• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Universe Is Supernatural

INT21 said:
Mungoman,

Looking around some of the other threads, there should be no need for you to worry about being sent down.

A bloke it entitled to to his opinion.

S'truth mate.

I do think that we have reached the point with this thread where there really is no point in carrying it on.

I for one don't mind people who completely disagree with my point of view. But they need to do it with some class.

Frideswide,

...and as the law must hold please may he be allowed prison visits so that I can organise a magnificent escape complete with rearing horses, pistols at dawn and lots of quaffing in taverns?..

Magnifique !!

Por qua ?

Por qua pas.

INT21
Click to expand...

You inferred that if you had for ever you could count infinity. I proved that wasn't the case and you backed out of the discussion saying you were bored with it yet you seem happy to post now so why don't you explain what you meant about infinity. I don't expect you to respond.
 
fudgetusk said:
A mass of assumptions. The universe is big enough to allow for the chance creation of life on this planet. It doesn't mean it has to be infinite. If the universe were infinite then the singularity it came from must have been infinite and hence there would have been nothing but the singularity and hence no space for the big bang explosion to take place.

>>Just take light,if anything travels at the speed of light,time has stopped,because light travels at the speed of light, the photon must be in an infinite state outside of time.

Why should the stopping of time mean the photon is in an infinite state? Prove this with a quote from a real scientist.
Click to expand...


Go sit on a photon..Then if you look around, you will find that the Universe has stopped.The physical passage of time has ceased.The same with the event horizon on a black hole, all the information is now time locked.The observer who isn't at the speed of light observes a diferent Universe than the one who is.Its hard to grasp.
 
fudgetusk said:
I see a lot of hot air but no substance.
Click to expand...
Ahh..... I see your experimenting with irony again.

fudgetusk said:
You said the people who created the simulation were not bound by our laws of physics/reality
Click to expand...
Did I say people? If we are in a simulation why would people (by which I guess you mean other humans) be responsible for it. Could be pan dimensional beings with no experience of linear time - just saying. Seems very narrow minded of you.

fudgetusk said:
WHY ARE THE CREATORS OF THE SIMULATION NOT BOUND BY OUR LAWS OF PHYSICS
Click to expand...
Well first - shouting is rude.
Of course they are not required to be bound by our laws of physics. Sorry but that is a really silly statement(it's clearly not a question). If we are the simulation we can be anything they wish.
I could create a 2 dimensional world while existing in a 3 dimensional one. Not hard to understand is it?

I'll state it again because I think you keep skipping it. We get your point. We dismiss it as puerile. Please google that if you need to.

If you can create a reasonable and coherent argument great, if not just accept you are the only person on Earth marching in time, the rest of us are at out of step.

You do realise this is a Fortean forum, not nexus right?
 
INT21 said:
Is there no end to this nonsense ?

INT21:banghead:
Click to expand...

Still not going to answer the question? I feel like Jeremy Paxman. "Did you threaten to over rule him?" If you're british you would get that reference.

You cannot answer because you know you were talking BS.
 
Roland Deschain said:
Ahh..... I see your experimenting with irony again.


Did I say people? If we are in a simulation why would people (by which I guess you mean other humans) be responsible for it. Could be pan dimensional beings with no experience of linear time - just saying. Seems very narrow minded of you.


Well first - shouting is rude.
Of course they are not required to be bound by our laws of physics. Sorry but that is a really silly statement(it's clearly not a question). If we are the simulation we can be anything they wish.
I could create a 2 dimensional world while existing in a 3 dimensional one. Not hard to understand is it?

I'll state it again because I think you keep skipping it. We get your point. We dismiss it as puerile. Please google that if you need to.

If you can create a reasonable and coherent argument great, if not just accept you are the only person on Earth marching in time, the rest of us are at out of step.

You do realise this is a Fortean forum, not nexus right?
Click to expand...

You are still avoiding the question. Why would the creators of the simulation not be bound by our laws of reality?

>>Of course they are not required to be bound by our laws of physics.

Why "of course"? I see no reason why they should not and you are giving none. Answer the question, or is it case of int21 you've overstated your opinion and now cannot back it up?
 
fudgetusk said:
You are still avoiding the question. Why would the creators of the simulation not be bound by our laws of reality?

>>Of course they are not required to be bound by our laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Why "of course"? I see no reason why they should not and you are giving none. Answer the question, or is it another case of int21 you've overstated your opinion and now cannot back it up?
 
Last edited:
iteration
ɪtəˈreɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
  1. the repetition of a process or utterance.
    • repetition of a mathematical or computational procedure applied to the result of a previous application, typically as a means of obtaining successively closer approximations to the solution of a problem.
    • a new version of a piece of computer hardware or software.
    • See recursion
recursion
rɪˈkəːʃ(ə)n/
noun
  1. the repeated application of a recursive procedure or definition.
    • a recursive definition.
    • See iteration
 
Coal said:
iteration
ɪtəˈreɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
  1. the repetition of a process or utterance.
    • repetition of a mathematical or computational procedure applied to the result of a previous application, typically as a means of obtaining successively closer approximations to the solution of a problem.
    • a new version of a piece of computer hardware or software.
    • See recursion
recursion
rɪˈkəːʃ(ə)n/
noun
  1. the repeated application of a recursive procedure or definition.
    • a recursive definition.
    • See iteration
Click to expand...

What's the word for someone who cannot answer a simple question?
Seems the people on here are woefully out of their depths with this discussion. But what did I expect? Can't answer the problem posed in my OP hence it is not answerable.

Therefore I must be right. The universe is supernatural. :)
 
fudgetusk said:
What's the word for someone who cannot answer a simple question?
Seems the people on here are woefully out of their depths with this discussion. But what did I expect? Can't answer the problem posed in my OP hence it is not answerable.

Therefore I must be right. The universe is supernatural. :)
Click to expand...

iteration
ɪtəˈreɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
  1. the repetition of a process or utterance.
    • repetition of a mathematical or computational procedure applied to the result of a previous application, typically as a means of obtaining successively closer approximations to the solution of a problem.
    • a new version of a piece of computer hardware or software.
    • See recursion
recursion
rɪˈkəːʃ(ə)n/
noun
  1. the repeated application of a recursive procedure or definition.
    • a recursive definition.
    • See iteration
 
fudgetusk said:
Why "of course"? I see no reason why they should not and you are giving none. Answer the question, or is it another case of int21 you've overstated your opinion and now cannot back it up?
Click to expand...
No, I'm just busy and not that interested in spoon feeding those who willfully won't take a point.
I'll try and to make it simple enough for a child to get. You are arguing (it seems) that a program has to obey the dynamics of the world the programmer lives in.
You prove it has to, because so far no human program has done or has to.
 
fudgetusk said:
What's the word for someone who cannot answer a simple question?
Seems the people on here are woefully out of their depths with this discussion. But what did I expect? Can't answer the problem posed in my OP hence it is not answerable.

Therefore I must be right. The universe is supernatural. :)
Click to expand...


It seems Fudgetusk that we just aren't worthy enough then - doesn't it...
 
oh yes! especially where you had to bounce on things to increase acceleration through the wormholes.......
 
Roland Deschain said:
No, I'm just busy and not that interested in spoon feeding those who willfully won't take a point.
I'll try and to make it simple enough for a child to get. You are arguing (it seems) that a program has to obey the dynamics of the world the programmer lives in.
You prove it has to, because so far no human program has done or has to.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that at all. YOU are saying that the creators of the simulation are not bound by physical laws. YOU prove that.
 
You are under no obligation to reply to replies that are off-topic or not to your liking.

I would suggest that you tone down the belligerence.
 
fudgetusk said:
Yes, change the subject to cover up the fact that you cannot face up to the fact that the universe is supernatural and you cannot prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Not so much a subject change, more of an observation. I have always felt the game of cricket is somewhat supernatural. After one too many leg-behinds I am often comparing sweep shots with the early Universe, given that I follow the nothing cosmogenic principle... My apologies if any sentient being is offended.

Is it drinks yet? i could do with a cup of tea
 
sunsplash said:
Not so much a subject change, more of an observation. I have always felt the game of cricket is somewhat supernatural. After one too many leg-behinds I am often comparing sweep shots with the early Universe, given that I follow the nothing cosmogenic principle... My apologies if any sentient being is offended.

Is it drinks yet? i could do with a cup of tea
Click to expand...


And then there's googlies - how the bloody hell does that happen?

Two fingers on one side of the seam, bowl around the wicket, let the ball go out of the side of your hand at precisely the right time...and then watch it change direction in mid air, after previously following a set trajectory. It's just brilliant!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top