You forget that God could snap his fingers,
& make you happy & fulfilled.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question for all of the atheists on here
- Thread starter Frank Goad
- Start date
& make you happy & fulfilled.
Jollybear
Hey
Would insanity come about, with ever increasing knowledge? Not only would you gain literally all available knowledge. But youd contribute to furthering more knowledge to the world. And youd have knowledge on how to buffer your potential insanity. Think about it?
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Reality doesn't exist, until it is observed.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
Sure . . . anyways. . . so what? At what point do you prove the afterlife?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Reality doesn't depend on our observations. When we die, life goes on without us. If reality depends on our observation, isn't that more ego?
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
All matter exists as waves of probability without any definite location and without any physical attributes until it is measured by a conscious observer.
Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
The materialization of everything observed in our simulated reality indicates a conservation of computational resources by our simulator/god of the Matrix who might or might not bring back somebody's character into another simulated reality from the simulation where this somebody has died.
Last edited:
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Figure 1. Setup of the delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment of Kim et al. Detector D0 is movable
Figure 2. x axis: position of D0. y axis: joint detection rates between D0 and D1, D2, D3, D4 (R01, R02, R03, R04). R04 is not provided in the Kim article and is supplied according to their verbal description.
Figure 3. Simulated recordings of photons jointly detected between D0 and D1, D2, D3, D4(R01, R02, R03, R04)
The experimental setup of the earliest performed DCQE involved an argon laser that shot 351.1 nm photons which went through a double-slit apparatus. After an individual photon went through one (or both) of the 2 slits, a Beta Barium Borate Crystal converted the photon into 2 identical entangled photons at half the original photon's frequency. The paths followed by each of the entangled photons were caused to become diverged by a Glan-Thompson Prism. One of these 702.2 nm photons (the signal photon) then traveled on a path from the Glan-Thompson Prism to a lens and then to a detector designated as D0. This point was scanned along its X-axis. A plot of the "signal photon counts" recorded at D0 versus X were examined to determine if the cumulative signal formed an interference pattern. The other entangled photon (the idler photon) went from the Glan-Thompson Prism to another prism where the idler photon was then deflected along a divergent path, depending upon which slit the photon went through. Beyond this path split, the idler photons encountered beam splitters that gave the idler photon a 50% chance of passing through and a 50% chance of being reflected by a mirror. The beam splitters and mirrors directed the idler photons towards detectors which were designated as D1,D2,D3 and D4. This experiment was setup so if an idler photon was recorded at D1 or D2, then this detected photon could have passed through either slit. If an idler photon were recorded at D3, then it must have passed through the one slit designated as Slit B. If an idler photon were recorded at D4, then it must have only passed though the one slit designated as Slit A. The optical pathway from slit to D1,D2,D3 and D4 was 2.5m longer than the pathway length from slit to D0. Thus, information acquired from an idler photon would occur 8ns later than information acquired from the corresponding entangled signal photon. The idler photon recorded at D3 or D4 provided a delayed "which-path" indication of whether the signal photon with which it was entangled had gone through Slit A or B. Whereas, the idler photon recorded at D1 or D2 provided a delayed indication that such "which-path" information was not available for its entangled signal photon. The experiment used a coincidence counter to isolate the entangled signal from photo-noise, recording only events where both signal and idler photons had been detected. ( after compensating for the 8ns delay ) When signal photons whose entangled idler photons were recorded at D1 or D2, the experimenters detected an interference pattern. When signal photons whose entangled idler photons were recorded at D3 or D4, the experimenters detected a simple diffraction patterns with no interference.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1 (2000) - Delayed ``Choice'' Quantum Eraser
Reference: Delayed “Choice” Quantum Eraser Yoon-Ho Kim, Rong Yu, Sergei P. Kulik, Yanhua Shih, and Marlan O. Scully Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1 – Published 3 January 2000 Issue
Vol. 84, Iss. 1 — 3 January 2000
The DCQE is unlike the classic double-slit experiment, in that the choice to preserve or obfuscate the which-path information of the idler photon was not done until 8ns after the position of its corresponding signal photon had already been measured at D0.
Although, an idler photon was unobserved until after its corresponding entangled signal photon arrived at D0, interference at D0 was determined by whether a signal photon's entangled idler photon was recorded at D1 or D2 which was on a pathway where the photon's "which-path" information had been obfuscated, or at D3 or D4 which was on a pathway where the photon's "which-path" information was preserved.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yup. Endless perfection would be such a dreary, morbid, and miserable hell. What's the point in getting up if we have nothing to challenge us, nothing to drive us, no adversity, and no mountains to climb? Life is grand because it isn't perfect. We don't value things that come easily, we praise skills that require time and dedication to develop. Is a difficult stunt that impressive knowing the performer will never fail? Of course not. It's impressive because it is hard to do, and because there is the real chance of things going wrong. In a Heaven, where everything is perfect, Tony Hawk could step the 900 up to 1800 and it would suck because there is no chance of failure, no chance of going splat, and what we are left with every time is a perfect and flawless execution every time. There wouldn't even be the thrill of last second recovery that prevents the performer going splat on the ground.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
How do you propose we test for this simulation? How do we add this in so it can stand next to real science that has shown there is no need of a creator? How does this survive the first application of Occam's Razor?
The Matrix is based on a thought experiment (brain in a vat), not reality. It poses some fine philosophical questions, but ultimately there is no reason to assume there is some "Matrix" like program that is our world. And it falls short because the Matrix itself was contained within the real, natural world that wasn't a program made by computers.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Unfortunately, the exact nature of our simulation is unknown; it may be more or less something like the Matrix.
A "machine" is any causal physical system, hence we are machines; thus, machines can be conscious. The question is: What type of machines could be conscious? Odds are robots passing the Turing Test Turing test - Wikipedia would be indistinguishable from us in their behavioral capacities --and could be conscious (i.e. feel), but we can never be certain. There's no way for any "conscious" being to know whether or not he is actually experiencing a virtual reality produced by an interface between his brain and a computer .
However, there are some possible indications we are living in a computer simulation....
1. A particle passing through a double-slit behaves as a wave causing an interference pattern when unobserved, but this same particle doesn't create an interference pattern when its path of travel can be determined by an observer. This collapse of the wave-function could be happening in order to save computational resources necessary for our simulated reality.
2. There is indeed a mark of intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us descendants of our cosmic ancestor(s) with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.
Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Icarus, May 2013,Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code
This mark of intelligence left in our genetic coding is indicative of an intelligent designer, who may be responsible for the simulation of our reality.
3. Theoretical physicist Dr. S. James Gates Jr. has revealved that a certain string theory, super-symmetrical equations describing the nature and reality of our universe, contains embedded computer codes; these codes have digital data in the form of 0's and 1's identical to what makes web browsers function, and they're error-correct codes.
At least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:
1. The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a post-human stage.
2. Any post-human civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history.
3. We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
"Bostrom's argument rests on the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to represent the populated surface of the Earth without recourse to digital physics; that the qualia experienced by a simulated consciousness are comparable or equivalent to those of a naturally occurring human consciousness, and that one or more levels of simulation within simulations would be feasible given only a modest expenditure of computational resources in the real world."
ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM
Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University
Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.
Are You Living in a Simulation
I took the red pill knowing there is no turning back. I didn't take the blue pill, because I didn't want the story to end, then waking up in bed and simply believing whatever I want to believe. I took the red pill for staying in Wonderland and getting shown how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
After taking the red pill, I watched the below video about possible evidence of us living in a simulated reality.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That's basically a "god of the gaps" argument. And just because it appears there is a pattern of intelligence in our genes doesn't mean there is. We, as humans, are hardwired to seek patterns and attempt to explain them. Many love to jump the gun and move straight to conclusions. Few of us are willing to admit our ignorance and proclaim we don't know.
Orbit
I'm a planet
In atheism the afterlife you go to is simply ceasing to exist on your deathbed.Why doesn't the idea of ceasing to exist forever not more scary to atheists?
It's scary at first, but then you make peace with it; the cycle of life is that creatures are born and then they die. If you really think about it in practical terms, eternal life is a strange proposition.
Orbit
I'm a planet
This is solipsism. The world doesn't go away when you close your eyes.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
What possible difference can any of this make if there is nothing but this? Why take a chance on living long enough to possibly contract some painful and debilitating disease? Why would you care if someone suffers because of your death? They'll soon also fade into oblivion.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is typically observed in quantum mechanics experiments. "The world doesn't go away when you close your eyes," that seems more like the observer effect, something else noted in quantum mechanics as well as thermodynamics.
lukethethird
unknown member
I was petrified, not to mention mortified.
Correct in my case, although not necessarily for all or random atheists.
Also, there is the significant proviso that my death is not the end of all. There will be people who survive me and, to some extent, will be carrying and caring for my personal legacy.
There are personal reasons, but they amount to not having been taught to fear death.Why doesn't the idea of ceasing to exist forever not more scary to atheists?
Altfish
Veteran Member
In atheism the afterlife you go to is simply ceasing to exist on your deathbed.Why doesn't the idea of ceasing to exist forever not more scary to atheists?
I'm not looking forward to death, I'll miss many things not least friends and family. But I rejoice in the fact that I have had a life, and look forward to my off-spring passing on my genes.
Can I ask you a question?
Where were you in 1900? Well, when I die it will be similar, only hopefully people will occasionally take out photos of me and talk fondly about me.
Finally, believing in an afterlife that does not exist would give me no comfort at all. It is like believing that there is a box of gold at the bottom of my garden that will solve my financial worries. The gold isn't there and worries of money continue.