Its a fucking joke anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mintjewlips

It's all theoretical.

Even Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory that we accept but a theory nonetheless.

These ideas are meant to be debated and discussed, its up to you.

---

No, you scientifically illiterate jackwad! It is a scientific theory (actually, two, but who's counting) that has been repeatedly tested for about a century or more, depending upon which one of his *two* relativity theories (yes, now, we are counting) we are talking about. And not a single repeatable, soundly-conducted experiment has disproved either one. And that mountain range of evidence is why the scientific community accepts Einstein's theory of relativity.

Unfortunately, much of the non-scientific public, yourself obviously included, doesn't understand the difference between the everyday use of the word "theory" versus its meaning in science. So, here is a handy article that discusses the matter. Read it. Comprehend it. Absorb it into your consciousness. And then check back with the grown ups.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

 

You're welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

P.S. Mintjewlips, go off and play with yourself. The adults are trying to have a serious conversation.... Actually, in all seriousness, stay here. You can serve as an example of someone who is seemingly intelligent but scientifically illiterate. Carry on..

---

https://youtu.be/8S0FDjFBj8o

Pretty much every pseudo intellectual on this forum, like yourself....bitch

Lol at discussing whether or not we live in a hologram universe being a "serious discussion"

:lol


Im on my phone and don't really care to go back and forth with a mumbling idiot who drives trucks for a living. Maybe if they need a truck driver at cern you will be able to qualify since understand the scientific method.

The moment they come out with hyperdrives even newton's laws will be the new flat earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backdoorb

Simulation theory has been picking up some steam in the news lately. Elon Musk recently came out and said that there is a one in a billion chance that we're actually living in a reality and Matt Damon briefly touched on it at his commencement speech at MIT.

I'm probably a bit late to this discussion but it just blows my mind. Really makes me wish i got into the field of computers or tech instead of poker.

http://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-were-pr...ame-1780049652

---

reminds of a computer text adventure game I played when I was a kid called A Mind Forever Voyaging.. In reality you were some computer AI that would "go to sleep" and then live out some weird tech fantasy (The same folks who made this were behind the famous Zork trilogy). I kept trying to figure out ways to screw with the game sadly they had it locked down never would let me fuck my cyber wife and such..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mintjewlips

It's all theoretical.

Even Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory that we accept but a theory nonetheless.

These ideas are meant to be debated and discussed, its up to you.

---

No, you scientifically illiterate jackwad! It is a scientific theory (actually, two, but who's counting) that has been repeatedly tested for about a century or more, depending upon which one of his *two* relativity theories (yes, now, we are counting) we are talking about. And not a single repeatable, soundly-conducted experiment has disproved either one. And that mountain range of evidence is why the scientific community accepts Einstein's theory of relativity.

Unfortunately, much of the non-scientific public, yourself obviously included, doesn't understand the difference between the everyday use of the word "theory" versus its meaning in science. So, here is a handy article that discusses the matter. Read it. Comprehend it. Absorb it into your consciousness. And then check back with the grown ups.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

 

You're welcome.

---

But mumbles you have to remember there is a line in the sand between a theory and a LAW.. The whole issue is Einsteins E=MC^2 still isn't perfect and thus why physicists are working day and night to in a way, prove it wrong through Hadron among others.. Certain astronomical phenomenon fail to be totally explained by Einstein's theory thus creating conundrums among the scientific community. The String theory currently being proposed could resolve part of this issue but it too is only a theory.

simulation theory is much more plausible than any religious sky daddy coming back to take us to the promise land, scenario

but, all those poor owls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mintjewlips

It's all theoretical.

Even Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory that we accept but a theory nonetheless.

These ideas are meant to be debated and discussed, its up to you.

---

No, you scientifically illiterate jackwad! It is a scientific theory (actually, two, but who's counting) that has been repeatedly tested for about a century or more, depending upon which one of his *two* relativity theories (yes, now, we are counting) we are talking about. And not a single repeatable, soundly-conducted experiment has disproved either one. And that mountain range of evidence is why the scientific community accepts Einstein's theory of relativity.

Unfortunately, much of the non-scientific public, yourself obviously included, doesn't understand the difference between the everyday use of the word "theory" versus its meaning in science. So, here is a handy article that discusses the matter. Read it. Comprehend it. Absorb it into your consciousness. And then check back with the grown ups.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

 

You're welcome.

---

Which might tell us something about the what but not of the why. And because science must impose strict guidelines, the unknown trumps (ty) the known easily. Each new discovery is oohed and awed, but this happens regardless of the age. And it seems clear to some that each discovery brings with it several new queries. Like some lab nerd is going to discover the meaning of everything and that will be it.

Son, now that you are four, we thought you should know........E=MCHammmer

forgot

http://youtu.be/8eEQ4J6Lnrs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

No, you scientifically illiterate jackwad! It is a scientific theory (actually, two, but who's counting) that has been repeatedly tested for about a century or more, depending upon which one of his *two* relativity theories (yes, now, we are counting) we are talking about. And not a single repeatable, soundly-conducted experiment has disproved either one. And that mountain range of evidence is why the scientific community accepts Einstein's theory of relativity.

Unfortunately, much of the non-scientific public, yourself obviously included, doesn't understand the difference between the everyday use of the word "theory" versus its meaning in science. So, here is a handy article that discusses the matter. Read it. Comprehend it. Absorb it into your consciousness. And then check back with the grown ups.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

 

You're welcome.

---

Which might tell us something about the what but not of the why. And because science must impose strict guidelines, the unknown trumps (ty) the known easily. Each new discovery is oohed and awed, but this happens regardless of the age. And it seems clear to some that each discovery brings with it several new queries. Like some lab nerd is going to discover the meaning of everything and that will be it.

Son, now that you are four, we thought you should know........E=MCHammmer

forgot

http://youtu.be/8eEQ4J6Lnrs

---

Emotionally inspiring, but should we give any credence to Elon Musk and his also-run simulation theory prophets about how we should adopt/use tech to be "saved"? And what legitimacy does Musk et. al. have that is more credible than any number of biblically-based Armageddon-is-just-around-the-corner predictors? Like this nutjob.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0EpCjCU8AI&feature=youtu.be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Which might tell us something about the what but not of the why. And because science must impose strict guidelines, the unknown trumps (ty) the known easily. Each new discovery is oohed and awed, but this happens regardless of the age. And it seems clear to some that each discovery brings with it several new queries. Like some lab nerd is going to discover the meaning of everything and that will be it.

Son, now that you are four, we thought you should know........E=MCHammmer

forgot

http://youtu.be/8eEQ4J6Lnrs

---

Emotionally inspiring, but should we give any credence to Elon Musk and his also-run simulation theory prophets about how we should adopt/use tech to be "saved"? And what legitimacy does Musk et. al. have that is more credible than any number of biblically-based Armageddon-is-just-around-the-corner predictors? Like this nutjob.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0EpCjCU8AI&feature=youtu.be

---

No more than most, although he did get a rocket to land it's ass back on terra firma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Emotionally inspiring, but should we give any credence to Elon Musk and his also-run simulation theory prophets about how we should adopt/use tech to be "saved"? And what legitimacy does Musk et. al. have that is more credible than any number of biblically-based Armageddon-is-just-around-the-corner predictors? Like this nutjob.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0EpCjCU8AI&feature=youtu.be

---

No more than most, although he did get a rocket to land it's ass back on terra firma

---

True, but history is repleted with cases of geniuses who contributed substantial to human understanding or technology who also promoted/advanced really awful/useless ideas. Some celebrates folks who immediately come to mind are Pythagorus, Kepler, Newton, Tesla, Pauling, and Heimlich. Heck, even Steven Hawking. But we seldom here about their fail ideas because it is (1) not usually worth much time to dwell on such clunkers, and (2) reminding the public of the fail ideas of these hero-worshipped science/tech idols isn't usually a good commercial media sell.

Instead, as an graduate academic advisor once counseled me (when he saw that I was enthusiastically displaying hero worship of one the much-celebrated-at-the-time academic giants in my field), a good thinker evaluates an idea on its own merit, *not* who makes it. And I'm sure that you will agree that this notion applies to the game of poker, yes?

On a related note, I get the impression that you enjoy challenging yourself to think and learn and learn about ideas. If you haven't heard of this podcast, you might want to check it out.

http://historyofphilosophy.net

The guy who puts this out makes an otherwise laborious subject quite interesting with his presentation and sense of humor. But, he seems pretty thorough in discussing the *many* philosphers and theologians, at least the Western and Islamic ones. But he is still working his way through the Mediaval period, so you'll have to wait for more recent ones.

Also, he started a similar podcast covering Indian philosophy with a coauthor who specializes in that area.

http://historyofphilosophy.net/india