Angelo

6 hours ago, swansont said:

In what way is Tyson "rejecting all known science"? 

If the universe is a simulation, that means that you are simulated and are along with everything else just not real but composed of 0 and 1 assuming that the creator of the simulation uses a binary code which he or they may not.  Tyson is literally saying that the universe is a simulation because the current speeds of the furthest galaxies violate relativity as they are estimated at 5 times light speed in motion.  When you access a computer simulation you do so from a real world, Tyson is claiming that reality is not real.  How is that science?

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Let’s assume that’s all true (it’s not, but for the sake of discussion let’s just take it as given)... 

Why do you care so much?

Why is it logical and acceptable for Tyson to say that the universe was created but not logical or acceptable for an evangelical to say EXACTLY the same thing?  This is why it matters, because what Tyson is saying is exactly what religions have been saying forever.  This matters

5 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

It might help, if you @Angelo would first, in an objective tone, lay out exactly what you believe Tyson's argument to be, and the steps in his reasoning (as far as they are provided and assuming they are truthful). As far as I understand the simulation hypothesis, is that it is based on chance and likelihoods coupled with some very specific assumptions; however the things you say, and the way you ask your questions and/or comment on other peoples posts, to me seems to indicate that you (at best) don't know the full reasoning behind the simulation hypothesis (or you do understand it, but are wilfully creating strawmens). Additionally, it would be great to present the strongest argument(s) for the simulation hypothesis, and not immediately assume that Tyson and other people agree on everything. If he has some illogical reasoning or assumptions you don't agree with, then it may be good to find a better version of the argument, instead of immediately disregarding the entire hypothesis. 

If you are really interested in understanding Tyson's and other people's point of view on this, it would help to start with a detailed summary/explanation of the hypothesis, because I could explain it (as far as I understand it), but I doubt the explanation is similar to what you think it is. And if you aren't sure on WHAT people belief, then it is very strange to already think of it as nonsense, therefore (assuming you have good reason to think of it as nonsense) it should be easy for you to explain it (in your own words, please don't just link something, that doesn't test your current understanding).

Kind regards,
Dagl

Tysons argument is that the universe was created by a far superior to humans programmer.

If he thinks that he or any modern scientist created this idea he is wrong.  Now I myself do not see any evidence that God created the universe, so this puts me in the role of atheist which I am not and Tyson as endorsing a creator.  

As Charlton Heston said in Planet of the Apes, "it's a madhouse"

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

Have you listened to any of his discussions and debates on the universe being a simulation or are you basing all of this on the headline?

Yes I also listened to Tyson be forced into saying that if the universe were a simulation that there must be a creator of the simulation which means that he now believes in God after spending his entire life denying God.  In other words he is a clown that does not know what he believes

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Have you listened to any of his discussions and debates on the universe being a simulation or are you basing all of this on the headline?

Yes there is another at some science fiction symposium.  The most comical part was when Tyson had to admit that his hard drive simulation needed a creator, which is the other word for God.  This is not science, it is confused adults who can not accept the speeds of galaxies as now measured so to adjust they invalidate reality.

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I upvoted this. Someone negated my upvote by down voting it.

I think this is abuse of the system.

Especially when targeted at a new member.

It's OK, Galileo was not well liked either.........................

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You might want to Google that one.

Enlighten me as to why NASA says Einstein was wrong

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I know I've admitted to being 160 years old in another thread (having spent 100 years in elementary school) but I've never claimed to have lived at the time of Newton.

 

Which part of science explains galaxies moving at 5 times light speed as recently observed, which in my opinion births the simulation theory as there is nothing else in known science that explains this.  Sad that people like Tyson believe that they know everything

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I'm not sure that is an accurate description of what he is doing.

I don't think it is likely we are in a simulation.

I know that there is no accurate description of what Tyson is doing, unless he is becoming a science fiction writer.  Hell it worked well for George Lucas

1 minute ago, iNow said:

He’s not the author of the idea. He just suggested it’s a possibility. 

Do you believe it is a possibility that the blood in your veins is really 0 and 1?  Oddly enough DNA is clearly a molecular code for assembling life

The real problem is that Tyson fell into the same hole that the Catholic church was in when they demanded that the Earth was the center of the universe without any rational reason.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I know we are getting a bit off topic, but I'm surprised you would have called gravity waves nonsense. There was no evidence of gravity waves but there was plenty of reason to believe they might be found. I doubt anyone would have funded and built the necessary detectors if they believed gravity waves were nonsense.

Do you think that Tyson is rational for rejecting all known science and championing the idea that everything in the universe is really a 0 or 1?

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Seeing my chance to stir up sh*t...

All of you guys arguing against ( and downvoting ) Angelo, have no problem calling any religion nonsense with no proof that it is.
And, I believe Angelo has already mentioned this...
Why does he need proof/evidence that the 'universe as a simulation' is nonsense, but no-one needs proof/evidence when they make the same assertion about a religious 'creator' ?

Science does not have double standards.

Thank you.....!

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would say yes, depending on your definition of recently, and intended context of the term "nonsense".

Newton would have been correct to call it nonsense, unless he meant it as impossible.

According to Tyson Newton was a simulation and gravity is computer code

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nonsense is based on a lack of evidence, or on evidence to the contrary, depending on intended context.

The burden of proof for claiming nonsense is not so cut and dried.

 

 

Facts are all based upon evidence, what facts are the simulated universe based upon?

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Like gravity waves up until recently?

LOL you do know that according to Tyson there are no gravity waves right?  Just a great big creators hard drive.

Nothing you can claim is real according to Tyson.  Except for the great big hard drive in the sky that is

11 minutes ago, mathematic said:

The whole universe is a simulation on my computer.

Interesting, but what makes your computer not part of the simulation?

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not sure how much more clear I can make this for you. Perhaps I should start typing with fat crayon and construction paper, perhaps offer you some stick figure diagrams? I haven’t put forth my opinion. I asked you what makes you so dismissive of the one shared by others. 

What makes you accept what you hear on a Larry King infomercial?  I mean next we heard that fish oil cures impotence and prevents cancer

Just now, iNow said:

I asked you a question. No evidence required from me. I have not stated my position on any of this. Nothing to support. 

You said and I quote  " Without evidence, you’re just another person with an opinion."

So you agree that Tyson is merely expressing his opinion since there is no evidence that we are both computer simulations on a hard drive conversing back and forth on the drive

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I see. You’re waffling. Throwing stones in glass houses and whatnot. Please, don’t let me interfere with your rant. 

Actually you interjected without evidence of any type.  That said since there is none, that is to be expected I assume

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

I never mentioned anything about how I feel or what I believe about the claim. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof on to me. I’m not the one here making assertions  

You said it was nonsense. Now you’re saying it’s fantasy, and further you are suggesting it’s not reality. What is your reason for doing so? Perhaps you have evidence in support of a counter hypothesis that you can share?

Without evidence, you’re just another person with an opinion. 

If you have evidence that the universe is a computer simulation, please grace us with your knowledge, or if you understand why Tyson thinks that people and planets are not real but computer code on a hard drive again please explain?

Also why would the computer programmer that Tyson claims created the universe be different than the creator that most religions mention as God.  Somewhat strange don't you think for Tyson to champion a universal creator after being such a devout atheist?

Just now, Endy0816 said:

 

Possibly the hormones released modify how the odor molecule is physically being detected and that results in the offspring's response.

 

The offspring is actually not part of my core question which is how does a painful situation in a healthy adult which centers around a brain response to stimuli modify that adults somatic cells?  This situation implies that an individual can by some unknown means determine what traits their offspring will have.  Like wishing for what you need and birthing it

50 minutes ago, iNow said:

What evidence do you have which led you to conclude it’s nonsense?

Actually evidence is needed only to determine reality, but not fantasy.  So if you believe that Tyson is right tell us on what evidence you base your adjunct conclusion? 

If so what is your basis for this conclusion.  Also what allows for such complete nonsense to go unchecked by the scientific establishment?

23 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

Epigenetics covers a lot of topics (I find that regulatory RNA's or RNA modification are also epigenetic, although of generally much smaller timelengths), the two most well known (researched) mechanisms would be DNA methylation (mostly CpG islands in promoter regions) and histone modifcations (the simplest concept, but not the only mechanism by which histone modificaitons work is to think of DNA as a string of negative charge. This string is wrapped around proteins (histones) like beads on a string, it just wraps around a little less than 1.5 times, so only a small portion (147 basepairs) of the total string is around each protein. To "read" (transcribe) a gene, a ring has to go over the string; if the string is wrapped tightly, it may not be able to due to friction with the histone, but if you make the histone negative, it will repel the negatively charged DNA, allowing for more room between the DNA and the histone, making it easier for this part of the genome to be transcribed.

Thanks for responding but you seem to be detailing the changes.  In the mouse and the cherry blossom smell with electricity experiment the changes that are initiated in the mind are in some way effecting the sperm cells of the male mouse where a learned fear of smell that is housed in the mind travels to living unmutated sperm cells.   The changes are well documented in the offspring but what is missing is the method of change that begins in the mind as the offspring are endowed with a life extending fear of cherry blossom odor.  Note that zero evolutionary time is needed for this

Hi all I have been intrigued recently by epigenetics which allows for beneficial changes to happen deliberately in a parent individual.  Now I am not interested in the changed or turned on or off genes I am only interested in how these genes are instructed to be altered by a living parent without the need for any random mutation?  

So anyone know?