Why are evolutionists convinced we are not created?

reply to post by piles


Thank you for inspiring me to look further into the digital side of things. All I can say is this is going to have to wait for an off day

I was looking around and found some information on "digital." I feel there is a little bit of confusion from some members as what is really being discussed.

Digital physics[edit]

OverviewDigital physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer which computes the evolution of the universe. The computer could be, for example, a huge cellular automaton (Zuse 1967[9]), or a universal Turing machine, as suggested by Schmidhuber (1997), who pointed out that there exists a very short program that can compute all possible computable universes in an asymptotically optimal way.

Some try to identify single physical particles with simple bits. For example, if one particle, such as an electron, is switching from one quantum state to another, it may be the same as if a bit is changed from one value (0, say) to the other (1). A single bit suffices to describe a single quantum switch of a given particle. As the universe appears to be composed of elementary particles whose behavior can be completely described by the quantum switches they undergo, that implies that the universe as a whole can be described by bits. Every state is information, and every change of state is a change in information (requiring the manipulation of one or more bits). Setting aside dark matter and dark energy, which are poorly understood at present, the known universe consists of about 1080 protons and the same number of electrons. Hence, the universe could be simulated by a computer capable of storing and manipulating about 1090 bits. If such a simulation is indeed the case, then hypercomputation would be impossible.

Loop quantum gravity could lend support to digital physics, in that it assumes space-time is quantized. Paola Zizzi has formulated a realization of this concept in what has come to be called "computational loop quantum gravity", or CLQG.[10][11] Other theories that combine aspects of digital physics with loop quantum gravity are those of Marzuoli and Rasetti[12][13] and Girelli and Livine.[14]

en.wikipedia.org...

I feel the answer you are looking for is a little more complicated than you are willing to accept.

Sorry, just my two cents.........

reply to post by malcr


it may be fun to dismiss what I'm saying, i understand that most people can't take this type of discussion seriously, and it seems you are part of that..

please take an assumption that we are created for a minute

now how would one get a planet such as ours to spin, how would one get our planet to orbit the sun as it does..

one way if we were created, and thats to build a computer program, simple

no other possible way im afraid, if were non digital, then we evolved, and until someone can prove we are non digital nobody can say we definatly evolved..

its like me sitting here saying oh look an orange just appeared here in front of me,it came from nowhere,now thats a crazy statment but ur willing to believe the universe appeared just the same,u believe that then u should believe what i said to just be as true.

Originally posted by Jaydee055
I'd just like to point out that in order to be created we wouldn't HAVE to be digital. Unless of course you mean created by other beings like us, or even by humans.

yes we would, we would have to be a digital being, on a digital planet, in a digital universe... there is no other way we could have been created...

For some reason most people nowadays would much rather believe they are related to monkeys instead of having been made in the image of a perfect Creator. They can believe they are nothing but descendants of monkeys if they want. For myself, I'll choose the other option

reply to post by piles

no other possible way im afraid, if were non digital, then we evolved, and until someone can prove we are non digital nobody can say we definatly evolved..

What the hell...? No dude, that is not how it works. YOU prove we are digital. Not the other way around.

And, also, yes we can say we evolved. There is so much evidence that we did that any argument against it is little more than a grasping at straws.

reply to post by jeramie


the fact is its perfectly possible for this universe to be a computer, in fact mathematically more likely to be a computer than not a computer..

for example it makes the possibility of an afterlife possible, but only possible if we are digital

although i hate to turn to religion to prove this point, the fact is i can't prove we are digital, but the fact is nobody yet has managed to prove we are not digital and therefore nobody can say that we are here as a result of an explosion, nor can a creationist say we were definately created..

i'm just stating fact, and just saying that its a shame science didn't look into this in order to prove if we were created or not.. it seems very nieve of a science

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by piles

 

no other possible way im afraid, if were non digital, then we evolved, and until someone can prove we are non digital nobody can say we definatly evolved..

What the hell...? No dude, that is not how it works. YOU prove we are digital. Not the other way around.

And, also, yes we can say we evolved. There is so mush evidence that we did that any argument against it is little more than a grasping at straws.

having to reply to a lot of people here but,, it works both ways.. either a scientist needs to disprove we are not digital, or a scienctist needs to prove we are digital

and again I'm saying which is fact, its more likely that we exist because a species created a computer, which we see as this universe, than we got here from an explosion...

reply to post by piles

Dogs respond to and understand a limited vocabulary, wolves do not.. Dogs have evolved to take various different shapes and behaviors based on what we wanted from them. The list goes on and on.

This is just ONE TINY example of provable evolution. There are millions of others around the planet.

No dogs have been bred that way, they have NOT evolved like that. You obviously know very little about dogs, or cats or wolves by the sound of it.

If a dog was to have no human contact they would in essence be as the wolf. If a wolf cub was to be brought up in a human environment it would be as the dog. This is easily demonstrated with for example foxes as well.

You really think cats don't understand humans? Think again. They most certainly do. It is not their nature to play fetch etc being superior to dogs in many ways.

Now as far as us being digital goes, if we were digital we would be powered by the electricity that powered the computer and of course you have failed to explain where the computer came from and what it has as a power supply. So if we are digital perhaps you should try stopping eating and drinking and see just how long your 'biological' body would survive.

You should also try and get crushed under a bus or similar. I assure you that you will bleed to death, not flicker and fade away.

We may be genetically engineered, but that is a whole different discussion.

ETA:

we got here from an explosion

Who said we did?

Originally posted by piles

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Where is your thesis proving that a created being would be digital?

Until you can provide it, and it can be independently verified, you are operating on ASSUMPTION.

You ASSume that if we were created we would be digital beings.

It could go the other way too. You are saying that beings created by a creator would be digital. That if it were shown that we are "digital beings" (whatever that means) that it would prove the existence of God. Your assumption is based on the fact that we humans have created digital forms of being. (Not intelligent life.)

So yeah, could it be said that we MUST follow the rules of nature, which evolution also followed, in our technologies? To put it another way; Assuming we are "digital beings" it would not be proof of a creator. It would only be proof that we must copy nature in our technology.


Your argument is... Well it's the kind of argument you'd expect from a religious person. Illogical, without science backing it up, based on personal beliefs and not observable reality.

I'm not saying your ideas are definitely wrong, just that your method of reaching them is.

you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'm not religous, this argument is completly logical

if we were created then that would mean that the universe is digital (i.e. a computer) and we would be a digital being within the computer. I can't accept theorys that a computer formed on its own, someone would have had to have created that computer (real life) therefore if we are digital, then that means we were created..

nobody has proven that this universe we live in is not a computer, and that is the only way to conclusively prove that we evolved. Because if the universe is not a computer then we evolved! Yet science hasn't touched on this fact at all, instead its been looking in all the places to prove we evolved.

I'm really not trying to get your back up, its fact

Its perfectly possible for us to be a digital being! in fact more likely mathematically that we are digital than we evolved!

No one has proven the universe we live in is not an orange... however i doubt we are in a giant orange....


i understand where you are comming from but the problem still then is... if the universe we live is a computer, and we are digital beings, who wrote the programming, then is someone that wrote our programming in a digital world too, meaning we are a creation of a creation, even if the being who created our digital world is a non-digital entity, how was it formed, by evolution? if so then we would then be infact also a product of evolution, think of a standard biege apple 1 pc to the swankiest new iphone, that although creation was an evolution of trial and error to become the super mini computer thing we have today?

the problem with Digital beings thought is this... you then believe the being created us, evolved, was created by another being or has always exsisted, the problem still then lies of which is correct in terms of the progression of life in any universe.

reply to post by piles

having to reply to a lot of people here but,, it works both ways.. either a scientist needs to disprove we are not digital, or a scienctist needs to prove we are digital

Okay, what would you accept as evidence we are not digital? Or what would you accept as evidence we are not created?

Originally posted by piles
well in effect our species may well be digital. i.e. we are not a real being, we are a simulated digital being.

I do believe that is possible.

But the origin many many many layers removed from our own.

reply to post by piles


and please could someone provide a link of evidence that we evolved? because as far as I can see, there is only circumstancial evidence, there is nothing conclusive that we evolved at all..

and again this exactly my point, science has looked at things like adaption and related it to evolution which doesn't prove a thing, when all a scienctist needs to do is either prove we are a digital species, or not a digital species...

the fact is i could build a computer program that programmed digital species to adapt to their environment...

and so on

reply to post by piles

and again I'm saying which is fact, its more likely that we exist because a species created a computer, which we see as this universe, than we got here from an explosion...

Again, why not both? If our universe is a computer simulation, it does not make evolution or big bang any less valid. They simply happened in the simulation, too.

reply to post by piles


When it comes down to it.. We are all made of the stuff that makes the stars and universe as we know it. Our bodies came into being by another method in the digital universe as you put it.
I feel science and religion are really based on the essence of faith. Science uses more measurements, and tools than religion, but science can still be as wrong as religion and the other way around.

Something created the matter we are made of. How we where made is a different story. I feel its a better possibility we evolved from lesser beings.. But the building blocks and matter that make us up and the known universe was made by what some feel as God, or an all encompassing being.

Originally posted by jeramie
For some reason most people nowadays would much rather believe they are related to monkeys instead of having been made in the image of a perfect Creator. They can believe they are nothing but descendants of monkeys if they want. For myself, I'll choose the other option

So... just because you dont like one fact you choose to replace it with something else?

Lets take this practice to its logical conclusion.


"I dont like the way my car has round wheels. I am just going to replace them with tuna sandwiches."

reply to post by piles

although i hate to turn to religion to prove this point, the fact is i can't prove we are digital, but the fact is nobody yet has managed to prove we are not digital and therefore nobody can say that we are here as a result of an explosion, nor can a creationist say we were definately created..

No, you are right we can't prove we are or are not digital any more than you can prove that you exist.

Since you and everything else is a figment of my imagination I can decide whether to make you, my fictitious character, start threads that have no solution - which I did because here you are in my imaginary world.

Originally posted by GonzoSinister

Originally posted by piles

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Where is your thesis proving that a created being would be digital?

Until you can provide it, and it can be independently verified, you are operating on ASSUMPTION.

You ASSume that if we were created we would be digital beings.

It could go the other way too. You are saying that beings created by a creator would be digital. That if it were shown that we are "digital beings" (whatever that means) that it would prove the existence of God. Your assumption is based on the fact that we humans have created digital forms of being. (Not intelligent life.)

So yeah, could it be said that we MUST follow the rules of nature, which evolution also followed, in our technologies? To put it another way; Assuming we are "digital beings" it would not be proof of a creator. It would only be proof that we must copy nature in our technology.


Your argument is... Well it's the kind of argument you'd expect from a religious person. Illogical, without science backing it up, based on personal beliefs and not observable reality.

I'm not saying your ideas are definitely wrong, just that your method of reaching them is.

you really don't understand what I'm saying, I'm not religous, this argument is completly logical

if we were created then that would mean that the universe is digital (i.e. a computer) and we would be a digital being within the computer. I can't accept theorys that a computer formed on its own, someone would have had to have created that computer (real life) therefore if we are digital, then that means we were created..

nobody has proven that this universe we live in is not a computer, and that is the only way to conclusively prove that we evolved. Because if the universe is not a computer then we evolved! Yet science hasn't touched on this fact at all, instead its been looking in all the places to prove we evolved.

I'm really not trying to get your back up, its fact

Its perfectly possible for us to be a digital being! in fact more likely mathematically that we are digital than we evolved!

No one has proven the universe we live in is not an orange... however i doubt we are in a giant orange....


i understand where you are comming from but the problem still then is... if the universe we live is a computer, and we are digital beings, who wrote the programming, then is someone that wrote our programming in a digital world too, meaning we are a creation of a creation, even if the being who created our digital world is a non-digital entity, how was it formed, by evolution? if so then we would then be infact also a product of evolution, think of a standard biege apple 1 pc to the swankiest new iphone, that although creation was an evolution of trial and error to become the super mini computer thing we have today?

the problem with Digital beings thought is this... you then believe the being created us, evolved, was created by another being or has always exsisted, the problem still then lies of which is correct in terms of the progression of life in any universe.

i've been through this theory a lot (not on here) if we assume we are digital we could be a long line of computers, but at the top of this long line would have to be real life, that real life would have had to evolved, but it doesn't mean we evolved...

by the way its not possible for the universe to be an orange, however you could create a universe to be a orange using a computer

reply to post by piles

and please could someone provide a link of evidence that we evolved? because as far as I can see, there is only circumstantial evidence, there is nothing conclusive that we evolved at all..

So, you say evolution is not true without even learning about it or looking at evidence? It is not our job to research for you. If you did not even bother, that is not our fault. And it certainly does not disprove evolution.

There is plenty of conclusive evidence, tons even. Look it up before you claim it is "Circumstantial"

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by piles

 

and again I'm saying which is fact, its more likely that we exist because a species created a computer, which we see as this universe, than we got here from an explosion...

Again, why not both? If our universe is a computer simulation, it does not make evolution or big bang any less valid. They simply happened in the simulation, too.

I don't quite understand what your saying..

what i'm saying is either the universe was created by someone and is a computer and we are a digital entity, or somehow this universe came about and we are real and have evolved...

while the creator could have programmed a big bang (at least i think thats what your saying) and that is certainly possible thats not the point I'm arguing..

the point is

evolution vs creation

evolution means that we are 100% real (I know i feel 100% real too)

creation means that we are 100% digital (I know I don't feel digital)

but with regards to that fact, mathematically its more likely that we are a digital entity and our universe is a computer...