nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:51:13 -0500
nightbat wrote:



Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:16:55 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:13:00 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

Ray
Well my idea of sci fi is the Hollywood type sci fi, ie unreal
and largely fantasy based. Which is why I said I don't like to
link this with sci fi. I do think there are merits in what
Bostrom and the rest put forward even if I find them strange or
odd. This is not what I would call sci fi but I accept others
may disagree.

If and when I ever see the matrix Hollywood film I am sure I
would call it sci fi.

Sorry for any confusion.

nightbat

No confusion Ray, for I understand exactly that you would
prefer
sci fi being left out of real science based presentations but they
are now actually theoretically incorporating part of them and
Hollywood non distinguishing. The movie " The Matrix " was
actually based on the no evidence multiverse sci fi super string
and M theory implying parallel universe premise.

the nightbat


Ray
Maybe I misunderstand you, or maybe we misunderstand each other. I
still don't see that super string and or M theory are or were sci
fi. If there is one thing I can feel very confident about is that
whatever comes out of Hollywood, or any other film making studio for
that matter will have very little fact or reality about it, it is
just not science. the trouble is people watch it and sadly all too
often believe what they see. I could go to town in the morning and
rent out the Matrix, I could have done that at any time since the
film became available, but I have not simply because I'm not really
interested, oh I'm sure it's mildly entertaining and so forth but
well you know.....

nightbat

The key word here is evidence, science needs it and is based
on
it. While on the other hand sci fi is based on purely theoretical
speculation, mathematical or otherwise. Hollywood is based on make
believe entertaining fantasy so multiverse premise extension was right
up their ally.


Ray
The multiverse idea didn't come about through sci fi, it is a
serious attempt to explain what we cannot yet explain, the same for
string and M theory. It is not surprising these ideas seem weird,
they are weird, yet what is more weird than quantum theory/mechanics
yet no one says that is sci fi.

nightbat

Quantum theory/mechanics is effects evidence based on the
Einstein working applied relativistic mathematical formulations and
the photo electric effect. The only thing using your terminology "
weird " is that its particles reside in the sub micro invisible
quantum and Heisenberg uncertainty realm states. Multiverse premise is
no evidence theory originating therefore fantasy sci fi based.

Ray
Whether there are multiverses or not I don't know and
no one does for sure but is it not wrong to dismiss it outright.

nightbat

No one in the serious science research disciplines dismisses
anything out right, the multiverse premise however negates itself via
the absence of any observationally confirmed or co peer substantiated
evidence. Multi string 10 and M theory's 11 dimension+ basis to date
has no correlating basis in real world reality or observation. It is
all purely mathematical hypothetical mixed-up overlapping value based
speculation, therefore, purely evidence absence and mentally derived
sci fi based. If a researcher has nothing to base his derived or
mathematical deduced " non proofed " or frame concept in the absence
of any observational, mathematical proofed formulations, or co peer
affirmed evidence, it is pure fantasy, make believe, and therefore sci
fi.



Ray
The observational evidence is *this* universe,

nightbat

Yes Ray, for only " one " observed confirmed Universe not any
sci fi imaginary others.





Ray
Once
our ancestors thought we were so special that the earth was the be
all and end all of the universe, then over time it dawned on us that
the universe was slightly more than that, and then again the
universe got even bigger and we got ever smaller within it, why
should we now think that this universe is the be all and end all?,
it would seem rather naive of us to assume outright that this is
indeed the only universe and dismiss the possibility that there are
others or indeed an infinite number of others.

nightbat

Again Ray, key word is need for evidence. No one assumes
anything, that I'm aware of, in the serious science research
discipline arenas. In the fun sci fi world, on the other hand,
everything and anything can and is assumed.



Ray
And if it turns out that the best explanation or theory that best
describes our universe turns out to rely on the existence of other
universes existing then thats the way it will be.

nightbat

The best theory which describes the working Universe (Presently
the Standard Model ) is the one most applicable and useful to real
world application. One that is supported by confirmed co peer
observation, evidence, and factual applied results not pseudo assumed
non working fantasy make-up. Without confirmed observation or co peer
acknowledged and supported evidence everything else remains pure
speculation and sci fi hype.


Ray
The standard model falls way short of explaining the universe, sure at
this time it is probably the best model but by no means is it capable
of explaining everything. And there lies the problem, it would seem to
me and indeed others that what we perceive as the universe is not
quite the whole story, far from it. Whether it is Bostrom, M theory
or whatever it does seem to me that the trend in thinking is going
the way of multiple universes. Bostrom and the like just take it to
the extremes and thus you get the sci fi links to it. But I still
maintain it is not sci fi.

nightbat

Ray, please stay with us, multiverse, parallel universes,
computer game sequence generated virtual reality is pure and simple, not
real. You can fantasy role model play with them but they are not real
world based. The movie the Matrix is fantasy based. The trend in
thinking is and always will be to distinguish between fantasy and what
is real. Just because a few abstract thinkers or mathematicians imagine
concepts does not make them real in the absence of proof or evidence.
Don't let their no evidence based sci fi indications fool you into
believing there sci fi into sci fact, there is a big difference.



Look Ray, you can take this to the bank, there is only one
observed confirmed Universe, anyone tells you otherwise, in the
absence of some supporting observation or co peer accepted evidence is
simply spouting attention grabbing and entertaining mental fantasy
based sci fi.

Ray
I know there is only one confirmed universe, but if the existence of
this universe can only be best explained by the proposed multiverse
or at least the need for the existence of other universes then that
is the point of my above statement.

nightbat

Good Ray, and the Universe is a very immense complex place and
just because it presently escapes scientist's and researchers full
logical and mathematical understanding does not give validity for cross
discipline or sci fi theorists and presenters to therefore be relied on
or taken seriously to fill in the blanks. Evidence is what separates
true good science from fantasy and the Hollywood crowd. The Universe
does not conform to human fantasy simply because the human mind
presently can't fathom it. The Universe is physically self perpetuating
not fantasy based. Computer generated programs are just that,
simulations, while the real Universe is what permits it.



Take David Deutsch and his work with quantum computing, is that sci fi?
no it is not, but I'm sure you will say it is. Hollywood would but then
Hollywood is not science. Hollywood cannot even get recent history right
so I am very sure Hollywood will not get the future right either.

nightbat

Quantum computing is just that, human programed sequencing.
Whether virtual game programing or program analyzing and reporting. A
computer is a human engineered machine tool, not a true reality, never
can be. Artificial intelligence is artificial, not real. Very much as an
man made game can appear real to a person or child, but it is not nor
ever will be, real. A machine, artificial object, or virtual reality
sequence can appear very real but it is an simulation, not to be
confused with what is real or reality. Don't go to Hollywood if you have
trouble distinguishing between reality and make believe, they don't call
it magic for nothing. That which is not evidence based, mathematically
proofed, or observationally co peer confirmed is imaginary and sci fi
illusory. Don't worry apparently millions are having the same problem of
distinguishing between very realistic fantasy game role playing or
artificial intelligence and actual reality.


the nightbat