Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. I know it's off topic but I like your shirt haha
    2
  2. Same, the only thought I'm having is reproduction was the result of degradation of the pre-existing code which on the computer code front like she pointed out is very easy when there are such simplified functions for reproduction like copy paste.
    2
  3. The thing is our mind cannot be purely material in nature otherwise our rationality is self refuting. So that kinda throws this whole thing in the bin.
    2
  4. Science relies on philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality, knowledge, and methodology. For example, science assumes an objective reality that can be studied through observation and experimentation. It has gotten so old hearing people think faith is an inherently religious word when it isn't and they are conflating an aberration of it, blind faith to it's main definition.
    2
  5. Also "Can Science Explain Everything" by John Lennox
    2
  6. An issue with arguing against the point of the universe is us and saying we just arose from the laws of the universe instead is... if that were the case we would see life or the conditions for it or the possibility for it all over the universe. We don't. That's why the fine tuning argument is so powerful, there is so much scientific evidence for it, it's like a runaway train at this point. Thus it seems there is rather a point to the universe, us specifically and the whole thing science has established is needed just so we can exist, it's not wasted matter or space.
    2
  7.  @philochristos  rationality does not come from irrationality, it would be quite literally reality breaking for such a thing to occur.
    2
  8.  @philochristos  Exactly, the point is mind is required, a rational mind is creating rationality. The irrational in and of itself never magically became rational. A mind Aka God is required behind everything. Mindless unguided naturalistic process can't do it, the burden of proof is on the naturalist to establish otherwise that rationality can come from irrationality. They can't and never will because it would be a reality breaking concept. If such a deus ex machina mechanism existed that could produce rationality from irrationality all human achievement and personhood ceases to exist because the universe did it all at that point. This is why the multiverse theory has always been a joke in the scientific community it's a non-answer.
    2
  9. cont. Which it very well could be since the discovery of biology, including our own producing multiple wavelengths of bio photons that carry information through fiber optic wires of water vibrated into hydrogel in the microtubles. We pretend like we have it all figured out or at least the basics but in reality we have barely touched the surface we don't even know the basics.
    2
  10. I think we are forgetting some major little known facts about biology Fritz-Albert Popp and others have discovered. Like biophotons are created and in different wavelengths to pick up information traveling over DNA and are transferred via fiber optic wires made out of cellular water that is vibrated into a hydrogel from being pushed through pores in microtubles that vibrate it at a specific frequency.
    2
  11. It is not a stretch to imagine this is happening in the brain for thought and consciousness and means it's happening at the speed of light not slow. Papers have already been published on this over the last 15 years or so.
    2
  12. Reminds me a lot of the conclusions to any core mechanic in naturalism. Sure ya... probability produces consistently rational outcomes... somehow because it must because naturalism is true because we say it is the science.
    2
  13.  @NJ-wb1cz  It always sounds like Nvidia has more improvement upgrades they are holding back than they choose to all put on next gen chips so they can milk the market easy with less pressure on them. So I wouldn't doubt they can force a progress like you are saying they are talking about by putting all or most of their new developments on the table when they need to like now. Just means after developments might slow down a bit as they probably won't be able to keep it up.
    2
  14.  @silikon2  You don't see? It means all the matter and existence of the universe was nothing then a quantifiable something. That amount of something is the same then as it is now thus not infinite.
    2
  15. You missed the most obvious and strangest of all, that the laws of the universe can even be represented in math.
    2
  16. I think we are forgetting some major little known facts about biology Fritz-Albert Popp and others have discovered. Like biophotons are created and in different wavelengths to pick up information traveling over DNA and are transferred via fiber optic wires made out of cellular water that is vibrated into a hydrogel from being pushed through pores in microtubles that vibrate it at a specific frequency. It is not a stretch to imagine this is happening in the brain for thought and consciousness and means it's happening at the speed of light not slow. Papers have already been published on this over the last 15 years or so.
    2
  17. I sense more evidence for the fine tuning argument if this is true lol.
    2
  18. It is a theory of origin. It's a finite start how much more origin can it be? There is no cyclical or eternal universe the spacetime theorems have shown.
    2
  19.  @OscarGT25  What option other than God is there? There is no possible naturalistic mechanism you'll always come back to the need for such a mechanism itself to be created by a mind. This is why the multiverse has always been panned by the scientific community it explains nothing. It is still bound by the spacetime theorems and requires a finite start. It all comes down to that, and furthermore rationality does not come from irrationality. This universe is inherently rational bound by laws, we can do math we can do science and reason and study it.
    2
  20. sounds like assuming our universe isn't a closed system, taking energy from the first cause of the universe, God.
    2
  21. A planet must fall in 11 habitable zones for life to exist. We've basically ruled out the whole universe now so there is no fermi paradox to even think about. liquid water (temperature)1 ultraviolet2 photosynthetic3 tropospheric ozone4 planet rotation rate5 planet rotation axis tilt6 tidal7 astrosphere8 atmospheric electric field9 Milankovitch cycles10 stellar magnetic wind11
    2
  22.  @TimothyWhiteheadzm  Published research is nonsense? It is proven science, chemistry does not magically change based on ones position in the universe. Those 11 requirements alone rule out the universe by probability alone. Furthermore beyond those there are literally hundreds of cosmic requirements beyond just the 11 habitable zones a planet must fall in. Nonsense is pretending probability can manifest rational outcomes and anything your imagination wants. That's called fantasy not reality. The probability has been calculated and it's 1 in a number higher than the number of atoms in this universe a singular habitable planet outside of earth exists in this universe. That's why Dyson wrote it's as if the universe knew we were coming.
    2
  23.  @evelynsinclair4937  No mind/God involved that's your worldview not mine. Atheism is a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality a truly deus ex mechanism that can never exist for it's reality breaking. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Ones rational mind that you need to defend your position can't even be a product of naturalism/Atheism! It is self defeating, in three ways no less. Rationality from irrationality, end product of mindless unguided process is unreliable, and naturalism selects for survival value not truth as in whether our beliefs are true. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Without God as the basis good and evil and truth loses all meaning as it's all relative then. Atheism is dead and science killed it.
    2
  24. Not to be a debbie downer but this is putting the cart before the horse there first needs to even be a star that can support life. We haven't found a single star not even planet but just a star that can support life. It has to be same as ours essentially ours is extremely unique making the issue even harder. It has to be the same class star and then on top of it have the extremely unique composition with heavy elements ours has which produces an extremely stable period in it's life cycle where life can exist without dying from solar fluctuations. It's virtually never talked about how crazy special our star is. And same with our galaxy too it's one of a kind and it's structure uniquely allows life because of it's spiral arms.
    2
  25. Something that can help a lot of people is Saccharomyces Boulardii. It's called a probiotic but is it? iI's a type of beneficial yeast and it's given and taken for travelers diarrhea and is quite effective. Why it's actually so helpful is it has a unique benefit of helping the gut be colonized properly by all the good bacteria even though it contains none. So it can help normalize or reduce a lot of digestive issues and it's fairly cheap maybe 10-20 usd. It's a very unique property of this yeast and why it's so special and helpful. I've even given it to my dog and it's helped her a lot.
    2
  26. Does he explain how cellular mechanisms can form when there is no evolutionary pressure to create building blocks of said mechanism that does not yet exist because evolution has no foresight?
    2
  27. Exactly this is a major flaw in how naturalists/atheists view the world they and their science are hindered by their psychological bias. Science and atheism fundamentally do not mix.
    2
  28.  @kamkamkam_  Another example. If naturalism is true then our cognitive faculties have been selected for survival value not for truth, as in it's ultimately irrelevant whether or not our beliefs are true to something produced under naturalistic process. What matters is only if they are beneficial in the struggle for survival. So if naturalism is true we can have no confidence in the reliability of our cognitive faculties. ...
    2
  29. ​ @handeruiter7595  It does not though, you are wrongly assuming the universe is a closed system. The laws of nature aren't being broken. A miracle is just God intervening and changing what would normally happen. Feeding an event into the system.
    2
  30. But a law has never created anything, it's describing something. So where did this structure of the universe come from and how come it's even intelligible and can be represented by math in the first place is the question begging to be asked.
    2
  31.  @sacr3  They are joking, the reality is cosmology has established so many requirements for life the probability they exist somewhere else is higher than a number 1 into a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe. In other words life does not exist outside of earth unless it was designed to like us.
    2
  32. The problem with this is the more mass the pops into existence the faster it pops back out. So technically yes but it's all so fast for all intents and purposes these quantum fluctuation arguments for anything are not realistic to explain anything we have.
    2
  33.  @gknight4719  Sam Harris is a militant Atheist and hypocrite, his own Atheist mythology is self defeating and can't even account for the rational mind he argues for it with. Do we have free will? Well how did one make up your mind? lol these nonsensical arguments usually always come from Atheists because they are so out of touch with reality and basic logic. Sam Harris is hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix. If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist Having no belief in God undermines the very rational mind you require to do science and argue with. Atheism blinds the mind so you can't see logic. Many times those who argue for it can't see they are failing to the very thing they accuse of Theists, blind faith like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
    2
  34. ​ @IusedtohaveausernameIliked  I agree questioning and having an open mind and discourse is important. Even Paul in the bible wrote "test everything and hold fast to that which is true." But the key here is to a framework of logic and truth. Otherwise you get nonsense like Lawrence Krauss saying "something came from nothing, so nothing must be something" lol. If there is no obligation for the universe to make sense then there is no obligation for your brain/mind to be producing anything rational for you to trust. Such an Atheistic/Naturalistic worldview is self defeating to the very notion of rationality and being able to doing science. Intelligent Design promotes the whole enterprise while Atheism/Naturalism destroys it. This is why Christianity/intelligent design birthed modern science. Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver. It all comes back to reality needing to be based on a standard whether that be our rationality, our morality, the intelligibility of the universe and so on. Otherwise there is no such thing as truth, everything is all relative. Interestingly enough what did Jesus say he said I am the truth, not I have the truth. He is saying he is the ultimate truth to all things. Otherwise you end up with nonsense like magical nothingness creating things, rationality from irrationality a definition of magic. Mind>magic
    2
  35. What a double edged sword AI is. The real problem is not knowing what data to trust which means nothing can be trusted and a doom spiral starts. I hope this does not happen and we get this under control fast.
    2
  36. Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Emergence is a deus ex to do away with the need for God. A blind faith in magic aka that probability can produce rational outcomes.
    2
  37. woah hold on there, that's a big leap conflating computer code to biological life lol. For one all the original code had to come from somewhere and in biological life the only evolution we see is reductive evolution a benefit from loss of information/function. I wouldn't doubt if that is also the case or partly the case here.
    2
  38.  @termitreter6545  Hilarious given that was the extent you were able to engage in the conversation.
    2
  39. Wasn't the issue with ivermectin that it was good at preventing the infection but not good at treating it?
    2
  40. I would think the biggest parameter is the requirements for life itself. The probability there is another planet like earth existing in the universe is ridiculous. So there is no fermi paradox, life shouldn't even exist beyond earth is what science tells us.
    1
  41. As a chemist you must realize the issue with naturalism is that time is the enemy not the friend. You need biological chemistry to happen faster than the reductive decaying chemistry. The problem is that doesn't happen in this universe... amino acids and proteins only have hours before becoming useless...
    1
  42.  @AuntJemimaGames  The problem is thorium is realistic and feasible fusion still isn't and still requires an actual scientific breakthrough. We may as well call fusion warp travel I don't see how it's around the corner. Solid state batteries are something that are taking forever and haven't quite been perfectly worked out but could be said as around the corner. Fusion is a pie in the sky. We already have cheap essentially limitless energy for the whole planet for 1000 years+. Like I said it was worked out for the consumer in California it would be 5% the current power cost. Would fusion even be that cheap if we got it to work is another issue.
    1
  43. Hilarious when naturalists can't see the flaw of their own worldview because this is a prime example of how it's nonsense to expect rational outcomes out of chaos.
    1
  44. Don't worry soon AI will do the thinking for us.
    1
  45. Is that wrong though? I would argue not. It's only because of our humanity we can even see purpose. It is not a flaw, it's a boon. Fine tuning argument does indeed demonstrate purpose, the universe exists for us. If it never and we were a random product of the laws of nature we'd see life, or potential for life, or even possible potential for life throughout the universe. Fine tuning argument has ruled that out at this point.
    1
  46. Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Emergence is a deus ex to do away with the need for God. A blind faith in magic aka that probability can produce rational outcomes.
    1
  47.  @mathiasbttger980  We aren't talking about the self organizing structure of crystals but a repeated progression to a higher state. I would say there is a big difference between the two. An illustration, random number generator producing words from random letters, it's one thing to have small words produced, it's another to have even just those small words then showing up in order to create a 2-3 word sentence far less large 5-7 letter plus words. That is the problem with naturalism, it does not have a functional core mechanic to produce what we have in the universe. The probability increases exponentially beyond it being a functional answer. In essence it's believing in magic because probability can't work like that.
    1
  48.  @mathiasbttger980  The problem is when probabilities start to become higher than the number of atoms in the universe lol I think that starts ruling it out. One example by famous atheist Lawrance Krauss determined that the fine-tuning level for just dark energy alone is more extreme than one part in 10^120. Consider one of the most basic molecules for life glucose the atoms can hook up in over 1.2 trillion ways and life only uses one of those. The spacetime theorems have already established back in 2009 the universe had a finite start and is not cyclical, any multiverse is also bound by this. To invoke probability as a mechanism is to invoke magic, if probability can do what naturalism claims then it is reality breaking, it invalidates all human achievement and personhood because the universe did it all at that point. It's one of those scenarios of you can't have your cake and eat it too.
    1
  49. Hilarious when naturalists can't see the flaw of their own worldview because this is a prime example of how it's nonsense to expect rational outcomes out of chaos.
    1
  50. For all intents and purposes the result is the same and thankfully while the pace keeps up doing this improvements are worked on at the same time for transistors which hopefully will come in time to keep up the pace. So future is bright still.
    1