It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What you are witnessing when you observe a so-called law is a regularity, not a necessity, something that occurs in a certain way simply because it does, not because it is governed by some law-giver, not because things are being obedient to laws, or that they are being told to act a certain way according to some number or rule.
So then how are they laws again?
Laws are declared in words.
Until the day when down becomes up or when pigs fly, everything has laws. OR state of affairs as you like to put it. They existed before "man" interpreted them. You can call them laws, state of affairs, protocols or whatever, but "whatever" they are existed before we could measure them. And these "state of affairs" "evolved" from chaos as "logic".
You use the same argument with math stating math is only a human construct. We are still discovering ways to decode the "state of affairs". Be it with fancy words or complicated arithmetic.
Every law, equation, number, protocol you show me will be written in ink by a human being and nothing besides. Is this untrue?
originally posted by: FlySolo
The fact that I can drop a ball and a feather in an air free room and have them both fall at the same speed is a LAW.
Perfect vacuums don't exist. Air-free rooms are man made. Man creates the conditions of his own devising, completely neglecting such realities as air resistance and other matter, and calls it a "law of nature". The irony is profound. Drop a feather and a brick from a tree and watch them obey their laws.
The case for mind/mind, mind/matter, and mind/energy interactions is well documented with staggering probabilities against chance having produced the results. “The discovery of the non-local quantum hologram, which is theoretically sound and experimentally validated in at least one application, the fMRI, is sufficient to postulate that the quantum hologram is a solution to the foregoing enigma. Further, recognition that the quantum hologram is a macro-scale, non-local, information structure described by the standard formalism of quantum mechanics extends quantum mechanics to all physical objects including DNA molecules, organic cells, organs, brains, and bodies. The discovery of a solution which seems to resolve so many phenomena, and also that points to the fact that in many instances classical theory is incomplete without including the subtle non-local components involved, suggests a major paradigm change must be forthcoming.”12
Further, the recent discovery of the information-containing 3-D spatial-encoding within the original DelaWarr remotely-obtained images, provides compelling evidence that macro-scale quantum holography is, indeed, a replicable and acceptable phenomenon. The intention required by the operator of the DelaWarr system to extract usable information from a quantum hologram forces us to conclude that evolved consciousness is antecedent in producing measurable non-local causal events.
Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes.. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules.
"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."
"….the more contemporary, yet still stupid, human mind." What mind would you have us refer to, pray tell, as better, more understandable than the one we;ve been left with? Perhaps you attain to a different mind, represent yourself as having something more than what you've currently described? For that human mind you describe in such terms, is one you presumably share, and is responsible for all our best thinking to date.
What we have here is not a particularly new idea; rather, it is an exaggerated old one, rehashed and repurposed to fit the more contemporary, yet still stupid, human mind.
I find the sort of casuistry required to keep this ancient idea afloat a sign that one is antagonistic towards life, or perhaps they simply do not experience enough of it to accept it for what it is rather than what they hope it to be. I also find it an underhand way to continue to deny one's responsibility, to leave it all up to someone else so to speak. Yet, despite the fact that centuries of sophistry were dedicated to arguing for this ancient idea, there is rarely a logical nor rational reason to accept it.
You are unable to find any law outside of human language supervening on phenomena, and your argument that such and such description is a law that things obediently follow is a load of nonsense
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: tetra50
Yes I am human, and I include myself among the species.
There is no conceptual difference between one who creates a universe for us to live in and one who creates a simulation for us to live in.
If you follow the bible, then you follow the same teachings that speak against the world and the flesh in favour of a spirit world and the spirit. Life is composed of the world and the flesh. Death is composed of the spirit world and the spirit. Which do you love more?
simply in that it's using unfair disadvantage that not every "stupid, human" mind has at its disposal….and so therefore, is specious and disingenuous, for it would only be fair if we all had that advantage of foresight, retroengineering and living again and again to acquire such wisdom, if that's how one would qualify i†.
Where are the philosophical musings by which philosophers to support that this is "age old argument?"
And insofar as your thesis that it's a sign that one is antagonistic towards life, or that we've simply not experienced enough of it to accept it for what it is rather than what we may hope it to be," really?
In closing, just your title "Sims and Simulations" quite obviously suggests the obvious:
There are those who believe we exist in a simulation, that in some far-off place or some far-off time, conveniently tucked into settings we could never observe, is a governing artificer legislating the physics, the chemistry and the biology of the universe. Sound familiar? What we have here is not a particularly new idea; rather, it is an exaggerated old one, rehashed and repurposed to fit the more contemporary, yet still stupid, human mind.
I find the sort of casuistry required to keep this ancient idea afloat a sign that one is antagonistic towards life, or perhaps they simply do not experience enough of it to accept it for what it is rather than what they hope it to be. I also find it an underhand way to continue to deny one's responsibility, to leave it all up to someone else so to speak. Yet, despite the fact that centuries of sophistry were dedicated to arguing for this ancient idea, there is rarely a logical nor rational reason to accept it.