I hadn't realized that you had replied. It's really quite hard for me to follow along with a cell phone.
Anyhoo.... grangram Wrote:
> “The better question may be to question the
> nature of reality itself.”
> Nice to hear from you, I couldn't have said it
> better myself Mark. The fact that Science has to
> respond to this is great but when the “Fine
> Tuning' problem arose Science had a rethink and
> then they came up with multiple universes, they
> just made them up really. But in the end they may
> have to face up to uncomfortable solutions,
> Dawkins couldn't refute the simulation concept, I
> wonder whether he has ever read Chuang Tsu'
> 'dream' allegories as the Chinese master was
> talking of the same concept, dream, illusion,
> simulation and of course Socrates' Cave allegory
> comes to mind aswell.
> Dr J b Taylor said “What are we?”...... “We
> are the life force power of the universe” she
> could say this because she experienced it, she
> knew herself. You, Ray, myself and others have had
> similar experiences not because of an Brain
> Haemorrhage but a union brought about by our
> personal growth and Grace. "
> We follow what seem different paths but we all
> seek the same union, although we may use different
> methods and names.
Say it again, brother! Naveen spoke eloquently on the same point not too long ago.
> I read a book by Dr Peter Fenwick some years ago,
> about 300 reported NDEs, he has noticed the
> different reports of these experiences for
> instance, Catholics generally saw the Virgin. I
> shan't say much about it, but leave a link to a
> interview where he covers most of his findings.
> See what you think.
> 'What really happens when you die'. Dr Fenwick.
> 59.28 mins
I will look at the video, but here is another thing that Mr. Dawkins MUST agree to: that it is virtual certainty, based on the fact of our existence, that there is intelligent life in the universe and probably an abundance of it, intelligence that is much greater than ours.
I say this because we arrived in the final minute of Carl Sagan's Cosmic Calendar, on the equivalent of 11:59 pm on December 31st. If the Milky Way has 100 billion stars, with 10 planets per star, then we are already looking at a trillion planets in our local galaxy alone. At this point is already the height of geocentric arrogance to say that we are likely the only planet with intelligence life. But at 1 in a trillion chance odds, we should already be strongly doubting that we are alone.
Looking wider, "Hubble reveals an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves." Extrapolating further, we are looking at 1 trillion times 200 billion planets. Nobody needs the Drake equation to see what this infers, and I would bet that Mr. Dawkins would strongly agree: Even when we factor God out of the equation, it remains a virtual certainty that we are not alone, if we wish to reduce the fact of our species' existence to random happenstance.
If one can imagine a 2 followed by 23 zeros, or 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, that's what we're dealing with. These kinds of numbers are VASTLY beyond what a criminal court would require in a DNA match to establish the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold. And so, if we defer to such numbers there it really makes no sense to not apply the same style of reasoning elsewhere. To apply a double standard is an example of cognitive dissonance.
On to the futility of us trying to suggest what such ETs are capable of:
A species who was born 3 Cosmic Calendar months before us will be about 3-4 billion years older than us. So would their learning curve, if they managed to survive. If there's one thing that most people can agree on already, a mere 400 years into the Scientific Revolution, it is that we don't know what we are capable of AND that we expect to be continued to blown away by emerging technologies.
It is breathtaking to think of how much more advanced we Earthlings will be in 10,000 years, let alone 3.5 billion years. More to the point, our very extreme position on Sagan's Cosmic Calendar also very strong infers that the universes other intelligent species are MUCH older and more advanced that we are, for all of our 21st century science.
And so, the idea of simulated "universes" should at least be considered a possibility, if only because some ETs may have eventually acquired such technology.
Personally, I don't agree with the general idea, although I will certainly grant that it is certainly possible. For me, Malcolm, it's just that our known reality in many ways does reflect a computer program, when we drill down to its basics, rather than what greets the eye only (which is akin to only considering the surface of a web page, and NOT the underlying source code.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Sep-19 20:40 by Poster Boy.