Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by QuantumT

  1. In my humble opinion it solves a lot, including: - "universe from nothing". - duality and nonlocality. - the arrow of time. - the dimensionless constants. - dark matter and energy.
  2. You are right. My choice of word could have been better. It is, if you take the dive and fully investigate it seriously. It's not a question of ability, but of necessity. It would be totally unnecessary, and make no sense.
  3. Criticize and question are synonyms. It looks like you are making this personal, by attacking my approach, for no good reason.
  4. Since when is ST testable, and when has it predicted anything? It depends on how you choose to look at the evidence. If you are biased against the concept, you will always choose to interpret the evidence as moot or invalid. I would argue that evidence of a mirror universe (or a multiverse) is as good as disproving a simulated reality. So it's not completely unfalsifiable. I respectfully disagree. In someone else's reality we are nothing but a gimmick. The goal of science is to understand our reality. Not any higher reality, just ours. I can see that some people has downvoted my OP. I find that sad and disturbing. Isn't science about scrutiny and skepticism? Isn't it the scientific method to criticize?
  5. Is science scientific, when it favors one hypothesis over another, even if they have an equal "lack of evidence"? If we take the example of sting theory. It has gained the title 'theory', despite the lack of evidence, and it's discussed widely and openly in the scientific community. But a hypothesis saying we are simulated is frowned upon, and any discussion is quickly silenced, by demanding evidence. Evidence that is not demanded from string "theory"! When such evidence is presented, it is dismissed as moot. Is the scientific community discriminating between hypotheses, and thereby abandoning its core principles in favor of physicalism? Are most scientists cowards, clinging to a physical reality?
  6. For starters, I don't see myself as a supporter of ID, and I am a proud atheist, - but that is not entirely true. There are two examples in nature that looks designed: The golden ratio and the "branching" pattern. The branching pattern is seen in places like: Lightning, tree roots and tops, rivers and blood vessels. I do know that nature "chooses" the easiest and most effective path, so it isn't a sign of ID, but it looks like it. Just like the golden ratio.
  7. This is speculation and metaphysics. Something we will never know for sure. Any answer is unfalsifiable. To me, the universe seems virtual. It fits all the data, but again, it's unfalsifiable.
  8. When do they expect to publish their conclusions?
  9. It seems its gonna take a decade before we can be sure whose method is the most precise, so aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves with the crisis here?
  10. Assuming you're not a loonie, I will give my best shot at an answer, in hope that it is just a far out scientific inquiry. EMF as a direct mind-to-mind communication protocol is far to unlikely to be considered realistic. Brain cells don't send or receive such signals. I wouldn't waste my time in that direction. But it has been suggested, by respected scientists, that a person could get entangled. This could be an (however far out) explanation to the "observation effect" in quantum mechanics. If we play with that thought, a nonlocal connection between peoples thoughts and/or feelings might be plausible. The persons being entangled is presumably very close. Like family members or lovers. The bad news, however, is that you would then have no way of shielding yourself against it.
  11. Sorry, I can't willfully indulge in someones paranoid delusion.
  12. I think we're in the tin foil hat department. And I don't just mean that as a joke. Metal does stop EM signals, if the brain could somehow transmit and receive them.
  13. Ooops! You caught me being lazy and assuming. Shame on me!
  14. Forget proving it. It's hopeless. But I've found seven "Easter eggs"!
  15. He's talking about us living in a simulated reality. In that scenario, our universe would just be information inside one object (a computer) in another universe. The word 'dimension' is just used to illustrate a different reality than we are in, not as a real reference to an extra dimension.
  16. I read someone's unified field theory answer on Quora. Looks like he said one could be made, if dark matter and gravity is the same thing. So gravity as a free agent, attracted to large quantity of normal matter? Would explains the difficulty finding gravity in particles. Could dark matter and gravity be the same thing? Any debunk would be appreciated!
  17. It sure does. But space also seems like mostly a vacuum, so... Lego porn was not exactly what I had in mind...
  18. Does matter give rise to mind? Does atoms, arranged in the right way make sentience? Does lifeless objects, like atoms, make life? If we imagined Lego blocks had atom properties, could be build a person?
  19. Scientists look for the origin of reality, without a predetermined agenda. That is honest inquiry! You have already decided, without knowing anything. That is faith.
  20. M-theory is not some funny idea someone thought of suddenly. It is the result of calculating nature. We don't know if those calculations represent reality, but they are a lot more valid than some ancient Hebrew texts.
  21. In M-theory 'branes' create big bangs constantly. Each with it's own unique natural laws. We could also call it a multiverse. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
  22. No. It stands for (mem)brane theory.
  23. Source? Even if that is correct, M-theory solves that issue without a god.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.