Page 1 of 1

Science considers that a "god" did it

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:35 am
by BillyBob66
At least in the sense of a being so superior to us, and with such powers, that it would have been considered a god if it revealed itself to the ancients, and maybe to us.

I think I have referred to this before by briefly discussing a book I recently read called "Who built the Moon?". It was written by a couple of "solid agnostics" who, fairly early on after listing a lot of amazing facts about the relationship of the earth, moon and even the sun, state something like "hold on now, don't be thinking we believe the Bible story". But as they continue listing these scientific facts, their conclusion is much the same as a creationist like myself: quite obviously, the moon did not come to be there all by itself and as a result of totally random accidents, it was designed, it was made/produced by some powerful, intelligent being. But of course it could not possibly have been the God of the Bible, so there conclusion is that most probably aliens did it. ( however, since they do not just include the relationship of the earth to the moon in this list of facts insisting on design, but also the Sun, they might as well call these dsigning, manufacturing aliens gods IMO )

Well, it turns out Kaku(as well as the agnostics from above) is not all alone in at least considering (at least, apparently and as best I can tell from the material I have been able to find about him) that there might indeed have been a designer. ( though of course, not the God of the Bible, that is just unthinkable). Even if Kaku claims it is undecidable, he appears open to the possibility, unlike many atheistic scientists. Some would say he even seems to be leaning that way, towards thinking the evidence points to such. But it seems he is not so alone.

First, does a simulation imply a simulator, i.e. a person or being performing a simulation? I believe it logically does. ... 00249.html
Off Topic
It turns out that if you ask the scientists whose job it is to probe the nature of reality, the answer is actually: Maybe.

Maybe everything that's happening is just a simulation being run on a computer by some smarter, higher order being (with a weird sense of humor).

Earlier this year, at the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History, which addressed the question of whether the universe is a simulation, the esteemed panelists took a stab at explaining how we know about that question. Depending on whether you want reality to be real or not, the answers from some panelists may be more comforting than the responses from others.

Physicist Lisa Randall, for example, said that she thought the odds that the universe isn't "real" are so low as to be "effectively zero."

A satisfying answer for those who don't want to sit there puzzling out what it would mean for the universe not to be real, to be sure.

But on the other hand, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was hosting the debate, said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high."

Uh-oh? ....................................................................................................

But most physicists and philosophers agree that it's impossible to prove definitively that we don't live in a simulation and that the universe is real.

Tyson agrees, but says that he wouldn't be surprised if we were to find out somehow that someone else is responsible for our universe.

Well, sounds like Tyson is a pretty smart scientist, and I completely agree with him about " the likelihood of the universe being a simulation "may be very high."", except I would change the word "may" to is. Or, let me amend to say that I agree with him that a person(what he would probably call "a simulator", and does call "some one else") is responsible for our universe. Though I don't buy the simulation part. I do buy the "someone else is responsible for our universe" part. But probably, if he keeps looking into it he will get to where I am, and use the word "is" rather than "may". ;) Merry Christmas, every one!

Re: Science considers that a "god" did it

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:44 am
by GregD
But Tyson uses a thought experiment to imagine a life-form that's as much smarter than us as we are than dogs, chimps, or other terrestrial mammals.

"What would we look like to them? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence," he says.
Tyson has apparently gone off the rails. Dogs are FAR from blithering idiots even though they have gotten a lot stupider hanging around humans for countless generations. Wolves avoided that and are far smarter I hear. And then there was the video of an orangutan that strung up a hammock to hang out in. Is that the behavior of a blithering idiot?

Re: Science considers that a "god" did it

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:45 am
by GregD
Fat finger mistake.