dimreepr

The problem is, we're human, and we need an immutable authority from which to understand our world when we're growing up; but when grown we assume the mantle of authority and, mostly, we assume our correctness. When you come to actually understand our humanity, then a God of any sort is superfluous.

I think "Alice in wonderland" is a possibility, but the book is a finite resource, ie. it's book sized; I think I took that argument away from you, logically... Sorry about that.

Some of us do, but not everybody wants to... 😁

Given that it's a paradox, then it's safe to assume that someone got something wrong. 😉 Like in the twin paradox, someone was wrong about it being a paradox...

Why would you do that? 😉 You could try to piece these things together and come up with a logical argument; or you could just say "thanks" in a vacant sort of way...

The paradox is avoided bc each observer can only return to the time he stepped into the machine. 😉

Nope, they were inspired by wisdom, man again I'm afraid; they (the wise) used the idea of God for the people who are afraid of being ripped off. As @Phi for All said, stop trying to read between the line's, the magic is the lines; like 'don't kill people' and 'don't judge people' and 'forgive people' and etc. it's obvious when you really think about it.

Of course not, any prediction is just extrapolation based on our current understanding, we could be hit by a big rock tomorrow; but I'm happy to state that there's no reason to assume that it can't be true. 😉 I can't think of anything in particular, other than the continued evolution of our understanding/technology. You can never know that, you can't even know how I think...

'Don't judge people or you will be judged' I believe that was said in one or more of the bible's, the modern equivalent is a little ditty about 'assume'.

Your conflating Bee's with a computer, Bee's share a similar set of inputs to us; besides for you to be sure that a Bee doesn't share a similar consciousness to us, you'd have to become a Bee; and it could be argued that their 'shared' intelligence, is far more suitable for life on this planet. Of course it is, we're not made of magic, but not with today's technology.

And no doubt, your computer spoke to you; meaningful, is a different question... 😉

I think that he feared our, by which I mean humanity rather than the individual, decent into nihilism without a god of sorts. And the media interfears with our natural sense of fairness; much like when in a car and one is cut-up or otherwise treated discourteously; one is disconnected from a first person understanding of the situation and in consequence one is much less likely to wave out, the poor b'stard that's been waiting for 10 mins to join the trafic. The parable of the madman - Nietsche "Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter."

He was quite ambitious...

Then you don't understand Nietzche.

By whom, for what?

Indeed, as long as it seems to be fair... Although modern tech culture does seem to muddy the waters somewhat...

Nope... Nope... All people are capable of the best and the worst of people, and evil is an abstract concept, so what's the question?

Sorry missed this: Hitler was a product of his culture; a culture that was under fiscal pressure and feared the future bc of it. It's so much more easy to believe that it's the poorest that are to blame. Like everyone, Hitler is ultimately responcible for his action's, despite the narcotics, if he's clever enough to lead his nation then he's able to decide to nasty rather than nice. I believe there's evidence that Jesus was an alcoholic before his rise to leadership and he famously decided to be nice.

Just lucky I guess... 😉

Well, at least I know that you're a Floyd fan; and a bitch bc now I've got to listen to 2112 too...

My understanding of the problem is about where to start the calculation, rather than the lack of data; I'm not saying extra data can't improve the simulations accuracy. What I'm wondering is, can a QC bridge the obvious data gap that is reality...

The thing about science is, the more you learn, the less you understand and the more you like it. Just try to enjoy the journey my friend... 😉

I wondered if a working QC could calculate a more accurate start point, for a weather computer to start it's simulation.

How poor is your comprehension, that a single word 'does a fly by'? I even underlined the question, with a question mark.

That's just the antidote for being hard, sometimes it hurts... 😉