NationStates

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:38 pm**

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:
Thats my issue, I dont think we even have the capability to explain it. Beyond what we are told by God.

But God hasnt told us anything about the world or universe directly what we do have is writings by people who claim they talked to God. But if I said I talked to God and he said that I was the Chosen Prophet and that my followers would be granted true salvation you would call me crazy, right?

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:39 pm**

[/Raspberry] No. Here's proof:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0104033
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403047
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
http://www.thoughtcast.org/casts/the-en ... ly-topics/.
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/dhm11/MultiverseRees.html
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... l=us&pli=1 (requires Google Docs to open.) You can search "Universe is spawning other universes" and download PDF file.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/g ... 205-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Contains String Theories that can split universes. I don't CLAIM that they WILL. I claim the the follies of the universe make it possible, and LIKELY.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:40 pm**

Mathematica Numerica wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Mathematica Numerica wrote:The parallel universe is around us, having variations of me, and you. And your toilet.

Well that's just loony.

Nah, I picked this up from a lecture from our physics professor.

No one gets my jokes...

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:41 pm**

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:
Mathematica Numerica wrote:
No Names Left Damn It wrote:I disagree, as I don't believe in parallel universes.

You'd be surprised. Physics contains all that. It isn't BELIEF. It is either "Fact or Fiction".

Right. But dont you agree that what we take as FACT currently may be fiction later?

There is only one reality, no amount of evidence, "facts" or belief can change reality. If the evidence contradicts reality, then the evidence is flawed, not the reality.

There is no objective reality though. At least that a person can observe due to limitations on human perspective.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:43 pm**

No. We judge it as a fact, but IT IS already FICTION, if it is, that is. Wow, I'm saying is a lot today.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:46 pm**

Mathematica Numerica wrote:[/Raspberry] No. Here's proof:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0104033
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403047
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
http://www.thoughtcast.org/casts/the-en ... ly-topics/.
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/dhm11/MultiverseRees.html
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... l=us&pli=1 (requires Google Docs to open.) You can search "Universe is spawning other universes" and download PDF file.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/g ... 205-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Contains String Theories that can split universes. I don't CLAIM that they WILL. I claim the the follies of the universe make it possible, and LIKELY.

Read your sources carefully. None of them provide evidence for the Many worlds interpretation. It's not even a scientific theory becuae it is currently unfalsifiable.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:50 pm**

Gift-of-god wrote:
Mathematica Numerica wrote:[/Raspberry] No. Here's proof:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0104033
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403047
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
http://www.thoughtcast.org/casts/the-en ... ly-topics/.
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/dhm11/MultiverseRees.html
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... l=us&pli=1 (requires Google Docs to open.) You can search "Universe is spawning other universes" and download PDF file.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/g ... 205-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Contains String Theories that can split universes. I don't CLAIM that they WILL. I claim the the follies of the universe make it possible, and LIKELY.

Read your sources carefully. None of them provide evidence for the Many worlds interpretation. It's not even a scientific theory becuae it is currently unfalsifiable.

Not true. The PDF files contain real evidence. If failure to comply is your game, fine, I can deal. If you ever watched History channel before, or M-Strings, you would know that it is possible, and LIKELY.
Sheesh, teens these days.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:51 pm**

Mathematica Numerica wrote:Not true. The PDF files contain real evidence. If failure to comply is your game, fine, I can deal. If you ever watched History channel before, or M-Strings, you would know that it is possible, and LIKELY.
Sheesh, teens these days.

Yo quiero ver esto terminar bien...

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:52 pm**

Gift-of-god wrote:
Mathematica Numerica wrote:[/Raspberry] No. Here's proof:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0104033
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml
http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403047
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
http://www.thoughtcast.org/casts/the-en ... ly-topics/.
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/dhm11/MultiverseRees.html
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... l=us&pli=1 (requires Google Docs to open.) You can search "Universe is spawning other universes" and download PDF file.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/g ... 205-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Contains String Theories that can split universes. I don't CLAIM that they WILL. I claim the the follies of the universe make it possible, and LIKELY.

FAIL. Does not it show many pieces of evidence?
I am a mathematician (at least classified as that while I'm in MIT, 16 years of age), and I know how this rolls.
Read your sources carefully. None of them provide evidence for the Many worlds interpretation. It's not even a scientific theory becuae it is currently unfalsifiable.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:56 pm**

Mathematica Numerica wrote:Not true. The PDF files contain real evidence. If failure to comply is your game, fine, I can deal. If you ever watched History channel before, or M-Strings, you would know that it is possible, and LIKELY.
Sheesh, teens these days.

Did you miss the part on the second page where Jane Charlton explicitly says that no one knows if these universes exist?

It's right after the part where she says it would be impossible to have any contact with these universes, by definition. Without being able to get any trace of these universes, how can there be any evidence?

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:58 pm**

Gift-of-god wrote:
Mathematica Numerica wrote:Not true. The PDF files contain real evidence. If failure to comply is your game, fine, I can deal. If you ever watched History channel before, or M-Strings, you would know that it is possible, and LIKELY.
Sheesh, teens these days.

Did you miss the part on the second page where Jane Charlton explicitly says that no one knows if these universes exist?

It's right after the part where she says it would be impossible to have any contact with these universes, by definition. Without being able to get any trace of these universes, how can there be any evidence?

No, I did not. The NO ONE? *Laughs*.

Now, did you miss theoretical physics, lesson 39 in MIT?

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:03 pm**

Mathematica Numerica wrote:
Gift-of-god wrote:
Mathematica Numerica wrote:Not true. The PDF files contain real evidence. If failure to comply is your game, fine, I can deal. If you ever watched History channel before, or M-Strings, you would know that it is possible, and LIKELY.
Sheesh, teens these days.

Did you miss the part on the second page where Jane Charlton explicitly says that no one knows if these universes exist?

It's right after the part where she says it would be impossible to have any contact with these universes, by definition. Without being able to get any trace of these universes, how can there be any evidence?

No, I did not. The NO ONE? *Laughs*.

Now, did you miss theoretical physics, lesson 39 in MIT?

I didn't need to take it to point out that you're wrong, did I?

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:04 pm**

I just said it is POSSIBLE and it is likely.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:11 pm**

Mathematica Numerica wrote:I just said it is POSSIBLE and it is likely.

Oh. Silly me I thought that when you said this:

Mathematica Numerica wrote:....
It (the universe) is reproducing right now...

you actually meant that it may be reproducing right now.

And when you said this:

Mathematica Numerica wrote:
No Names Left Damn It wrote:I disagree, as I don't believe in parallel universes.

You'd be surprised. Physics contains all that. It isn't BELIEF. It is either "Fact or Fiction".

you seemed to be suggesting that the existence of multiple universes is a fact, as opposed to fiction or belief. But since we have no evidence for it, it cannot be fact, can it?

But I have obviously misread you.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:12 pm**

Looks like Mr. MIT is in a little hot water now, eh? :hug:

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:12 pm**

I usually believe that, because I use a lot of calculations every day, and it seems more plausible.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:16 pm**

Mathematica Numerica wrote:I usually believe that, because I use a lot of calculations every day, and it seems more plausible.

I note you use the word 'believe'.

I thought you had said earlier that physics contains no belief.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:16 pm**

is this the same math proof method that mathmeticians used that justified the creation of "i", you know SQRT(-1).

Seems to me, that when a math guy needs a PhD, he INVENTS new math to make a point. That new MATH "PROVES" strings, parallel universes, aliens, singularities (come on!?!?), etc.

This is so like "frictionless planes" in physics.

I'm not saying that Math is wrong, but come on, how much more math do we need to INVENT to destroy God?

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:18 pm**

Mathematica Numerica wrote:Not true. The PDF files contain real evidence. If failure to comply is your game, fine, I can deal. If you ever watched History channel before, or M-Strings, you would know that it is possible, and LIKELY.
Sheesh, teens these days.

Using History Channel as a source is like using religion to prove God. When you have a vested interest in keeping people interested, you're much more likely to twist something to make it interesting (look at the evolution of history). Heck, even science channel is blatantly wrong fairly often. But its fun as hell to watch them drop stuff off buildings.

Given string theory is not proven, and as of late there is a lot of doubt, I gotta say, its possible, but at the moment doesn't look likely.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:18 pm**

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I'm not saying that Math is wrong, but come on, how much more math do we need to INVENT to destroy God?

Math doesn't disprove God. Logic did that long ago.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:19 pm**

Enadail wrote:
Mathematica Numerica wrote:Not true. The PDF files contain real evidence. If failure to comply is your game, fine, I can deal. If you ever watched History channel before, or M-Strings, you would know that it is possible, and LIKELY.
Sheesh, teens these days.

Using History Channel as a source is like using religion to prove God. When you have a vested interest in keeping people interested, you're much more likely to twist something to make it interesting (look at the evolution of history). Heck, even science channel is blatantly wrong fairly often. But its fun as hell to watch them drop stuff off buildings.

Given string theory is not proven, and as of late there is a lot of doubt, I gotta say, its possible, but at the moment doesn't look likely.

So you cant trust any sources? Think about it, arethere any truly reliable sources to provide TRUTH and FACTS that are unbiased?

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:20 pm**

Gift-of-god wrote:
Mathematica Numerica wrote:I usually believe that, because I use a lot of calculations every day, and it seems more plausible.

I note you use the word 'believe'.

I thought you had said earlier that physics contains no belief.

This isn't physics. Also, "I believe"- This is theoretical physics. It's obviously gonna be a calculated belief!

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:21 pm**

Enadail wrote:
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I'm not saying that Math is wrong, but come on, how much more math do we need to INVENT to destroy God?

Math doesn't disprove God. Logic did that long ago.

Heh, but what is Logic if not math? Also, logic can be flawed.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:22 pm**

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:is this the same math proof method that mathmeticians used that justified the creation of "i", you know SQRT(-1).

Seems to me, that when a math guy needs a PhD, he INVENTS new math to make a point. That new MATH "PROVES" strings, parallel universes, aliens, singularities (come on!?!?), etc.

This is so like "frictionless planes" in physics.

I'm not saying that Math is wrong, but come on, how much more math do we need to INVENT to destroy God?

You can't invent a math that isn't accurate. If it wasn't accurate, no one would use it, and it wouldn't be called math.

Posted: **Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:22 pm**

Enadail wrote:
Mathematica Numerica wrote:Not true. The PDF files contain real evidence. If failure to comply is your game, fine, I can deal. If you ever watched History channel before, or M-Strings, you would know that it is possible, and LIKELY.
Sheesh, teens these days.

Using History Channel as a source is like using religion to prove God. When you have a vested interest in keeping people interested, you're much more likely to twist something to make it interesting (look at the evolution of history). Heck, even science channel is blatantly wrong fairly often. But its fun as hell to watch them drop stuff off buildings.

Given string theory is not proven, and as of late there is a lot of doubt, I gotta say, its possible, but at the moment doesn't look likely.

Yeah, and the History channel used a lot more sources than I did.

M-strings, MAN!Do the calculations!

NationStates

God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?

Re: God exists?