Multiverse?, A simulation ? Nah---Only In Some SciFi Minds AndHollywood Perhaps

nightbat wrote


Ray Vingnutte wrote:

Two or three years ago I came across these ideas, at first I thought oh
yeah, come on, but you know it has sort of grown on me. As Hoyle was
supposedly once to have said ' it's a put-up job' referring to the
universe.

The more I learn about the universe the more it makes me wonder, this is
a put-up job isn't it?.


nightbat

Well Ray, from a theoretical Sir Fred Hoyle sci fi steady
state one perhaps versus from a nightbat formidable basic disturbed
multi overlapping field one trying to normalize, but in either case, the
former nullifying because of energy's nature. Now if scientist's could
ascertain cause of outside force to explain original imputed non uniform
force impetus or equal or greater neutralizing force potential, no
outside designer is necessary. Sir Hoyle was a great astrophysicist,
mathematician, sci fi theorist and with some scientific associates
formulated a great many valuable interesting papers, publications, and
observations including to be within limits of steady state premise. But
the Universe is not Einstein cosmological constant static, or single all
originating point energy negating Big Bang, despite cosmic background
radiation, or in a Hoyle and Co's. proposed steady state condition, but
a nightbat constant flex or disturbed momentum one.

I know, then when does the scientific peer reviewed paper or multi
interest addressed exciting books come out to the local bookstore
nearest you? When does the World finally get the GUT that makes easy
reading sense, so insightful Double-A and the rest of the star gazers
can sleep better? Why did this simple premise miss the great minds of
some of the most enlightened scientist's of the 20th century?

Well for one, who took unanimous usenet posters seriously, and who has
the time to appease the formal most demanding main stream process when
you're so busy applying your working model to further discovery? Who
wants to be made an authority with it's famous Einstein's Nobel and
reported curse of lost of privacy and free research time? So why did
they miss it, they were just as theoretically busy as nightbat but more
inclined to academic plus fame acceptance notoriety, formal book
publishing schedules and demands, and most, ha, ha, just didn't make it
into the 21st century.



the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:11:42 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote


Ray Vingnutte wrote:

Two or three years ago I came across these ideas, at first I thought
oh yeah, come on, but you know it has sort of grown on me. As Hoyle
was supposedly once to have said ' it's a put-up job' referring to
the universe.

The more I learn about the universe the more it makes me wonder,
this is a put-up job isn't it?.


nightbat

Well Ray, from a theoretical Sir Fred Hoyle sci fi steady
state one perhaps versus from a nightbat formidable basic disturbed
multi overlapping field one trying to normalize, but in either case,
the former nullifying because of energy's nature. Now if scientist's
could ascertain cause of outside force to explain original imputed non
uniform force impetus or equal or greater neutralizing force
potential, no outside designer is necessary. Sir Hoyle was a great
astrophysicist, mathematician, sci fi theorist and with some
scientific associates formulated a great many valuable interesting
papers, publications, and observations including to be within limits
of steady state premise. But the Universe is not Einstein cosmological
constant static, or single all originating point energy negating Big
Bang, despite cosmic background radiation, or in a Hoyle and Co's.
proposed steady state condition, but a nightbat constant flex or
disturbed momentum one.

I know, then when does the scientific peer reviewed paper or multi
interest addressed exciting books come out to the local bookstore
nearest you? When does the World finally get the GUT that makes easy
reading sense, so insightful Double-A and the rest of the star gazers
can sleep better? Why did this simple premise miss the great minds of
some of the most enlightened scientist's of the 20th century?

Well for one, who took unanimous usenet posters seriously, and who has
the time to appease the formal most demanding main stream process when
you're so busy applying your working model to further discovery? Who
wants to be made an authority with it's famous Einstein's Nobel and
reported curse of lost of privacy and free research time? So why did
they miss it, they were just as theoretically busy as nightbat but
more inclined to academic plus fame acceptance notoriety, formal book
publishing schedules and demands, and most, ha, ha, just didn't make
it into the 21st century.



the nightbat


Ray
I'm sorry but I have to say I don't really know what you are talking
about or what you are saying.

Perhaps if I post a link to the sort of stuff I have found very
interesting and that may lead in some future time to my requiring
the services of a Psychiatrist may help.. Don't read or follow up on any
of this stuff in the link below if you are of a fragile disposition, I
thought I could handle it at first, I thought I would know when to stop
but I can't handle it at all..I keep going back there looking for
updates etc.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

nightbat

Don't let it concern you Ray, then let it go, for the most
astute scientific theoretical minds just couldn't grasp it either. But I
agree with you about sci fi simulation scenarios, especially
philosophically analyzed, and any sci fi orientated material in general,
it is mostly non real world based or actualized and therefore lay person
perplexing. I am a champion therefore against sci fi when not labeled as
so because it does have the tendency to while stimulate some hardier
flexible minds, possibly confusing, frightening, and corrupting others.
They don't call higher theoretical physics, abstract math, complex
topological space mapping deep waters for no reason. It is noted, many a
beautiful mind has been sometimes lost in alluring but dangerous deep
logical and analytical attempted formulation.

Forget attempted cross subject discipline treatments, look what happened
to poor poster Shastry, leave them to the sci fi and Hollywood book and
screen writers. If you find them interesting, as many are, take care to
view them cautiously, remembering the sci fi subjects are hypothetical
concepts, not mathematically proofed or present real world based.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:32:54 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 02:11:42 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote


Ray Vingnutte wrote:

Two or three years ago I came across these ideas, at first I
thought oh yeah, come on, but you know it has sort of grown on
me. As Hoyle was supposedly once to have said ' it's a put-up
job' referring to the universe.

The more I learn about the universe the more it makes me wonder,
this is a put-up job isn't it?.


nightbat

Well Ray, from a theoretical Sir Fred Hoyle sci fi
steady
state one perhaps versus from a nightbat formidable basic
disturbed multi overlapping field one trying to normalize, but in
either case, the former nullifying because of energy's nature. Now
if scientist's could ascertain cause of outside force to explain
original imputed non uniform force impetus or equal or greater
neutralizing force potential, no outside designer is necessary.
Sir Hoyle was a great astrophysicist, mathematician, sci fi
theorist and with some scientific associates formulated a great
many valuable interesting papers, publications, and observations
including to be within limits of steady state premise. But the
Universe is not Einstein cosmological constant static, or single
all originating point energy negating Big Bang, despite cosmic
background radiation, or in a Hoyle and Co's. proposed steady
state condition, but a nightbat constant flex or disturbed
momentum one.

I know, then when does the scientific peer reviewed paper or multi
interest addressed exciting books come out to the local bookstore
nearest you? When does the World finally get the GUT that makes
easy reading sense, so insightful Double-A and the rest of the
star gazers can sleep better? Why did this simple premise miss the
great minds of some of the most enlightened scientist's of the
20th century?

Well for one, who took unanimous usenet posters seriously, and who
has the time to appease the formal most demanding main stream
process when you're so busy applying your working model to further
discovery? Who wants to be made an authority with it's famous
Einstein's Nobel and reported curse of lost of privacy and free
research time? So why did they miss it, they were just as
theoretically busy as nightbat but more inclined to academic plus
fame acceptance notoriety, formal book publishing schedules and
demands, and most, ha, ha, just didn't make it into the 21st
century.



the nightbat


Ray
I'm sorry but I have to say I don't really know what you are talking
about or what you are saying.

Perhaps if I post a link to the sort of stuff I have found very
interesting and that may lead in some future time to my requiring
the services of a Psychiatrist may help.. Don't read or follow up on
any of this stuff in the link below if you are of a fragile
disposition, I thought I could handle it at first, I thought I would
know when to stop but I can't handle it at all..I keep going back
there looking for updates etc.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

nightbat

Don't let it concern you Ray, then let it go, for the most
astute scientific theoretical minds just couldn't grasp it either. But
I agree with you about sci fi simulation scenarios, especially
philosophically analyzed, and any sci fi orientated material in
general, it is mostly non real world based or actualized and therefore
lay person perplexing. I am a champion therefore against sci fi when
not labeled as so because it does have the tendency to while stimulate
some hardier flexible minds, possibly confusing, frightening, and
corrupting others. They don't call higher theoretical physics,
abstract math, complex topological space mapping deep waters for no
reason. It is noted, many a beautiful mind has been sometimes lost in
alluring but dangerous deep logical and analytical attempted
formulation.

Forget attempted cross subject discipline treatments, look what
happened to poor poster Shastry, leave them to the sci fi and
Hollywood book and screen writers. If you find them interesting, as
many are, take care to view them cautiously, remembering the sci fi
subjects are hypothetical concepts, not mathematically proofed or
present real world based.


the nightbat


Ray
I thought pretty much the same two or three years ago, Bostrom I
thought, you are an idiot. I was happy with that thought for several
months, then one day I sat down to watch a video about time travel that
I had recorded a few weeks prior. It was very good, interesting and
entertaining at the same time. Drifted somewhat in the middle when a
couple of loons were brought on which seems mandatory now with this
sort of documentary, one said he could time travel with what looked
like a piece of wire on his head and what looked like the internals of
a domestic telephone on the desk. Needless to say his demonstration
didn't work. Then the documentary got back in good style and a chap
was talking, I heard myself saying yeah he is right you know, that
makes sense, then his name came up on the screen like they do in these
documentary's and lo and behold it was none other than Dr. Nick
Bostrom!. Then Paul Davies got in on the act, it was good stuff, it
sort of made sense, much more sense than I could have expected.

And it is not all Bostrom's fault either, Davies is still going strong

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...&oneclick=true

When you read this you can't really disagree with him, well I can't
anyway's.



nightbat

Ray, I went to your reference site and lo and behold it was
about sci fi Davies rattling on about multiverse theory. It also
mentions sci fi Sir Fred Hoyle and where he arrived at that put up job
reference. Ray, I told you, don't believe a word of it as fact, it is
all hypothetical science fiction, not real. The fellows mentioned were
and are known for weaving tales of pure fantasy for the buying book and
movie public. There is only one observed immense Universe with many many
galaxies not other Universes. This is all a spin off from failed String
and now taken over M theory sci fi, and why I object to the sci fi folks
passing this stuff off as real or possible. Not true, since they are at
a lost for figuring out the true Universe they start making up premises
to make their hopelessly lost and sci fi concoctions fit the
constricting or missing data.

As soon as you hear multiverse, worm holes, time travel, black holes,
tears in the fabric of space time, etc. run, or sit back and laugh at
their sci fi hype. A serious scientist or researcher will explain these
misconceptions as pure fantasy, and only rely on mathematically proofed
or observed scientifically peer correlated presentations. The black hole
enigma or paradox alone has done more damage to folks minds then ever
anticipated by Dr. Einstein when first presented as an curious
mathematical anomaly. I have given the resolution over the net science
newsgroups to hopefully dispel its long apparent negative effects on
sensitive logical minds in search of the final answer or solution. Sci
fi is fine if labeled so, but not when it is passed off as real, or as
non theory based, and misreported as certified respectable scientist
approved to gullible impressionable minds.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:33:46 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

Ray
I must admit I don't like the sci fi link to this subject and I think
it is overplayed. I don't watch much sci fi, I only have access to three
tv channels and they are not that good for the serious documentary types
anymore. I have not seen the matrix and probably will not see it until
it is on one of the three channels and even then if there is something
better on, unlikely I know, I'll probably watch the other anyway.

nightbat
As soon as you hear multiverse, worm holes, time travel, black holes,
tears in the fabric of space time, etc. run, or sit back and laugh at
their sci fi hype. A serious scientist or researcher will explain
these misconceptions as pure fantasy, and only rely on mathematically
proofed or observed scientifically peer correlated presentations. The
black hole enigma or paradox alone has done more damage to folks minds
then ever anticipated by Dr. Einstein when first presented as an
curious mathematical anomaly. I have given the resolution over the net
science newsgroups to hopefully dispel its long apparent negative
effects on sensitive logical minds in search of the final answer or
solution. Sci fi is fine if labeled so, but not when it is passed off
as real, or as non theory based, and misreported as certified
respectable scientist approved to gullible impressionable minds.

I do think if you can break the sci fi link you can see that these are
serious people with serious ideas, even if they do seem outrageous at
first. I don't think this is sci fi. There are serious questions behind
this and serious attempts to offer an explanation.

Well just my thoughts anyway.

nightbat

Ray, you contradict yourself by saying " I do think if you can
break the sci fi link " you can see that " these are serious people with
serious ideas ", and then " I don't think this is sci fi ". And your
astute assessment " that there are serious questions behind this and
serious attempts to offer an explanation " is correct, but not as sci fi
dependent presented or no evidence contradictory ones.

Therefore, extremely seriously attempted imaginary sci fi is sci fi, not
evidence based science. Try not to let it confuse your apparent
questioning logical mind.


the nightbat

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 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
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.

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.


the nightbat

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

nightbat

Additional net link for those wishing a background on this
discussion.

See:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...ndex 925.html

Hope this article about cross discipline sci fi treatment by philosopher
Dr. Nick Bostrom attempts at hyper reality handling and Hollywood movie
basis presentation.


the nightbat

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

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:51:54 -0500
nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

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.


Ray
Well this is the crux of the matter isn't it, what is real?, how can you
be sure that a computer is not a true reality, I don't mean the type of
computing we have today, computers of the future will I am sure bare
little or no relation to what we know as computers today.

nightbat

Ray, computers are real man made machines like your tv, radio,
juice mixer, toaster, etc. Humans are not machines or in abstract
theorist hypothesized computer simulations for they are bio life forms,
with certain abilities of mental processing, original thinking capacity,
free willed, cognitive thinking organisms. Machines can only do what
they have been programed to do, even into the far future with improved
human mental mimicking and memory handling, with or without energized
power plug, they will remain a pile of programed lifeless inorganic
matter.


Ray
How can you
or any of us be sure that that is not going to be the true reality
one day. Can you really be sure that it has not already happened out
there somewhere?. Can you really nail your colors to the pole and be
that absolutely sure?.


nightbat

Of course Ray, apparently reality confusion has happened
already, and you're a prime example of it. Most sensible folks however
have and rely on general co comparing anchoring systems, to determine
what reality is. For instance scientists and researcher's rely only on
co affirmed observations, mathematical proofs, and established accepted
frame evidence comparative analysis ( Standard Model ). Fantasy and sci
fi and artificial computer simulation doesn't meet any of this criteria.
Why, because it is artificially man made only to reflect what it is
programed to do. Your TV is not true reality, it is an electric set
programed to receive signals and reprocess them so you can view them, as
reflected entertainment including games, educational, commercial shows,
or live and recorded news reporting. It is not true reality because it
is a machine consisting of logic circuit boards and other components
designed for that purpose only. What you're viewing can appear very real
but it is always a reproduction of man made or actual events. Same with
a logic circuit board based computer program simulation, not real but
excellent human inputted limited processing and program handling.

Ray
On a quantum level nothing seems real, take common sense with you down
to a quantum level and you have had it, you will get no where. On a
quantum level there is no common sense

nightbat

On the physics quantum level you are in the sub micro
uncertainty field state level, purely governed by known effects because
you're dealing with invisible particles. Again mentioned frame effect
anchoring but more difficult because of the quantum nature of the fast
moving invisible particles. Common macro based framed sense is not
applicable in the realm of quantum physics because only their evidence
effects are. Very much as the micro germ theory was non per face value
visual frame common sense based because of the invisible nature of sub
microscopic germ organisms. But via scientific vigorous method
application and theoretical deduction via cross environment data,
attending health record care specialists, and patient pathology effects,
they were deduced before even being able to be actually examined until
the invention of the microscope. It was painstaking evidence that paved
the way into the quantum world not fantasy.


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.


Ray
Can you really be sure of that?, I mean really really sure that one day
it could be the true reality, and as Bostron and co would suggest maybe
it has already happened.

nightbat

Fantasy computer virtual reality is already here, but it is not
true reality because it is a man made machine based artificial one. Can
you tell the difference between natural real orange juice or man made
processed one? Or any other man made processed foods, many times
probably not, hence need for frame truth in processing food labels. What
is organically grown food versus artificial chemical added, genetically
hybrid altered, and pesticide sprayed? Frame label basing, evidence, so
you can help distinguish one from the other when man artificially
manipulated.



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.


Ray
I do not have any trouble distinguishing Hollywood from reality, but
I know many people do.

nightbat

Correct Ray, because you know Hollywood is fantasy frame based
so that alone puts you on comparative true understood reality frame
basis verses simulated one.


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.

Ray
I am the one who said sci fi should be kept out of this, you are the one
who keeps going on about sci fi, you are the one who keeps linking this
with sci fi and Hollywood not I. I am not interested in Hollywood's
version of what is or may be,Hollywood is bunkum.

nightbat

You keep requesting that what is sci fi be kept out of what is
real science, yet you apparently accept man made computer virtual
reality or simulation as potentially real and it is not, it is
artificial man made reality. Just as string and M theory is not based on
any real correlating evidence frame, it is all man made abstract
theoretical mathematical derived hypothesis, and without correlating
frame evidence or observation, therefore, non real world based.


Ray
You keep going on about reality, but it is only our interpretaion
of what is reality or not, how do we or you or anyone know for
sure what the true reality is?.

nightbat

Ray, it is you who keeps trying to get clarification of what is
true reality and making a defensive case for man made computer generated
virtual reality presented and co affirmed by some theorists as possibly
being extended and applied to our real one, and it is not. Forget
referenced and example Hollywood in this discussion, computer generated
reality is pure machine generated fantasy for roll playing and logic
preprogram handling. You also extend your argument into reality
questioning based on reasoning if man can create artificial virtual
computer reality then how do we know if true reality isn't a game
sequence itself? Because of co peer anchor frame basing, evidence proof
requirement, and in the absence of it, it is pure fantasy and sci fi.
Now you know why I'm a champion of need for cautionary sci fi labeling
to avoid possibility of more and more general public human true reality
disruption and corruption (especially of adult dependent children) via
increasing artificial based imputed and promoted non labeled
formulations and further non evidence spin off framing.

It has been fun talking with you Ray, Ray, Ray, sorry must have been a
program glitch in my imputed logic sensors, ha, ha, ha, it happens
sometimes since I am computer generated artificial intelligence not.

ponder on,
the nightbat

Ray Vingnutte wrote:

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:27:31 -0500
nightbat wrote:



Ray Vingnutte wrote:
As I said earlier, I and people like Bostrom are not talking about or
referring to the sort of things we call or know as computers that we
have today. When it comes to being programmed well, if you go back to
the earliest life forms that evolved on earth they were indeed like
that, even today is a single celled organism a thinking conscious
entity or is it simply following a set of rules?, can it make what it
thinks are self aware decisions.
It is suggested we evolved from that, so how can you or anyone be sure
that we are not behaving in a similar fashion but on a larger scale.


nightbat wrote

Ha, ha, did you yourself decide Ray, and not wait into the
potentially human programed and generated alternate molded far future,
to answer these posts or any others or was that just preprogrammed in
your mental thinking or DNA as a given? The present reality and future
belongs to the brave willing to face it, not sci fi it and think it's
just a non free will put up job in some designers mind. Living reality
versus man made one is after all states of reality one real and the
other man made artificial. Truth in labeling, anchoring systems, will
help as man learns to create and further extend his own altered man made
realities.

Ray
You are basing that whole argument on the reality that we call reality
or rather the reality that fits nicely with your observation of the
environment around you. You then call that the true reality.

The problem you now face Nightbat is that the odds against you being
correct are staggeringly set against you.

nightbat

First there are many many real realities, for instance real
science based, political, social, economic, religious, military, etc.
versus man made virtual or artificial ones etc. Living cosmic reality,
physically and quantum energy based is yet to be fully comprehended.
Anyone who states they presently know the full universe picture is a sci
fi theorist, is substance influenced, or under some personal cloud of
great illusion. The best that brilliant scientist's and researchers can
do is look out onto this immense universe and ponder. Theoretically
apply what they and co peers have studied and learned and comparative
mutually observe to what presents before them.


Ray
If we cannot be sure what is real and what is not real on a quantum
level and we cannot, no matter how much you dislike that, it is true,
then how sure can you be that on a macro level the universe is not
just the same, you cannot be 100 percent sure. People like Deutsch
and many others would argue that when you are faced with a choice
lets say at a road junction, do you turn left or right?, they would
argue it doesn't really matter because you will do both no matter which
way you think you have chosen you will do both. Does that sound as
though you have free will? and which is the real reality?, you turning
left or you turning right?. That is what apparently happens on a quantum
level, so how sure can you be it does not happen on a macro level, in
short you cannot.

nightbat

Because the quantum states are microscopic in nature but we
detect and know they are there due to their effects on the macro one.
When a human is presented with a choice he does have free will, and that
is the difference, and they or you and I may travel down one road or
another by choice and never come through that same road again. Lower
species and degree intelligent forms follow their nature evolved
instincts, not higher evolved intelligence and free will based ones. It
is stimulus for the most part stemming and governed by environment,
overcoming limitations, or adaptive positive negative coping strategies.


Ray
I can only say it for a third time, no one is saying that the computers
of today are real thinking machines.

nightbat

Good, for a returned third time at least you admittedly
understand the difference and clarification will remain true for the
future, because what is man man is not nature or quantum made. Affecting
yes, as all quantum effects can be detected but not ever substituted one
for the other.


Ray
For the fourth time no one is saying that the computers of today are
the true reality or are thinking for themselves.

nightbat

For the fourth time Ray, back at you, and keep repeating if
necessary until it finally registers that all man made artificial
thinking machines are not real thinking for themselves or ever can be
because they are man made only programed machines.

Ray
For the fith time......oh bugger, I will just take solace in the
sure knowledge that the odds are against you Nightbat. Take care, especially
if you are anywhere near a hurrican!.

nightbat

The universe for the fifth return time is governed by reality of
eternal energy in a disturbed field state. Earth based hurricanes are
governed by that reflected disturbed chaotic momentum without set
determined uniform thinking possibility unlike that of a human's. A
hurricane's path is unpredictable due to it's immense built-up power and
cross applicable environment effecting forces, all non free will
derivative. It can appear to have a mind of its own because of human non
full understanding of the multi collective forces acting on a single
presented extreme vortex wind blown entity. Let it go Ray, you or our
collective and even best dreamed up sci fi imagined future reality can
never supersede one true Earth based or entire Nature's real one. And
Just one altering real cosmic effecting event can make sure of that.
Enjoy your present really real reality for what it is, for it's unique
and historically species time line dimensionally limited.


the nightbat