Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
zep73

The Nature of Reality

587 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

zep73
7 minutes ago, moonman said:

" One day I decided to learn everything there is to know about the universe. Everything. From quantum mechanics to black holes. It took me a year to learn everything, but it took me an additional two years to process and confirm everything."

That only reads one way to me - and it's not a good way. You have not "processed and confirmed" the workings of the universe.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that someone learns all languages on Earth, but only 90% each. He/she can travel and get by everythere, but there's still a few words and sayings here and there missing. Would you claim this person a fraud for saying: I speak all languages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
5 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Let's say for the sake of argument, that someone learns all languages on Earth, but only 90% each. He/she can travel and get by everythere, but there's still a few words and sayings here and there missing. Would you claim this person a fraud for saying: I speak all languages?

We're not talking about someone being a linguistics expert and learning some paltry languages. We're talking about you and your claims of knowing and understanding everything and somehow "confirming" the universe.

How old are you anyway? I want to guess 16, maybe 17?

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, moonman said:

We're not talking about someone being a linguistics expert and learning some paltry languages. We're talking about you and your claims of knowing and understanding everything and somehow "confirming" the universe.

For the ****th time: I'm just giving my interpretation. Not claiming anything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

For the ****th time: I'm just giving my interpretation. Not claiming anything!

That's not what the first sentence in this thread says.

How exactly does one confirm the workings of the universe anyway?

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, moonman said:

That's not what the first sentence in this thread says.

You seem to read it, like the devil reads the bible....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

You seem to read it, like the devil reads the bible....

You seem to have a problem admitting that you actually wrote it. They are YOUR words, not mine.

How exactly should "It took me a year to learn everything (about the universe), but it took me an additional two years to process and confirm everything" be taken by the average reader?

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, moonman said:

You seem to have a problem admitting that you actually wrote it. They are YOUR words, not mine.

You subvert my intention to fit your own agenda of discarding me and this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

You subvert my intention to fit your own agenda of discarding me and this thread.

Or, you know, maybe you could just admit that you don't know everything, have not learned everything, have not confirmed how the universe works, and quit posting such nonsense claims and quit trying to make yourself look like some self-proclaimed genius.

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

You subvert my intention to fit your own agenda of discarding me and this thread.

In fairness you did state you learned everything. That's a pretty outrageous statement to make.

We aren't in the 1600s when you could learn all we knew in science. But now we are so knowledgeable that it take decades to become proficient in a single field and still not know everything because well stuff changes.

Like string theory for example had lost a lot of traction in the scientific community.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, moonman said:

Or, you know, maybe you could just admit that you don't know everything, have not learned everything, have not confirmed how the universe works, and quit posting such nonsense claims.

I do not know everything. I have reseached it, and understand most of it. Enough to interpret and make a conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
5 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

For the ****th time: I'm just giving my interpretation. Not claiming anything!

I can accept your interpretation that we are living in a virtual reality inside a computer, as you state. You haven't elaborated on this as yet. Probably distracted by all these posts. :) Can you explain your point of view a little more detail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I do not know everything. I have reseached it, and understand most of it. Enough to interpret and make a conclusion.

Regardless, my point stands. Don't make outrageous claims you can't back up.

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

Yeah I agree can we get back on track. I'm interested in reading why he's reached his conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman

Yes, let's hear that conclusion, moreso the confirmations that led up to it.

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73

As I wrote in the OP, it's not a single thing that made me reach my conclusion, but the sum of the parts.

- The information-nature of our universe was one thing. Before the big bang, matter was estimated to be the size of a marble. A marble! And that's just an estimation. Could be less. Could be nothing.

- The wave function that caused most of this fuss: It CAN be interpreted as caused by the observer. That's another.

- Non-locality defies logic and relativity (exceeding light speed!). Only logic place this could happen is in a virtual system with central govornment.

- The limit of (light) speed in a vacuum makes no sence, if something shiny is already moving! Something stops it!

- The physical constant is to exact to be random, if this is the only universe.

- Nature uses matematics throughout. We can choose to be in awe, or wonder why and how?

- Everything that happens in this universe is displayed at its outskirts. We could just wonder why, or we could add it to the pile.

- Why does nature need Shannon code? There are variants of this code, but they all share the same purpose: To correct data errors, specificly in graphics.

- When math must decide what reality is, it favors a multiverse, or a zeroverse. The latter seems to be the most favored.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman

So no actual confirmations of your own then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, moonman said:

So no actual confirmations of your own then.

Not to mention some of the above is wrong. Specifically the collapse of a wave function, the multiverse is unfalsifiable, there was no matter prior to the big bang (the best evidence we have is for unstable primordial energy), I think entanglement is better than none locality regardless of the bell experiment ( even though it's incredible). Nature doesn't use mathematical proofs, we use it to describe stuff, don't know what Shannon code is can't comment.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Not to mention some of the above is wrong.

Kind of a letdown, I was expecting to hear about the two year process on how he confirmed the universe, you would think there would be more to it than just a list of other people's ideas. Something original at least. Weak sauce.

Edited by moonman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
7 minutes ago, moonman said:

So no actual confirmations of your own then.

Who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
3 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Who cares?

It's the whole point of coming to a conclusion. Someone who knows all should understand that at least.

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, moonman said:

Someone who knows all

That statement proves that you paid no attention to anything at all in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Not to mention some of the above is wrong. Specifically the collapse of a wave function, the multiverse is unfalsifiable.

I know it depends on interpretation. If you can set aside your own, nothing is false - yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

That statement proves that you paid no attention to anything at all in this thread.

Quite the opposite, I read the first paragraph, I even quoted it a couple times. I thought we went through this already. Still wondering about the whole process of confirming the universe for two years - how did that work exactly?

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
1 minute ago, moonman said:

Quite the opposite, I read the first paragraph. I thought we went through this already.

Whatever. We can talk again, if you ever get out of the hair-splitting biz....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman

If you ever bring an original idea around and quit claiming to be more than you are, I'd love to hear it.

Edited by moonman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.