I don't think he takes into account the old 'spanner in the works' scenario. I like to emulate that, or try to. Not sure how we came to different conclusions as to what he was getting at.? Maybe it was coz I couldn't understand his terminology. I felt he was saying truthers would not survive? His model is crap maybe coz like I said computers don't think like we do. They are not conscious and never will be.
RE: Truth v Reality: No Contest
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Truth v Reality: No Contest
Just because some simulations are used as propaganda, doesn't mean they all are. Indeed, we could tell the plandemic used exaggerated numbers for alarmist purposes precisely because we can understand the model used. We can simulate the solar system without having little planets inside the computers.
Yes, is a very condensed talk, with a lot of terminology.
I even dislike using "evolutionary biology", coz one ends up with the same formulas by just assuming social interactions among the living.
A simulation is a simulation. It takes certain factors into account.
It cannot take into account all factors, for there is no consensus nor convention about "all factors".
Why would you wish for a solar system simulation, for example?
Having an "accurate" simulation about the solar system, would it not mean that this would require also an accurate simulation about the galaxy we live in? And would that not also require having an accurate simulation about the universe?
strange question. How do you think we calculate whether a planetary model is accurate or not?
Indeed, Neptune was discovered through verifying such a model in 1846.
The knowledge that our sun will cease to exist in some billion years, does that make a difference to you and your life of the present?
I am not asking rhetorically.
No, and we don't stop planting crops - setting extremes does nothing to diminish the validity of the approximate now.
What do you mean by that?
A theory has limits, beyond which it either doesn't work or is even meaningless - that doesn't mean it doesn't work within its domain. eg, ask the same question backwards: do we care when the solar system didn't exist at all?
I think, yes, that is obvious, that every theory has limits.
For me, the question backwards would be meaningless, since I assume that if our solar system had not existed, there would be no same present planet Earth on which such would have interested humans. How would you answer this question?
Yes me too as he assumes evolution is fact and not theory.