Checksum discovered in DNA: More evidence of Simulation Theory?

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


You are simply assigning figures and values to natural occurrences...that in itself isn't proof of a creator. As I said, math is a tool.

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

We already know that letters are used in our explanations. So yes, technically you are correct. However, we already know there is system used in recombination which must be using a checksum. You're argument is based on hypothetical letters which are interpreted by some sort of genetic algorithm instead. None the less, still a checksum. It's even being used in bio-engineering like I pointed out in the link above.

Recombination and replication, two completely different things. At least until this point, our topic conserned strictly the latter. Misplaced nucleotides are detected as a function of 'chemical signals' that are derived from incorrect base pairing between the two DNA strands. This has nothing to do with check-sums.

If you are trying to say that DNA doesn't destroy cells, then I think you're barking up the wrong tree. This is what cancer does. A glitch in the checksum process

There are many different types of cancer with their own causes. However, cancer is not about the cells dying, but cells escaping control. Cancer cells are essentially immortal and replicate too much too fast. That's what cancer is.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

Again: Math is simply what we humans use to express things in an ordered manor. Just because we use the same approach to build computers doesn't mean nature or the universe is somehow automatically designed by some creator. Math is a tool we humans use, nothing more...

Spot on! Numbers are a symbol that humans attach to things to give them meaning. The fascinating thing with this (and other so called "Magic Numbers") is that they exist regardless of the symbols we apply. We could be using the word "orange" for "1" and "apple" for "2" and we would still be able to see that there is a fixed ratio of apples to oranges.

Fascinating thread! S&F OP. I still digging through all the info (which I don't pretend to fully understand, hehehe). We're trying to understand the universe when there's so much we still don't know about our own bodies.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

You are simply assigning figures and values to natural occurrences...that in itself isn't proof of a creator. As I said, math is a tool.

Are you a broken record? I understand this point... I even went as far to say that I 100% agree LOL! I even then went on to further reiterate your point, but then continued to tie up some lose ends as to the justification for god.

again... ***insert DJ scratch here*** I agree.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

You are simply assigning figures and values to natural occurrences...that in itself isn't proof of a creator. As I said, math is a tool.

Here's your mathematical proof


During all of this I have come to learn a few things. Kurt Godel is one.

Kurt Gödel was best known as a mathematician and secondarily known as an extreme eccentric. After his death, he became known for something else: creating an ontological proof of the existence of God.

Proof of the existence of god put down on paper

Now obviously I have no idea about what I'm looking at but I get the gist of the philosophy.

God can either necessarily exist, or necessarily not exist. If God is an all-powerful being, and he exists, he necessarily exists in all possible worlds. If he doesn't exist, he necessarily doesn't exist in any possible worlds. It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world. No matter how slim the chance is, God might exist. That means that God can't necessarily not exist. Since the choices are either God necessarily does exist, or necessarily doesn't, and we have eliminated the possibility that he necessarily doesn't, the only possibility left is that he necessarily does.

meh, understanding this reminded me of something

How does finding checksums in string theory equations relate to DNA?

Originally posted by MichaelYoung
Sorry, but checksums in DNA are hardly evidence that the whole universe is a simulation.

It's far more likely that we were genetically engineered by aliens, IMO.

You dismiss one unlikely scenario, but will sign off on an equally unlikely scenario? Checksums in DNA is not proof of either speculation.

I think it's pretty obvious that there must be some kind of mathematical/engineering mind behind this universe. What's more interesting is whether this being is interfering with our universe or not. Unfortunately, my findings and experiences so far suggest that:

1) He doesn't interfere

2) He doesn't interfere, but other civilizations do.

3) He interferes, but is doing so in a way that appears to be as random as possible. In other words, he simply doesn't want you to know that he exists(for free will purposes.)

It seemed as though he just turned on his computer, ran the simulation and then went to sleep.

reply to post by openminded2011


That's entirely possible. In fact, based on my experiences, EVERYONE being conscious and truly believing in a Creator appears to be the end-game.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

math is a language. math doesn't create order, it describes what exists, as language doesn't create things. believe what you will, though i honestly pity you for it.

That's exactly my point, we are expressing things with math...as opposed to words. It's a tool, and yes, it doesn't create things. It's also a human invention. That's exactly the reason why it's not suitable as evidence for a creator.

if math is a tool like a microscope, then you deny what you see through it.

oooh, look at me being so poetic, or smug...sorry.

simply put, numbers don't create the patterns and order that exists, but they're a way of defining them.

our particular method of expressing numbers, such as "2" apples is "an apple and an apple" side by side was invented by us, but the concept of things having values exists outside the way we've chosen to express them.

I love it how many people are now discussing check-sums in DNA although we have not seen a single thread of evidence that such things even exists.

reply to post by FlySolo


this has already been posted here with 182 flags.

i don't really find this all that surprising. all a computer does is build off of logic, the same logic that is found everywhere in this world. basically when you program something, you are using borrowed logic (as in borrowed from nature) to create something. the input & output may be different, but the logic is the same. not only are there checksums in nature, but there are also variables, loops, and conditionals ; )

Just to look at all this from another angle, the fact that this golden ratio is found in so many things we see around us is in my view, clear evidence that we were created by a single creator. I found this fascinating video on youtube:

www.youtube.com...


"I testify that there is none worth of being worshipped, followed or obeyed except Allah (the one true God), and Muhammed (pbuh) is the Final Messenger of Allah."

Originally posted by Kamza
Just to look at all this from another angle, the fact that this golden ratio is found in so many things we see around us is in my view, clear evidence that we were created by a single creator.

Meh.
I refuted that "golden ratio" thing in DNA back on page 2, but nobody seems to care.
Lets just continue with the pseudoscientific woo, shall we?

Originally posted by michaelbrux

Originally posted by PaxVeritas
Interesting thread.

I'm thinking humans may be descendants of a Cylon like race and we are programmed but with organic material.

Hmmmm

That's interesting that you think humans are Cylon's...could you post an image of what a Cylon looks like so your posting is clearer to those who have never seen a Cylon?

Damn man , I was making some BSG humor. Lighten up. You are WAY too serious what I posted.

Originally posted by FlySolo

Now obviously I have no idea about what I'm looking at but I get the gist of the philosophy.

God can either necessarily exist, or necessarily not exist. If God is an all-powerful being, and he exists, he necessarily exists in all possible worlds. If he doesn't exist, he necessarily doesn't exist in any possible worlds. It is not possible to say that God does not exist in any possible world. No matter how slim the chance is, God might exist. That means that God can't necessarily not exist. Since the choices are either God necessarily does exist, or necessarily doesn't, and we have eliminated the possibility that he necessarily doesn't, the only possibility left is that he necessarily does.

edit on 21-4-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)

Deep sigh. Let's use the inability to prove a negative as a justification for the existence of something. Let's make this nonsensical (to prove the lunacy of the above "philosophy") to make it very clear.

When Elvis Presley died he was whisked off this planet by aliens and taken to live (for ever) on another planet. If you can't prove that he does not exist on any planet then by the above "philosophical" logic he must exist. There is only one way to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that I am wrong and Elvis is not on any planet and that is to visit every single planet in the known universe, search every square inch of every planet and show physical evidence he is NOT there.

Clearly this is utter lunacy. That is why you do not prove a negative. Instead it is up to me to show where Elvis is living to prove that my statement is correct. The same logic dictates that God only exists if you can provide evidence of that. Nobody can, it's all a matter of faith (ie belief with no facts).

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Kamza
Just to look at all this from another angle, the fact that this golden ratio is found in so many things we see around us is in my view, clear evidence that we were created by a single creator.

Meh.
I refuted that "golden ratio" thing in DNA back on page 2, but nobody seems to care.
Lets just continue with the pseudoscientific woo, shall we?

You did a quick check using a website chart in under 5 minutes. And you want to call years of research by a known scientist with peer reviewed published papers pseudoscience?

reply to post by emptyOmind


I already made reference to that link on page 1. And no, this thread is not the same. Just corroboration.

reply to post by yorkshirelad


Deeper sigh. Clearly my point was the God answer can not be answered with math but with philosophy.