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:40 pm
William wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:10 pm Maybe...shall we see...
That is not good reasoning as far as I can tell.
If the basic physical laws of the universe were fake, then it follows that examining those laws(i.e. scientific enquiry) wouldn't produce anything worthwhile in this context.
You appear to be forgetting that if we exist within a Reality Simulation, then it is a real experience. Nothing fake about a real experience.
In contrast, simulations created within this Reality Simulation, which are experienced as realistic, these are easily understood by those who are experiencing them [as they are experiencing them in real time], not to be real experiences, but fake ones.
One only need to examine what we already know about this universe with in mind that it could indeed be a Simulated Reality, and uncover what might be found therein, which would support the theory.
Indeed, everything about this Universe tells us that it is a Simulated Reality we are experiencing.
I have already suggested that it is a possibility, but I see no reason to go further than that. I find nothing in the universe which would point to it being a simulation, and certainly not 'everything'. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Perhaps I can attempt to do so, yes.
Even so - where I think scientists have the difficulty in integrating the one with the other is that they cannot then see what to do with it or question what they are currently doing with it.
Perhaps many of them might not agree with the idea, or even think that it's not a particularly worthwhile course to pursue.
Certainly that would be the main reason why they do not. The worlds systems are not set up in a way which would allow scientists to pursue such investigation, which would necessitate financial backing and all the red tape that goes with that.
But certainly, it is then not just a matter of science process. The question is then "Why do we find ourselves within this simulation"? Scientists generally do not care for such questions...they have things to do, places to be, reality to work out...
Amusement? Creating it for the sheer hell of it? Testing some sort of experiment?
Of those 3 options, "Testing some sort of experiment" would be the one to pursue...although the first two might be part of that reason...
But why should such a thing have you decide that you do not exist within a creation?
It's possible but I don't see any evidence which convinces me that it's probable.
Does that conclude there cannot exist such evidence if one were to look for it?
One only has to look at the science being done to get the evidence that this is most likely actually the case.
Such as?
The very strong evidence has been with us for a long time. It did take the natural enough occurrence of humans being able to create simulations in order for that point to dawn on people, but the thought has been with humanity all along, however inadequate such fireside stories have managed to be in explaining the concept.
Yes, the idea has been with us a long time, at least since Plato's forms. Ideas of gods have been with us a long time also. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily true that we live in a simulation or that gods exist.
Not what I said.
If you show me any scientific evidence I will do my best to explain why that evidence fits in with the idea we exist within a created environment.
I'm afraid that's not up to me, William. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
I am not making a claim, other than if you show me any scientific evidence I will do my best to explain why that evidence fits in with the idea we exist within a created environment.
But that is okay. I think it would be more fun having you involve yourself at least to that degree...
We can start by doing the math. The evidence is in the fact that we can do the math. Everything can be reduced to its mathematical code.

The Universe runs on some type of coding which can be observed in the very things in which it manifests itself through...
You realise that there is considerable debate amongst scientists and philosophers as to whether mathematics has been invented or discovered.
Nope, but that in itself is interesting. Now I wonder why scientist and philosophers feel that it is debatable.
Anyone can understand that while Columbus discovered America, He also discovered that other people lived their, which means that he wasn't the first to discover America.
This leads us to the understanding that the land mass existed to be discovered. Therefore, all things exist to be discovered, and can only be discovered by those who formerly did not know those things existed.
Mathematics certainly is the basis of understanding how our universe works, but whether, for instance, atomic and sub atomic particles actually exist in their own right is an entirely different matter. I simply don't know.
Which again supports the idea the we exist within a Reality Simulation.
Max Tegmark has written a fascinating book called 'Our mathematical Universe' where he explores the idea that not only does mathematics underly the universe but that, in effect, it is the universe. He links this to the current ideas of multiverses.
Again, so many minds becoming more and more convinced that it is not only possible but also probable. But how to go about finding ways to bring all these minds together and finding a way in which to make it a certainty...

For now, we who are interested, largely have to soldier on by ourselves - but the interesting aspect of that is one can still be shown subjective evidence which supports the idea adequately. Good for the individual...
I remember a reading an interesting public discussion on the internet about universe simulations with guest speakers including Max Tegmark and David Chalmers amongst others. I think it was chaired by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Frankly I was much more interested in ideas about consciousness at the time I came across it. I do remember though at the end they were asked to give as a percentage the probability that simulated universes exist.
Yes. I have mentioned that video before, is some thread on this forum, years ago. If I find it, I will link you to it.
Finally, if we do live in a simulated universe there is every possibility that either or both of us are simulated characters, in which case this whole debate might well tend towards solipsism,
Yes. It removes the "turtles all the way down" idea and replaces it with something along the lines "I created this Reality Simulation". A short but growing thread I created, touches on this idea. I named the thread "Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It."[Link]
Remember though...it was not "you" or "me" [herein being types of avatars within the Reality Simulation] who created said Reality Simulation. Rather 'we' are aspects of the Overall consciousness who created this. "we" as that Entity, created this Reality Simulation.

blackstart
Student
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:23 pm
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #104

Post by blackstart »

William wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:15 pm
You appear to be forgetting that if we exist within a Reality Simulation, then it is a real experience. Nothing fake about a real experience.
In contrast, simulations created within this Reality Simulation, which are experienced as realistic, these are easily understood by those who are experiencing them [as they are experiencing them in real time], not to be real experiences, but fake ones.
Hi William,

No, I am not. Whether we are simulations or not, whether we have real experiences or not, if the basic laws of the universe we inhabit were fake(simulations), then it follows that we wouldn't be able to work out the nature of reality behind the simulation by scientific inquiry which utilises these laws.

Perhaps I can attempt to do so, yes.
Then I await your evidence, hopefully with an open mind.
Certainly that would be the main reason why they do not. The worlds systems are not set up in a way which would allow scientists to pursue such investigation, which would necessitate financial backing and all the red tape that goes with that.
And yet science has had all sorts of insights from the nature of spacetime to the realities of quantum mechanics, producing many testable conclusions which are constantly modified as new insights gain integrity. Could it be that it is a case of no scientist has yet found any way of investigating such a conjecture?
Of those 3 options, "Testing some sort of experiment" would be the one to pursue...although the first two might be part of that reason...
Fair enough.
Does that conclude there cannot exist such evidence if one were to look for it?
Of course not. nor does it conclude that such evidence does exist if one were to look for it.
Not what I said.
You said: "One only has to look at the science being done to get the evidence that this is most likely actually the case.".

I responded by asking: ""Such as?"

You then said:"The very strong evidence has been with us for a long time. It did take the natural enough occurrence of humans being able to create simulations in order for that point to dawn on people, but the thought has been with humanity all along, however inadequate such fireside stories have managed to be in explaining the concept."

I responded by agreeing that the ideas have been around a long time, but, just like the ideas of gods(which have been around a long time), it doesn't necessarily follow that this is true.

Please tell me how I have misrepresented you? I am quite willing to accept I have misrepresented you, if you can explain how?
I am not making a claim, other than if you show me any scientific evidence I will do my best to explain why that evidence fits in with the idea we exist within a created environment.
But that is okay. I think it would be more fun having you involve yourself at least to that degree...
In Post 50, it was you who first mentioned the idea of a reality simulation, when you said:
"It seems to me that examining the nature of nature one can realistically see therein that it may be we exist within some sort of reality simulation.

Are there any tools which we can use scientifically which could help us determine whether some sort of universal consciousness is detectable?"

So, no, it is you that made the claim so the onus is on you to back up that claim. my position remains exactly the same, it is possible that simulated universes exist, of which we may be one, but I see no evidence that this is so especially given the nature of the idea. Hence it remains a conjecture.
Nope, but that in itself is interesting. Now I wonder why scientist and philosophers feel that it is debatable.
Possibly because some scientists think it(mathematics) has inherent qualities related to the universe, others that is a man made tool which is successful in helping to explain the universe?
Anyone can understand that while Columbus discovered America, He also discovered that other people lived their, which means that he wasn't the first to discover America.
This leads us to the understanding that the land mass existed to be discovered. Therefore, all things exist to be discovered, and can only be discovered by those who formerly did not know those things existed.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to get over. Of course there are things that we have not yet discovered. Everything that exists can potentially be discovered. Alternatively, there are things which don't exist, and therefore cannot possibly be discovered!
Which again supports the idea the we exist within a Reality Simulation
Not necessarily. Mathematics could simply be one way of describing the world around us.
Again, so many minds becoming more and more convinced that it is not only possible but also probable. But how to go about finding ways to bring all these minds together and finding a way in which to make it a certainty...

For now, we who are interested, largely have to soldier on by ourselves - but the interesting aspect of that is one can still be shown subjective evidence which supports the idea adequately. Good for the individual...
Actually, afik, none of the leading exponents actually think that it is probable. Possible, certainly, but probable, no.
I have no problem whatever with subjective evidence, because that is in the realm of 'true for you'.
Yes. I have mentioned that video before, is some thread on this forum, years ago. If I find it, I will link you to it.
Thanks, but I've found it. It was a 2016 Isaac Asimov lecture.
Yes. It removes the "turtles all the way down" idea and replaces it with something along the lines "I created this Reality Simulation". A short but growing thread I created, touches on this idea. I named the thread "Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.
Only if you stop at the creator of the simulation, and say something like 'it just exists' rather than, 'but where did it come from'. and that could apply to any natural universe also. Indeed, Occam's razor suggests that a simulated universe simply complicates matters.

Remember though...it was not "you" or "me" [herein being types of avatars within the Reality Simulation] who created said Reality Simulation. Rather 'we' are aspects of the Overall consciousness who created this. "we" as that Entity, created this Reality Simulation.
As I said in post 49:
It seems to me that science cannot fruitfully examine the idea of some sort of universal consciousness or supernatural entity using the tools of science because there is no evidence that such an entity exists by looking at the natural world.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 292 times
Contact:

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #105

Post by William »

blackstart wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:47 pm
William wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:15 pm
You appear to be forgetting that if we exist within a Reality Simulation, then it is a real experience. Nothing fake about a real experience.
In contrast, simulations created within this Reality Simulation, which are experienced as realistic, these are easily understood by those who are experiencing them [as they are experiencing them in real time], not to be real experiences, but fake ones.
Whether we are simulations or not, whether we have real experiences or not, if the basic laws of the universe we inhabit were fake (simulations), then it follows that we wouldn't be able to work out the nature of reality behind the simulation by scientific inquiry which utilises these laws.
Thanks for clarifying.

It is unknown speculation as to whether we wouldn't be able to work out the nature of reality behind the simulation by scientific inquiry.
If for example, we could create a device with which we could communicate with The Creator(s) of our Reality Simulation, we could at least collect data from that process which could conceivably help us to discover more about the nature of the Creator(s) and their reality.

Weather we would be able to understand everything through this method is not debatable. But we could piece things together in that manner, adequately for us to have positive evidence that we do indeed exist within a [once-suspected] Reality Simulation.
Perhaps I can attempt to do so, yes.
Then I await your evidence, hopefully with an open mind.
Well we have yet to agree on the first example I offered to you. Re 'doing the math' and you haven't rebuffed my argument on that.
Certainly that would be the main reason why they do not. The worlds systems are not set up in a way which would allow scientists to pursue such investigation, which would necessitate financial backing and all the red tape that goes with that.
And yet science has had all sorts of insights from the nature of spacetime to the realities of quantum mechanics, producing many testable conclusions which are constantly modified as new insights gain integrity.
Which is the case because science has this Reality Simulation in which to probe. The probing has come up with things which existed prior to human scientists discovering them. Like Math.
Could it be that it is a case of no scientist has yet found any way of investigating such a conjecture?
Nope. It is obviously the case...at least re the scientists of who's work we do know about. Yet it is not just a matter of conjecture, but a matter of scientists realizing that it is indeed a possibility.
In that, as I have suggested, perhaps there are scientists presently working on that very thing. Perhaps also, they have already discovered it for sure.
I do not share your apparent faith in the humanity of scientists, that they would somehow be above keeping such a discovery a secret if they could use it to have an advantage over the rest of humanity. Nor do I share your belief that Humanity would be interested in knowing such a thing is true. The reason I do not share your faith is because I know too well how humans tend to think about things...so we are left not being able to be informed from those quarters of human society...so an individuals option is to try and sort it out for their individual selves.
Which is better than having no option at all...
Of those 3 options, "Testing some sort of experiment" would be the one to pursue...although the first two might be part of that reason...
Fair enough.
Does that conclude there cannot exist such evidence if one were to look for it?
Of course not. nor does it conclude that such evidence does exist if one were to look for it.
If a mountain exists but no one looks for, is the mountain going to be discovered by anyone?
Not what I said.
You said:
"One only has to look at the science being done to get the evidence that this is most likely actually the case.".
I responded by asking: ""Such as?"

You then said:
"The very strong evidence has been with us for a long time. It did take the natural enough occurrence of humans beings able to create simulations in order for that point to dawn on people, but the thought has been with humanity all along, however inadequate such fireside stories have managed to be in explaining the concept."
I responded by agreeing that the ideas have been around a long time, but, just like the ideas of gods(which have been around a long time), it doesn't necessarily follow that this is true.
Please tell me how I have misrepresented you? I am quite willing to accept I have misrepresented you, if you can explain how?
I wasn't referring only to religious and cultural mythology but adding it as part of the equation. Math was the example of science that I gave, on the observation that Math was the evidence of coding, which we could expect to discover if we were existing within a Reality Simulation.
It is the fundamental aspect which allows us to discover other things to do with our Reality.
I am not making a claim, other than if you show me any scientific evidence I will do my best to explain why that evidence fits in with the idea we exist within a created environment.
But that is okay. I think it would be more fun having you involve yourself at least to that degree...
In Post 50, it was you who first mentioned the idea of a reality simulation, when you said:
"It seems to me that examining the nature of nature one can realistically see therein that it may be we exist within some sort of reality simulation.
That is as reasonable a 'claim' as those scientists you mentioned, in this video

In that, my 'claim' is more of an observation [It seems to me that examining the nature of nature one can realistically see therein that it may be we exist within some sort of reality simulation.] with a question attached to it. [Are there any tools which we can use scientifically which could help us determine whether some sort of universal consciousness is detectable?"]
So, no, it is you that made the claim so the onus is on you to back up that claim. my position remains exactly the same, it is possible that simulated universes exist, of which we may be one, but I see no evidence that this is so especially given the nature of the idea. Hence it remains a conjecture.
We share the same position in that "it is possible that simulated universes exist, of which we may be one" and that I (and obviously some scientists) see enough evidence to support it could be the case.
Therefore, my question regarding that.
Can you answer this question?

Q: Are there any tools which we can use scientifically which could help us determine whether some sort of universal consciousness is detectable?
You realise that there is considerable debate amongst scientists and philosophers as to whether mathematics has been invented or discovered.
Nope, but that in itself is interesting. Now I wonder why scientist and philosophers feel that it is debatable.
Possibly because some scientists think it (mathematics) has inherent qualities related to the universe, others that is a man made tool which is successful in helping to explain the universe?
Which is more likely? [Occam's razor]
1: That the mountain didn't exist until it was discovered
2: That the mountain existed long before it was discovered.

Which is more likely? [Occam's razor]
1: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't discovered but invented by humans do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as they look good and get kudo's from humanity.
2: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't invented by humans but discovered do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as it is likely the truth.

Also while you think on that, can you tell us if you agree with this object being sent out into space by human scientists.

Image
Anyone can understand that while Columbus discovered America, He also discovered that other people lived their, which means that he wasn't the first to discover America.
This leads us to the understanding that the land mass existed to be discovered. Therefore, all things exist to be discovered, and can only be discovered by those who formerly did not know those things existed.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to get over. Of course there are things that we have not yet discovered. Everything that exists can potentially be discovered. Alternatively, there are things which don't exist, and therefore cannot possibly be discovered!
Conjecture? Please name even one of these things to back up your claim here.
Which again supports the idea the we exist within a Reality Simulation
Not necessarily. Mathematics could simply be one way of describing the world around us.
No doubt then there are other ways.

But we know with Mathematics it is an exact science.

And your 'Not necessarily' comment only shows that it is also conjecture on your part.

So since there is conjecture [regarding mathematics], how can we set up a scientific way in which to prove one way or the other?
Again, so many minds becoming more and more convinced that it is not only possible but also probable. But how to go about finding ways to bring all these minds together and finding a way in which to make it a certainty...

For now, we who are interested, largely have to soldier on by ourselves - but the interesting aspect of that is one can still be shown subjective evidence which supports the idea adequately. Good for the individual...
Actually, afik, none of the leading exponents actually think that it is probable. Possible, certainly, but probable, no.
I have no problem whatever with subjective evidence, because that is in the realm of 'true for you'.
What the "leading exponents" think is as much conjecture as what you and I think.
As to subjectivity, IF we do exist within a creation, THEN it should be possible for the individual to work that out enough to then experience it subjectively, however it chooses to reveal itself to those who are seeking to find it.

And if "leading exponents" are unwilling to do this, is that because there is nothing to do? Or is it because they haven't figured out how to and don't give it enough time in thought and importance to make the effort?

Whatever the case, we individuals are free to pursue the answer and at least subjectively discover the truth of it.
Yes. It removes the "turtles all the way down" idea and replaces it with something along the lines "I created this Reality Simulation". A short but growing thread I created, touches on this idea. I named the thread "Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.
Only if you stop at the creator of the simulation, and say something like 'it just exists' rather than, 'but where did it come from'. and that could apply to any natural universe also. Indeed, Occam's razor suggests that a simulated universe simply complicates matters.
Only in conjunction with the idea that we do NOT exist within a creation. Otherwise, while complicated it may be, impossible to discover it may not be.
One can only stop at the creator of said simulation IF one discovers a Reality which can be seen to NOT be a simulation. In that, the premise is "If it has a beginning, then it is a simulation."
Remember though...it was not "you" or "me" [herein being types of avatars within the Reality Simulation] who created said Reality Simulation. Rather 'we' are aspects of the Overall consciousness who created this. "we" as that Entity, created this Reality Simulation.
As I said in post 49:

It seems to me that science cannot fruitfully examine the idea of some sort of universal consciousness or supernatural entity using the tools of science because there is no evidence that such an entity exists by looking at the natural world.

Obviously it is not that there is no evidence in the natural world. Where you may well be fudging things, is in how you personally view the natural world.

Imagine that there was a type of communications device which could be used to communicate with an otherwise invisible intelligence. Could we expect to understand said intelligence in everything which it might communicate to us? Given the nature of this Reality Simulation, chances are high that it would be a gradual thing which would have to be learned. The intelligence might even require that we learn its language - how it might prefer to communicate over the device.

Too complicated for scientists? Scientist could indeed examine such data to inform them, which would naturally be fruitful.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #106

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to William in post #106]
I do not share your apparent faith in the humanity of scientists, that they would somehow be above keeping such a discovery a secret if they could use it to have an advantage over the rest of humanity.
This seems to put all scientists (whether practicing now, or in the past) into some kind of club sworn to secrecy that somehow managed ... unlike any other human endeavor ... to prevent the members from ever leaking the secrets, or leaving the group and spilling the beans, as they scheme to gain an advantage over other humans (and how many would even have that goal?). Scientists are people like everyone else who happen to chose some scientific field to work in and hopefully make advances and collect a pay check, or possibly win a Nobel prize if they are really good. I can't imagine any scenario where these normal humans could avoid having such secret information leaked out everntually, but the scenario you are describing would seem to require that.
Math was the example of science that I gave, on the observation that Math was the evidence of coding, which we could expect to discover if we were existing within a Reality Simulation.
Why is math an example of coding? It was discovered in ancient times that the circumference of a circle is equal to 3.141592... (pi) times its diameter. Nothing about that involved coding of any kind ... it is just a measurable relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. Centuries BC the Pythagorean theorem was widely used in constructions (long before Pythagoras), but it was also just a measurable relationship between the sides of a right triangle and its hypotenuse. Mathematical understanding increased over time as the subject was studied, with more geometrical relationships sought out in the quest to build pyramids properly, work out the cirumference of the earth (eg. Eratosthenes) and things like that. The process continued as algebras were developed, calculus, differential equations, group theory, etc. etc. to produce the wide range of mathematical disciplines that exist today. How is this coding any more than the discovery of the periodic table is coding? It is just discovering how nature works and developing relationships and methods to describe it along with the associated terminology and rules.
Which is more likely? [Occam's razor]
1: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't discovered but invented by humans do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as they look good and get kudo's from humanity.
2: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't invented by humans but discovered do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as it is likely the truth.
#2 ... Overwhelmingly. But mathematics is both discovered by humans (eg. the relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter) and invented by humans (eg. calculus, as a tool to describe the mathematics of continuous change). Calculus is more of a mathematical method, but clearly part of the field of mathematics. It is just another scientific discipline developed to explain nature along with physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Would you say the genetic code was discovered, or invented?
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..
Carl Sagan

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 292 times
Contact:

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #107

Post by William »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:46 pm [Replying to William in post #106]
I do not share your apparent faith in the humanity of scientists, that they would somehow be above keeping such a discovery a secret if they could use it to have an advantage over the rest of humanity.
This seems to put all scientists (whether practicing now, or in the past) into some kind of club sworn to secrecy that somehow managed ... unlike any other human endeavor ... to prevent the members from ever leaking the secrets, or leaving the group and spilling the beans, as they scheme to gain an advantage over other humans (and how many would even have that goal?). Scientists are people like everyone else who happen to chose some scientific field to work in and hopefully make advances and collect a pay check, or possibly win a Nobel prize if they are really good. I can't imagine any scenario where these normal humans could avoid having such secret information leaked out everntually, but the scenario you are describing would seem to require that.
I did not imply ALL scientists would behave in such a way. Just as I wasn't saying that ALL humans are like this. To be clear, I am saying that it is possible IF it is already known by some that we do indeed exist within a Reality Simulation.
Math was the example of science that I gave, on the observation that Math was the evidence of coding, which we could expect to discover if we were existing within a Reality Simulation.
Why is math an example of coding? It was discovered in ancient times that the circumference of a circle is equal to 3.141592... (pi) times its diameter. Nothing about that involved coding of any kind ... it is just a measurable relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. Centuries BC the Pythagorean theorem was widely used in constructions (long before Pythagoras), but it was also just a measurable relationship between the sides of a right triangle and its hypotenuse. Mathematical understanding increased over time as the subject was studied, with more geometrical relationships sought out in the quest to build pyramids properly, work out the cirumference of the earth (eg. Eratosthenes) and things like that. The process continued as algebras were developed, calculus, differential equations, group theory, etc. etc. to produce the wide range of mathematical disciplines that exist today. How is this coding any more than the discovery of the periodic table is coding? It is just discovering how nature works and developing relationships and methods to describe it along with the associated terminology and rules.
My point was that it was there to discover rather than something which was invented.
Which is more likely? [Occam's razor]
1: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't discovered but invented by humans do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as they look good and get kudo's from humanity.
2: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't invented by humans but discovered do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as it is likely the truth.
#2 ... Overwhelmingly. But mathematics is both discovered by humans (eg. the relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter) and invented by humans (eg. calculus, as a tool to describe the mathematics of continuous change). Calculus is more of a mathematical method, but clearly part of the field of mathematics. It is just another scientific discipline developed to explain nature along with physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Would you say the genetic code was discovered, or invented?
Inventions based upon discovery is besides the point.

Inventions [which you have mentioned] are a product of discovery, and can contribute to the cause of discovering other things. I do not know about genetic code as to whether it was an invention based on a discovery, or simply a discovery. But it does not matter in relation to the point I have made, to which you agree with (#2)

blackstart
Student
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:23 pm
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #108

Post by blackstart »

William wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:14 pm
blackstart wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:47 pm
William wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:15 pm
You appear to be forgetting that if we exist within a Reality Simulation, then it is a real experience. Nothing fake about a real experience.
In contrast, simulations created within this Reality Simulation, which are experienced as realistic, these are easily understood by those who are experiencing them [as they are experiencing them in real time], not to be real experiences, but fake ones.
Whether we are simulations or not, whether we have real experiences or not, if the basic laws of the universe we inhabit were fake (simulations), then it follows that we wouldn't be able to work out the nature of reality behind the simulation by scientific inquiry which utilises these laws.
Thanks for clarifying.

It is unknown speculation as to whether we wouldn't be able to work out the nature of reality behind the simulation by scientific inquiry.
If for example, we could create a device with which we could communicate with The Creator(s) of our Reality Simulation, we could at least collect data from that process which could conceivably help us to discover more about the nature of the Creator(s) and their reality.

Weather we would be able to understand everything through this method is not debatable. But we could piece things together in that manner, adequately for us to have positive evidence that we do indeed exist within a [once-suspected] Reality Simulation.
Hi William,

How would we know whether a civilization advanced enough to produce our universe as a simulation would use the laws of their reality within their simulation?
How would we even know that it wasn't a simulation that created our simulation?
It's all just a matter of conjecture.
Perhaps I can attempt to do so, yes.
Then I await your evidence, hopefully with an open mind.
Well we have yet to agree on the first example I offered to you. Re 'doing the math' and you haven't rebuffed my argument on that.
I doubt whether we shall agree, as I suggested that even if one takes mathematics as some type of basic explanation of how our universe is/functions, there is no reason to think it leads to the conclusion of a simulation rather than a description of reality.
Therefore I cannot see why this should count as evidence.
Certainly that would be the main reason why they do not. The worlds systems are not set up in a way which would allow scientists to pursue such investigation, which would necessitate financial backing and all the red tape that goes with that.
And yet science has had all sorts of insights from the nature of spacetime to the realities of quantum mechanics, producing many testable conclusions which are constantly modified as new insights gain integrity.
Which is the case because science has this Reality Simulation in which to probe. The probing has come up with things which existed prior to human scientists discovering them. Like Math.
Or have we utilised maths as a tool to help explain and measure the real universe?
Could it be that it is a case of no scientist has yet found any way of investigating such a conjecture?
Nope. It is obviously the case...at least re the scientists of who's work we do know about. Yet it is not just a matter of conjecture, but a matter of scientists realizing that it is indeed a possibility.
In that, as I have suggested, perhaps there are scientists presently working on that very thing. Perhaps also, they have already discovered it for sure.
I do not share your apparent faith in the humanity of scientists, that they would somehow be above keeping such a discovery a secret if they could use it to have an advantage over the rest of humanity. Nor do I share your belief that Humanity would be interested in knowing such a thing is true. The reason I do not share your faith is because I know too well how humans tend to think about things...so we are left not being able to be informed from those quarters of human society...so an individuals option is to try and sort it out for their individual selves.
Which is better than having no option at all..
.

I repeat, science is based upon trying to get at objective truths. It isn't perfect, and in my opinion it would be foolish simply to have faith in particular scientific hypotheses without corroborating evidence, but its undoubted successes suggest that it is our best way forward. Personal belief, without evidence, is just that, belief.
Of those 3 options, "Testing some sort of experiment" would be the one to pursue...although the first two might be part of that reason...
Fair enough.
Does that conclude there cannot exist such evidence if one were to look for it?
Of course not. nor does it conclude that such evidence does exist if one were to look for it.
If a mountain exists but no one looks for, is the mountain going to be discovered by anyone?
Only, if it is accidentally discovered.

If a mountain doesn't exist, is the mountain going to be discovered by anyone?
Not what I said.
You said:
"One only has to look at the science being done to get the evidence that this is most likely actually the case.".
I responded by asking: ""Such as?"

You then said:
"The very strong evidence has been with us for a long time. It did take the natural enough occurrence of humans beings able to create simulations in order for that point to dawn on people, but the thought has been with humanity all along, however inadequate such fireside stories have managed to be in explaining the concept."
I responded by agreeing that the ideas have been around a long time, but, just like the ideas of gods(which have been around a long time), it doesn't necessarily follow that this is true.
Please tell me how I have misrepresented you? I am quite willing to accept I have misrepresented you, if you can explain how?
I wasn't referring only to religious and cultural mythology but adding it as part of the equation. Math was the example of science that I gave, on the observation that Math was the evidence of coding, which we could expect to discover if we were existing within a Reality Simulation.
It is the fundamental aspect which allows us to discover other things to do with our Reality.
Fair enough. However I have already said what I think is the problem of Maths. Also, how do you know that a civilization wouldn't be so advanced, as to use something entirely different and unknown to us, to achieve its simulation?
I am not making a claim, other than if you show me any scientific evidence I will do my best to explain why that evidence fits in with the idea we exist within a created environment.
But that is okay. I think it would be more fun having you involve yourself at least to that degree...
In Post 50, it was you who first mentioned the idea of a reality simulation, when you said:
"It seems to me that examining the nature of nature one can realistically see therein that it may be we exist within some sort of reality simulation.
That is as reasonable a 'claim' as those scientists you mentioned, in this video

In that, my 'claim' is more of an observation [It seems to me that examining the nature of nature one can realistically see therein that it may be we exist within some sort of reality simulation.] with a question attached to it. [Are there any tools which we can use scientifically which could help us determine whether some sort of universal consciousness is detectable?"]
I've reread the transcript from the video. It is a lighthearted look at the subject with all sorts of different views put forward, some of them mirroring my own.
As to your question, I can't think of any. can you? All prrsent evidence suggests individuals of many species have their own consciousness. It may be possible in the future if one exists. Who knows!
So, no, it is you that made the claim so the onus is on you to back up that claim. my position remains exactly the same, it is possible that simulated universes exist, of which we may be one, but I see no evidence that this is so especially given the nature of the idea. Hence it remains a conjecture.
We share the same position in that "it is possible that simulated universes exist, of which we may be one" and that I (and obviously some scientists) see enough evidence to support it could be the case.
Therefore, my question regarding that.
Can you answer this question?

Q: Are there any tools which we can use scientifically which could help us determine whether some sort of universal consciousness is detectable?
No, I can't think of any. Can you, and if so, how would they be used? Remember, extraordinary claims and all that!
You realise that there is considerable debate amongst scientists and philosophers as to whether mathematics has been invented or discovered.
Nope, but that in itself is interesting. Now I wonder why scientist and philosophers feel that it is debatable.
Possibly because some scientists think it (mathematics) has inherent qualities related to the universe, others that is a man made tool which is successful in helping to explain the universe?
Which is more likely? [Occam's razor]
1: That the mountain didn't exist until it was discovered
2: That the mountain existed long before it was discovered.
I would go for No 2 as that is what discovered signifies, unless, of course, the mountain didn't exist at all, in which case all bets are off.
Which is more likely? [Occam's razor]
1: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't discovered but invented by humans do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as they look good and get kudo's from humanity.
2: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't invented by humans but discovered do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as it is likely the truth.
I can't give an answer because the first statement isn't consistent with your second statement. One talks about invented rather than discovered. The second talks about discovered rather than invented. Occam's razor simply suggests in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.
Also while you think on that, can you tell us if you agree with this object being sent out into space by human scientists.

Image
The golden records, you mean. I agree completely, especially as one contained the music of Chuck Berry. It's a forlorn hope that either voyager will ever be discovered by another civilzation, but, with the number of planets that are bound to exist in our galaxy, who knows? nothing much to do with simulated galaxies, I would have thought.
Anyone can understand that while Columbus discovered America, He also discovered that other people lived their, which means that he wasn't the first to discover America.
This leads us to the understanding that the land mass existed to be discovered. Therefore, all things exist to be discovered, and can only be discovered by those who formerly did not know those things existed.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to get over. Of course there are things that we have not yet discovered. Everything that exists can potentially be discovered. Alternatively, there are things which don't exist, and therefore cannot possibly be discovered!
Conjecture? Please name even one of these things to back up your claim here.
I'll name two, if you like. Phlogiston, from the past, and the supposed planet Nibiru(Planet X) from today.
Which again supports the idea the we exist within a Reality Simulation
Not necessarily. Mathematics could simply be one way of describing the world around us.
No doubt then there are other ways.

But we know with Mathematics it is an exact science.

And your 'Not necessarily' comment only shows that it is also conjecture on your part.

So since there is conjecture [regarding mathematics], how can we set up a scientific way in which to prove one way or the other?
My own personal feeling is that mathematics is the best way we have of understanding how our natural world works. It seems to be a mixture of discovery and invention so that it can be put in terms that we can understand and manipulate. in this respect I see it as a kind of language, useful because it can be understood by scientists all over the world and of excellent explanatory value as illustrated by its successes.
Again, so many minds becoming more and more convinced that it is not only possible but also probable. But how to go about finding ways to bring all these minds together and finding a way in which to make it a certainty...

For now, we who are interested, largely have to soldier on by ourselves - but the interesting aspect of that is one can still be shown subjective evidence which supports the idea adequately. Good for the individual...
Actually, afik, none of the leading exponents actually think that it is probable. Possible, certainly, but probable, no.
I have no problem whatever with subjective evidence, because that is in the realm of 'true for you'.
What the "leading exponents" think is as much conjecture as what you and I think.
As to subjectivity, IF we do exist within a creation, THEN it should be possible for the individual to work that out enough to then experience it subjectively, however it chooses to reveal itself to those who are seeking to find it.

And if "leading exponents" are unwilling to do this, is that because there is nothing to do? Or is it because they haven't figured out how to and don't give it enough time in thought and importance to make the effort?

Whatever the case, we individuals are free to pursue the answer and at least subjectively discover the truth of it.
Yes, conjecture is the name of the game. I have no problem with that. As individuals we can arrive at some sort of 'truths' that make sense to us, but not necessarily to other individuals.
Yes. It removes the "turtles all the way down" idea and replaces it with something along the lines "I created this Reality Simulation". A short but growing thread I created, touches on this idea. I named the thread "Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.
Only if you stop at the creator of the simulation, and say something like 'it just exists' rather than, 'but where did it come from'. and that could apply to any natural universe also. Indeed, Occam's razor suggests that a simulated universe simply complicates matters.
Only in conjunction with the idea that we do NOT exist within a creation. Otherwise, while complicated it may be, impossible to discover it may not be.
One can only stop at the creator of said simulation IF one discovers a Reality which can be seen to NOT be a simulation. In that, the premise is "If it has a beginning, then it is a simulation."
No, the question still arises, where did the creator come from?
Remember though...it was not "you" or "me" [herein being types of avatars within the Reality Simulation] who created said Reality Simulation. Rather 'we' are aspects of the Overall consciousness who created this. "we" as that Entity, created this Reality Simulation.
As I said in post 49:

It seems to me that science cannot fruitfully examine the idea of some sort of universal consciousness or supernatural entity using the tools of science because there is no evidence that such an entity exists by looking at the natural world.
Obviously it is not that there is no evidence in the natural world. Where you may well be fudging things, is in how you personally view the natural world.
I don't believe so, but you are welcome to your point of view.
Imagine that there was a type of communications device which could be used to communicate with an otherwise invisible intelligence. Could we expect to understand said intelligence in everything which it might communicate to us? Given the nature of this Reality Simulation, chances are high that it would be a gradual thing which would have to be learned. The intelligence might even require that we learn its language - how it might prefer to communicate over the device.

Too complicated for scientists? Scientist could indeed examine such data to inform them, which would naturally be fruitful.
If we actually do exist in a simulated universe, yes, entirely possible. However this is all conjecture.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 7270
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 292 times
Contact:

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #109

Post by William »

blackstart wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:54 am
William wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:14 pm
blackstart wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:47 pm
William wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:15 pm
You appear to be forgetting that if we exist within a Reality Simulation, then it is a real experience. Nothing fake about a real experience.
In contrast, simulations created within this Reality Simulation, which are experienced as realistic, these are easily understood by those who are experiencing them [as they are experiencing them in real time], not to be real experiences, but fake ones.
Whether we are simulations or not, whether we have real experiences or not, if the basic laws of the universe we inhabit were fake (simulations), then it follows that we wouldn't be able to work out the nature of reality behind the simulation by scientific inquiry which utilises these laws.
Thanks for clarifying.

It is unknown speculation as to whether we wouldn't be able to work out the nature of reality behind the simulation by scientific inquiry.
If for example, we could create a device with which we could communicate with The Creator(s) of our Reality Simulation, we could at least collect data from that process which could conceivably help us to discover more about the nature of the Creator(s) and their reality.

Weather we would be able to understand everything through this method is not debatable. But we could piece things together in that manner, adequately for us to have positive evidence that we do indeed exist within a [once-suspected] Reality Simulation.
How would we know whether a civilization advanced enough to produce our universe as a simulation would use the laws of their reality within their simulation?
I am not sure what you are asking here blackstart
How would we even know that it wasn't a simulation that created our simulation?
I could very well be. What would that matter?
It's all just a matter of conjecture.
Not in relation to the possibility or even probability we are currently existing within a created reality.

Image
Perhaps I can attempt to do so, yes.
Then I await your evidence, hopefully with an open mind.
Well we have yet to agree on the first example I offered to you. Re 'doing the math' and you haven't rebuffed my argument on that.
I doubt whether we shall agree, as I suggested that even if one takes mathematics as some type of basic explanation of how our universe is/functions, there is no reason to think it leads to the conclusion of a simulation rather than a description of reality.
Therefore I cannot see why this should count as evidence.
Certainly that would be the main reason why they do not. The worlds systems are not set up in a way which would allow scientists to pursue such investigation, which would necessitate financial backing and all the red tape that goes with that.
And yet science has had all sorts of insights from the nature of spacetime to the realities of quantum mechanics, producing many testable conclusions which are constantly modified as new insights gain integrity.
Which is the case because science has this Reality Simulation in which to probe. The probing has come up with things which existed prior to human scientists discovering them. Like Math.
Or have we utilised maths as a tool to help explain and measure the real universe?
As I explained, we can claim that math was invented or we can claim math was discovered.
Could it be that it is a case of no scientist has yet found any way of investigating such a conjecture?
Nope. It is obviously the case...at least re the scientists of who's work we do know about. Yet it is not just a matter of conjecture, but a matter of scientists realizing that it is indeed a possibility.
In that, as I have suggested, perhaps there are scientists presently working on that very thing. Perhaps also, they have already discovered it for sure.
I do not share your apparent faith in the humanity of scientists, that they would somehow be above keeping such a discovery a secret if they could use it to have an advantage over the rest of humanity. Nor do I share your belief that Humanity would be interested in knowing such a thing is true. The reason I do not share your faith is because I know too well how humans tend to think about things...so we are left not being able to be informed from those quarters of human society...so an individuals option is to try and sort it out for their individual selves.
Which is better than having no option at all..
.
I repeat, science is based upon trying to get at objective truths. It isn't perfect, and in my opinion it would be foolish simply to have faith in particular scientific hypotheses without corroborating evidence, but its undoubted successes suggest that it is our best way forward. Personal belief, without evidence, is just that, belief.
As I have pointed out, it is not belief. It is seeing the evidence which scientists have discovered as clearly pointing to the possibility...
Of those 3 options, "Testing some sort of experiment" would be the one to pursue...although the first two might be part of that reason...
Fair enough.
Does that conclude there cannot exist such evidence if one were to look for it?
Of course not. nor does it conclude that such evidence does exist if one were to look for it.
If a mountain exists but no one looks for, is the mountain going to be discovered by anyone?
Only, if it is accidentally discovered.
Was math accidently discovered?
If a mountain doesn't exist, is the mountain going to be discovered by anyone?
Math does exist. [I was using the mountain as an analogy of mathematics.]
Not what I said.
You said:
"One only has to look at the science being done to get the evidence that this is most likely actually the case.".
I responded by asking: ""Such as?"

You then said:
"The very strong evidence has been with us for a long time. It did take the natural enough occurrence of humans beings able to create simulations in order for that point to dawn on people, but the thought has been with humanity all along, however inadequate such fireside stories have managed to be in explaining the concept."
I responded by agreeing that the ideas have been around a long time, but, just like the ideas of gods(which have been around a long time), it doesn't necessarily follow that this is true.
Please tell me how I have misrepresented you? I am quite willing to accept I have misrepresented you, if you can explain how?
I wasn't referring only to religious and cultural mythology but adding it as part of the equation. Math was the example of science that I gave, on the observation that Math was the evidence of coding, which we could expect to discover if we were existing within a Reality Simulation.
It is the fundamental aspect which allows us to discover other things to do with our Reality.
Fair enough. However I have already said what I think is the problem of Maths.
But is what you think "is the problem with math" really a 'problem'?
Also, how do you know that a civilization wouldn't be so advanced, as to use something entirely different and unknown to us, to achieve its simulation?
We don't know. I am focusing on the evidence we do have, which we have discovered.
I am not making a claim, other than if you show me any scientific evidence I will do my best to explain why that evidence fits in with the idea we exist within a created environment.
But that is okay. I think it would be more fun having you involve yourself at least to that degree...
In Post 50, it was you who first mentioned the idea of a reality simulation, when you said:
"It seems to me that examining the nature of nature one can realistically see therein that it may be we exist within some sort of reality simulation.
That is as reasonable a 'claim' as those scientists you mentioned, in this video [make]

In that, my 'claim' is more of an observation [It seems to me that examining the nature of nature one can realistically see therein that it may be we exist within some sort of reality simulation.] with a question attached to it. [Are there any tools which we can use scientifically which could help us determine whether some sort of universal consciousness is detectable?"]
I've reread the transcript from the video. It is a lighthearted look at the subject with all sorts of different views put forward, some of them mirroring my own.
As to your question, I can't think of any. can you? All prrsent evidence suggests individuals of many species have their own consciousness. It may be possible in the future if one exists. Who knows!
Indeed. We cannot discover a mountain if we do not look.
So, no, it is you that made the claim so the onus is on you to back up that claim. my position remains exactly the same, it is possible that simulated universes exist, of which we may be one, but I see no evidence that this is so especially given the nature of the idea. Hence it remains a conjecture.
We share the same position in that "it is possible that simulated universes exist, of which we may be one" and that I (and obviously some scientists) see enough evidence to support it could be the case.
Therefore, my question regarding that.
Can you answer this question?

Q: Are there any tools which we can use scientifically which could help us determine whether some sort of universal consciousness is detectable?
No, I can't think of any. Can you, and if so, how would they be used?
I can think of one possible device which might be able to be used in a scientific manner for that purpose.
You realise that there is considerable debate amongst scientists and philosophers as to whether mathematics has been invented or discovered.
Nope, but that in itself is interesting. Now I wonder why scientist and philosophers feel that it is debatable.
Possibly because some scientists think it (mathematics) has inherent qualities related to the universe, others that is a man made tool which is successful in helping to explain the universe?
Which is more likely? [Occam's razor]
1: That the mountain didn't exist until it was discovered
2: That the mountain existed long before it was discovered.
I would go for No 2 as that is what discovered signifies, unless, of course, the mountain didn't exist at all, in which case all bets are off.
Which is more likely? [Occam's razor]
1: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't discovered but invented by humans do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as they look good and get kudo's from humanity.
2: That scientists who argue that mathematics wasn't invented by humans but discovered do so because they would prefer it to be understood that way as it is likely the truth.
I can't give an answer because the first statement isn't consistent with your second statement. One talks about invented rather than discovered. The second talks about discovered rather than invented.
Those are the arguments which naturally derive from your answer to my question "Now I wonder why scientist and philosophers feel that it [Mathematics was or wasn't discovered] is debatable."
Occam's razor simply suggests in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.
Therefore the assumption humans invented mathematics rather than discovered mathematics is the better, because less assumptions are involved. Dr. NoGods had no difficulty in seeing that number 2 was the better assumption to make.
Also while you think on that, can you tell us if you agree with this object being sent out into space by human scientists.

Image
The golden records, you mean. I agree completely, especially as one contained the music of Chuck Berry. It's a forlorn hope that either voyager will ever be discovered by another civilzation, but, with the number of planets that are bound to exist in our galaxy, who knows? nothing much to do with simulated galaxies, I would have thought.
Yet it has much to do with one being able to discount the argument that Mathematics was invented by humans, as it is presumed that any sentient species would be able to decipher the disc through use of mathematics because of the fundamental relationship between the existence of this universe and the existence of mathematics. It is the sort of thing a Johnny B Goode would agree with.
Anyone can understand that while Columbus discovered America, He also discovered that other people lived their, which means that he wasn't the first to discover America.
This leads us to the understanding that the land mass existed to be discovered. Therefore, all things exist to be discovered, and can only be discovered by those who formerly did not know those things existed.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to get over. Of course there are things that we have not yet discovered. Everything that exists can potentially be discovered. Alternatively, there are things which don't exist, and therefore cannot possibly be discovered!
Conjecture? Please name even one of these things to back up your claim here.
I'll name two, if you like. Phlogiston, from the past, and the supposed planet Nibiru(Planet X) from today.
And how do these related to your argument regarding mathematics could have been invented? Because if these two things you mention are simply inventions of human imagination and do not actually exist, are you suggesting that Mathematics is also an invention of human imagination and does not actually exist?
Of course you are not suggesting that!

So why bring those type of examples into this argument?
Which again supports the idea the we exist within a Reality Simulation
Not necessarily. Mathematics could simply be one way of describing the world around us.
No doubt then there are other ways.

But we know with Mathematics it is an exact science.

And your 'Not necessarily' comment only shows that it is also conjecture on your part.

So since there is conjecture [regarding mathematics], how can we set up a scientific way in which to prove one way or the other?
My own personal feeling is that mathematics is the best way we have of understanding how our natural world works. It seems to be a mixture of discovery and invention so that it can be put in terms that we can understand and manipulate. in this respect I see it as a kind of language, useful because it can be understood by scientists all over the world and of excellent explanatory value as illustrated by its successes.
Then you are splitting hairs rather than debunking my argument regarding the discovered existence of Mathematics can be considered a valid example in favor of the simulation theory..."We exist within a Reality Simulation".
Again, so many minds becoming more and more convinced that it is not only possible but also probable. But how to go about finding ways to bring all these minds together and finding a way in which to make it a certainty...

For now, we who are interested, largely have to soldier on by ourselves - but the interesting aspect of that is one can still be shown subjective evidence which supports the idea adequately. Good for the individual...
Actually, afik, none of the leading exponents actually think that it is probable. Possible, certainly, but probable, no.
I have no problem whatever with subjective evidence, because that is in the realm of 'true for you'.
What the "leading exponents" think is as much conjecture as what you and I think.
As to subjectivity, IF we do exist within a creation, THEN it should be possible for the individual to work that out enough to then experience it subjectively, however it chooses to reveal itself to those who are seeking to find it.

And if "leading exponents" are unwilling to do this, is that because there is nothing to do? Or is it because they haven't figured out how to and don't give it enough time in thought and importance to make the effort?

Whatever the case, we individuals are free to pursue the answer and at least subjectively discover the truth of it.
Yes, conjecture is the name of the game. I have no problem with that. As individuals we can arrive at some sort of 'truths' that make sense to us, but not necessarily to other individuals.
Indeed. But the way I have argued for simulation theory is not that bad that it can be honestly place in the nonsense file.
Yes. It removes the "turtles all the way down" idea and replaces it with something along the lines "I created this Reality Simulation". A short but growing thread I created, touches on this idea. I named the thread "Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.
Only if you stop at the creator of the simulation, and say something like 'it just exists' rather than, 'but where did it come from'. and that could apply to any natural universe also. Indeed, Occam's razor suggests that a simulated universe simply complicates matters.
Only in conjunction with the idea that we do NOT exist within a creation. Otherwise, while complicated it may be, impossible to discover it may not be.
One can only stop at the creator of said simulation IF one discovers a Reality which can be seen to NOT be a simulation. In that, the premise is "If it has a beginning, then it is a simulation."
No, the question still arises, where did the creator come from?
If there is no evidence of the reality experienced having a beginning, then one can be confident one is not within a simulation.
If one is within a Reality Simulation, then one can be confident it was created.

The question "where did the creator come from?" assumes that one will encounter the creator IF one is within a reality which is provably NOT a simulation.
Such a Reality must be a state of being The Creator, for such a reality was NOT created and is therefore NOT a simulation.
Remember though...it was not "you" or "me" [herein being types of avatars within the Reality Simulation] who created said Reality Simulation. Rather 'we' are aspects of the Overall consciousness who created this. "we" as that Entity, created this Reality Simulation.
As I said in post 49:

It seems to me that science cannot fruitfully examine the idea of some sort of universal consciousness or supernatural entity using the tools of science because there is no evidence that such an entity exists by looking at the natural world.
Obviously it is not that there is no evidence in the natural world. Where you may well be fudging things, is in how you personally view the natural world.
I don't believe so, but you are welcome to your point of view.
I am not arguing that anyone should believe it to be the case. I am arguing that the vast amount of evidence we have scientifically discovered, points to that probability.
Imagine that there was a type of communications device which could be used to communicate with an otherwise invisible intelligence. Could we expect to understand said intelligence in everything which it might communicate to us? Given the nature of this Reality Simulation, chances are high that it would be a gradual thing which would have to be learned. The intelligence might even require that we learn its language - how it might prefer to communicate over the device.

Too complicated for scientists? Scientist could indeed examine such data to inform them, which would naturally be fruitful.
If we actually do exist in a simulated universe, yes, entirely possible. However this is all conjecture.

Conjecture is one of the first steps in the process of scientifically discovering [uncovering] the nature of nature. The conjecture is that the the vast amount of evidence we have scientifically discovered to date, points to the probability we exist within a Reality Simulation.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

Post #110

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to William in post #110]
Therefore the assumption humans invented mathematics rather than discovered mathematics is the better, because less assumptions are involved. Dr. NoGods had no difficulty in seeing that number 2 was the better assumption to make.
I was choosing between the two options given, but if I had to describe mathematics I would argue that it is both discovered (as solutions to problems led to new math), and invented (such as calculus in order to deal with continuous change in a definitive, mathematical way). It is not as simple as the two original choices given, but the first choice suggested that people dabble in mathematics primarily in order to get kudos and I don't agree with that at all.

I don't see any difference between mathematics and advances there, or chemistry and physics and other areas of science and their advances. Mathematics may be more precise and more "fundamental" in the hierarchy to earn it being described as the "queen of the sciences" by Gauss (Philosophers would beg to differ), but it is still just a tool to describe things and solve problems that humans have advanced over time.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown..
Carl Sagan

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply