'>>16140417
>Do you ever think a godlike alien being is responsible for
no

>Could nature's one way cause-and-effect, or evolution, truly produce such intelligent beings as humans on its own?
yes';

'>>16140417
>one way cause-and-effect
Not sure what you're talking about. Causality can travel in both directions.

How does a godlile alien being explain anything? A godlike alien being would be complex, yes? How is it complex? It just is. So you're back at square without explaining anything. Or if you say God is not complex but actually very simple you're still proposing complexity came from simplicity.';

'>>16140417
>reality couldn't have created dumb bald monkeys
>but it could create a godlike being with absolute knowledge and control';

'>>16140536
Some people assume it’s too convenient. They subscribe specialness to man. To the Christian physicist they assume God is some alien engineer looking at us from beginning to end. His doings are just taken as natural since we cannot go back that far or look at existence comprehensively enough.
>>16140539
>Causality can travel in both directions
Physics as we know it is currently going in one direction of time, and physicists are too boring to entertain otherwise, even simple time travel.
>Or if you say God is not complex but actually very simple you're still proposing complexity came from simplicity.
Assuming something outside of our perceptible existence created out perceptible existence, we can probably conclude that the outside is a lot more complex than the inside, similar to 3d observing 2d. There’s more angels to work with the higher up you go.
>>16140582
What if existence is aberrant, and it’s just too damn vast and sophisticated and grand to appear as such?';

'>>16140637
>angels
angles*';

'>>16140637
>Physics as we know it is currently going in one direction of time
Do me a favour and actually look this shit up before you spit from the gut. Also causality and time and not interchangeable terms.';

'>>16140417
>Do you ever think a godlike alien being is responsible for allowing causality(evolution/adaptability/etc) to produce such intelligent beings, AKA humans?
We are born, we manifest the new world, we die, and then one day...we come back.';

'>>16140637
>Causality can travel in both directions
altough the idea of backwards causality is supposed to mean something else, isn't anticipating some event and making decisions based on that a sort of backwards causality? something which didn't yet happens affects you decisions today? especially after it happens and you look back at it?';

'>>16140670
Any space that exists is going to have one dimensional time/causality to it. Tough.
> Also causality and time and not interchangeable terms
Causality as we know it is a product of time being what it is. Things move/change.';

'>>16140674
Math. Predicting is math. There’s definitely a “universe” or timeline where the Cuban missile crisis went haywire nuclear, and we can only guess at that course of events, but we -know- something would have formed out of it.

Now, do such alternate universes/timelines exist only hypothetically-mathematically, or literally? It’s one or the other.';

'>>16140788
So you don't know what a dimension is either. Still spitting from the gut, huh? Fuck this. Not sure what I expected from from someone that is clearly mentally retarded.';

'>>16140806
Are you pretending?';

'>>16140810
What kind of bait is this? Retard bait?';

'Whatever exist in nature obviously could be created by nature. Details are less important.

Take a smartphone for example. Yeah we designed and manufactured it. Doesn't matter. Ultimately, it was created by nature, humans were just one of the ingredients in a very long and complex process, not unlike life itself.';

'>>16140828
>Whatever exist in nature obviously could be created by nature. Details are less important.
Yes. However, a mermaid wouldn’t evolve to look like a mermaid. Had you seen a stereotypical big tiddied 10/10 supermodel mermaid, you’d just have to assume some pervy intelligence made it so it would turn out that way. Otherwise they would evolve to be blubbery and hairless and shark toothed monsters.';

'>>16140670
How is he wrong retard
>scroll down
>see wojak
lol';

'>>16140806
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension
READ NIGGA, READ!';

'>>16140891
>conflating dimension with unidirectional
Brainlet alert.';

'>>16140902
>single point
>unidirectional';

'>>16140637
>Some people assume it’s too convenient
And everything in the world being caused by a binary of good and evil isn't convenient?
I don't get how people can jump through all these mental hoops only to explain that people have different interpretations of what is good and evil.';

'>>16140907
You do realize that some mathematicians also think the universe’s structure is also, similarly, too damn convenient.

‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics’ is as though the universe were made by a mathematician.

Ed Witten talks about it quite nicely here:
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Zl9o7I4Fo

Some people just find nature too convenient for comfort.';

'>>16140906
A single point isn't a dimension.';

'>>16140917
Mathematics is used to describe physics. Observing that it fits together too well is like observing that a jigsaw puzzle fits together conveniently well';

'>>16140919
And therefore time _____ ?';

'>>16140536
fpbp kek i was gonna do this exact same reply as soon as i read the title but you seem to have beaten me to it. it's the only white man response to this thread.';

'>>16140927
Continue...';

'>>16140933
Come on anon, put two and two together';

'>>16140937
It doesn't follow from anything that's previously been mentioned.';

'The man with the highest IQ in America';

'>>16140938
time
point
dimension
come on, you can do it!!';

'>>16140943
>I beliebe
discarded';

'>>16140947
Are you insinuating that I don't think time is a dimension?';

'Evolution IS adaption. Tucker believes in evolution without even realizing it, what the hell.';

'>>16140949
No, that's what I'm saying, dummy, how bad are your reading skills?';

'>>16140953
This image isn’t the same without the furious shaking';

'>>16140953
Then you're wrong and ironically need to work on your own reading comprehension.';

'>>16140958
>Then you're wrong
Time is mapped as linear, 1d, directionality doesn't matter
A coordinate on a line is a point
That single point is the current moment of time
A point is dimensionless
Time isn't a dimension, there is only one current instant until eternity, there is no direction, what you refer to as "time" is defined by the rate of change/atomic interactions, it isn't a fundamental property or force in itself, it's an abstract number, things don't have age, the universe doesn't count seconds/hours/millenia, time is defined as "going forwards" because of causality, since every effect has a cause behind it and you can't "undo" this in any physically conceivable way, nor can you have an effect without a cause';

'>>16140964
Someone doesn't understand relativity. Time is not reducible to causality.
>not can you have an effect without a cause
Only because of definition. There's no reason to think the universe is exclusively deterministic; it's unfalsifiable. You also don't seem to have any notion of time symmetry.';

'>>16141002
>Someone doesn't understand relativity
Yes and that someone happens to be you
>Time is not reducible to causality.
Time is defined as rate of change, causality is an abstract property of change
>Only because of definition
No, if effects could happen without a cause then there would be an infinite amount of causeless effects happening every moment, behind every action is another action
>There's no reason to think the universe is exclusively deterministic; it's unfalsifiable
Being falsifiable has no bearing to the argument, the existence of reality is unfalsifiable, so there is no reason to think reality exists?
>You also don't seem to have any notion of time symmetry.
You also don't seem to have any notion that time symmetry only holds for specifc metrics and is a mathematical abstraction';

'>>16140417
>Obviously we have no way of going back in time or looking at life from beginning to end in its full totality.
Yet there are people who are utterly positive they know how life and how humanity originated';

'>>16140417
I want a Tucker Carlson - Richard Dawkins debate RIIIIIIGHT NOOW motherfucker';

'>>16141695
Uncanny isn’t it? You just have to assume these people took the safest guesses/conclusions at the time, and it became a religion to them.';

'>>16141695
causal chains. they always filter you. you mf are absolutely sure someone stole something from your car if you find a broken window and your bag missing. you even have ideas about who could have been, statistically speaking. that you are so fucking sure of. never invoke God when someone steals some shit from you. never go "huh, God must have took it". because you know you're full of shit';

'>>16142377
>intellectual cowardice as a religion';

'What is the theory of adaptation Tucker was talking about?';

'>>16142930
see >>16140952';

'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4sLAQvEH-M';

'>>16140417
Humans- scratch that. Single cell bacteria are more complicated than anything humans can create. Some intelligent being or process created biological life and possibly this material universe which oh so conveniently supports it.';

'>>16142973
>which oh so conveniently supports it.
love retards getting filtered by the anthropic principle';

'>>16140673
That's a beautiful bing image';

'>>16142930
Literally evolution. Life adapts. He’s just skeptics about it alone.';

'I love schizo Tucker so much';

'>>16140417
No. What's the point of this speculation?';

'>>16140943
Unironically what I've come to believe. This only becomes more obvious if you study stuff deemed "supernatural" by science.';

'>>16144256
>This only becomes more obvious if you study stuff deemed "supernatural" by science.
Like what?';

'>>16140417
>such intelligent beings, AKA humans
You lost me there.';

'>>16140417
Right wingers are ungodly retarded';

'>>16140417
>a godlike alien being
humans are made in god's image. god isn't alien';

'>>16140917
What about the fact that the universe can be painted, doesn't that mean it had to have been made by a painter instead?';

'>>16140417
>Do you ever think a godlike alien being is responsible for allowing causality(evolution/adaptability/etc) to produce such intelligent beings, AKA humans?
No Though I have thought deeply about it countless times, the conclusion is always negative; I do not conclude that. ON the other hand, I also cannot disprove it, so it's a useless waste of time.

>Could nature's one way cause-and-effect, or evolution, truly produce such intelligent beings as humans on its own?
Yes, absolutely, the laws of physics allow it, and here we are.

>Just how delicate and precious is life really?
The earth ecosystem and it's biosphere is unique in the universe as far as we can tell. It must be protected at all costs.';

'>>16140964
Your logic actually indicates that time is a dimension, but any exact moment is only a point in time, thus time is 1D, but this exact moment in time is 0D.';

'>>16145092
Gay';

'>>16144739
UFOs are one of the best examples. Simply put, they are not physical objects. They are energy and the entities themselves are likely interdimensional, not extraterrestrial. There is a reason they were hesitant to call them "extraterrestrial" at the recent Congress hearing on UFO phenomenon.
Same with cryptids, ghosts, and psychic phenomena. It all makes a lot more sense when you consider them from the perspective of psychic phenomena. Human perception is rather limited so its arrogant to assume that what we are seeing is %100 the truth.
The Gateway Process document puts it into words well. Our consciousness and perception is a vital part of the universe. That being said, just because we have it doesn't mean it will give us perfect results. Because the universe is partially a product of the human mind, or at least influenced by it, affecting the minds of others can result in strange phenomena as I have denoted above. Especially if its the work of more advanced, higher consciousness entities.';

'>>16145624
schizobabble, fuck off back to /x/';

'>>16145624
Wouldn’t extradimensional still technically be extraterrestrial? Wouldn’t another parallel Earth still technically be extraterrestrial by our own’s Earth’s account?';

'>>16145624
>>16145639
The idea that aliens come from higher or alternate dimensions is somehow more buyable than them simply being sourced to another planet. But, of course, this does put one in a hypothetical awkward position, conversationally speaking.

- “We’re from Earth, but not your Earth.”
- “Oh. Okay. Have you met any actual aliens from other planets?”
- “Wow, rude, a being from a different dimension isn’t good enough or cool enough for you?”';

'>>16145649
>aliens come from higher or alternate dimensions
are you fucking retarded? >>>/x/';

'>>16145654
This is entirely physics talk, anon. Mathematically we know higher dimensions exist, and a four-dimensional being would be looking at us inside and out, the same way we’d observe two-dimensional lifeforms.

Navajo rangers commented that the “ghosts” they’ve encountered acted more like invisible trolls than ghosts. Quarters would spontaneously (out of thin air) drop on the floor, and always land heads up, sometimes in a stack.

Any sane physicist would immediately recognize that these quarters are from another space entirely.

No woo woo at all. It’s just basic physics assumption, assuming any of it actually happened.';

'>>16145654
Space travel and time travel go together hand-in-hand.';

'>>16145662
you are not allowed to use this argument, it's in bad faith. you're talking about aliens from "higher dimensions" you absolute buffoon.
also time travel has some limitations, you cannot travel into your future or any past.';

'>>16145665
You can travel to the past, you just can’t alter your own past. The moment you step into the past you’re automatically entering a different past-present-future.

You cannot save *your* Abraham Lincoln.

Travelling into the future is just going fast.';

'>>16145717
you can't travel to the past tho. that's just fantasy, nobody traveled to the fucking past.
the only time travel is in the future of other reference frames, that's it. and you are not in them. and you can't do the equivalent of that for the past. travel to a past in which you are not because of the fact that you traveled in the past. like it would be if you would travel close to speed of light, you'd travel in Earth's future, where you weren't all that time, you were in your ship. hence why you can't travel in your own future/past, or any past, doesn't make sense.';

'>>16145717
The past doesn't exist. It happened once, but it's not happening any more.';

'>>16145729
I don’t care if you can or can’t go into the past, although the idea that you can’t is more absurd. You either can or you can’t. There is no third alternative.

What I do care about, is that you can’t technically change your past. You can only alter a different past-present. It would make no sense otherwise.';

'>>16145812
>I don’t care if you can or can’t go into the past, although the idea that you can’t is more absurd. You either can or you can’t. There is no third alternative.';

'>>16145717
>dude muh comic book plot devices are totally real!!!
why are scifi fans all so dumb that they can't tell the difference between fictional entertainment and irl?
inability to differentiate between the two indicates an IQ lower than 90';

'>>16140417
The best ideas about this Godlike being all involve an incredible amount of magic. None of them have any evidence nor can we verify it. All these ideas are also easily explained with other theories that actually have evidence.';

'>>16145816
>>16146452
You retards do realize you can entertain the possibility without believing it, right? Hypotheticals?';

'>>16146699
the hypothetical doesn't make sense and doesn't answer basic questions and oh yes fucking paradoxes. it's not le innocent hypothetical';

'>>16146706
You need to stop coping over possibilities.';

'>>16146709
“We’re you, but stronger”';

'>>16146699
>implying I didn't have breakfast this morning';

'>>16146709
>UFOs are clearly real
>so time travel to past is also real
>t. picrel';

'>>16147171
But what if you didn’t have breakfast? What then?';

'>>16147178
That's impossible, the past is set.';

'>>16140806
>>16145816
>>16147177
Fucking retard';

'>>16140417
>>>/x/';

'>>16145092
Time is only mathematically expressed in 1d, there is no future or past so it's 0d in reality';

'Tucker knows more about science than most people give him credit for';

'>>16148271
no he doesn't, he's a literal brainlet.';

'Time is literally just things moving and changing you retards. Shit happens.';

'>>16148276
projection
just because you're a brainlet doesn't mean that everyone else is too';

'>>16140952
There's tons of record of adaptation. And you see it in your own life. I mean, I have a lot of dogs. I see adaptation in dogs, you know. Litter to litter. But no, there's no evidence at all that. None. Zero. That, you know, people, you know, evolve seamlessly from a single cell amoeba. No, there's not. There's not. There's no chain in the fossil record of that at all. And that's why you don't actually hear people. You hear them make reference to evolution, because the theory of adaptation is clearly, obviously true. But Darwin's theory's totally unproven. That's why it's still a theory almost 200 years later.';

'>>16140952
Classic Darwinist pilpul, calling everything evolution to poison any discussion of particular topics within it.';

'>>16140952
>Evolution IS adaption
No, adaptation is a cause of evolution.

And anyway, you can (in theory, albeit not reality) have evolution w/o adaptation and vice versa.';

'>>16149431
If you couldn't prove something without seeing it, science would be incapable of studying the past.

Physical evidence is a thing, often a better thing than human eyes when it comes to proving whether or not something happened. You say there's no evidence at all, but that's an outright lie.

Mitochondria alone prove multicellular life came from single celled origins as there is no other way they could be found in all the places they are.';

'>>16149431
>adaptation is real but not evolution
don't end up like this guy anons';

'>>16149447
>No
Yes. Evolution is a cause of causality, in fact.';

'>>16149447
>>16150423
There's an odd saying in science: "Evolution is not the same as adaptation or natural selection.", but this is a rather pedantic expression subject to semantics.

Natural selection happens through chance/change, and evolution is a biological process that happens over generations--but that's still "adaption" of a kind, by way of accustoming to the general, ever present environment, for better or for worse. Life is accustoming itself always. Life in zero g will change. Of course it would.

Adaption, or "adaptive evolution as evolution which increases an organism's fitness", is a misleading expression or explanation, as it implies evolution doesn't royally fuck over organisms, like blind cave fish sucking on rocks. You can absolutely adapt for the worse.';

'tucker is gay';

'>>16151097
tuckerlets btfo!';

'>>16150441
People say evolution is not the same as natural selection because in the current model it isn't.

Speciation is a component of evolutionary theory and natural selection alone cannot create new species because it's a purely subtractive process.

What part of "origin of species" did you not understand?';

'>>16140417
No, but I often think that retarded aliens might be trying to civilize us, not realizing that we became thousand times more intelligent than them without their help, and they are in fact suppressing our civilization (which was completely out of their reach and comprehension) and replace it with their primitivism, their only advantage being knowledge that they managed to gather over millions of years of their retarded existence.';

'>>16150423
>causality
Meds';

'>>16151137
>be trying to civilize us
kek they can't, because of our genetics.
any system they propose we'd just ignore, we always do what we CAN not what we should.
any tech they give us we'd just weaponize it to "kill our enemies". we're hopeless that way. the only "help" they can offer is forcefully modify our genetics or fully our form. anything else is silly talk';

'>>16151115
>People say evolution is not the same as natural selection because in the current model it isn't.
That makes no sense when life is constantly being naturally selective over where it's positioned in nature. The environment never not selectively impacts life relative to its area. This is never not the case.';

'>>16140952
>>16149447
>>16150423
>>16150441
>>16151115
>>16151672
Consider two very different uses of the word 'adaptation' …

1) Adaptation of the *behavior of individuals* of a species to conditions they face during their own lifetimes.

An example: migration after a home forest burns

2) Adaptation *through differential survival of individuals of a species* over long spans of time in which environmental conditions are changing, which presents new opportunities for some individuals and new challenges for others, and leads ultimately to new species.

An example: evolution of new appendages and lungs allowing some individuals of a species to exploit opportunities in a climate that is gradually becoming drier, leading to those individuals becoming the majority of the breeding population, or ultimately generating a new species that can no longer breed with the ancestral population';

'>>16151681
I am so fucking tired of pretentious hairsplitting semantics. To say evolution is not a cause-and-effect matter of selective adaption is so, so fucking idiotic.

The scientific community is filled with frustratingly ironic semantics that inevitably lead to arguments preceding the actual topic at hand. Jesus.';

'>>16151668
Did you actually read the whole post, or just the first sentence?';

'>>16151689
You know it's bad when you have "Harvard professors" trying to lecture American politicians on how "men" can get pregnant, lol.';

'>>16151692
indeed I only read the first sentence anon. mea culpa.
my point still stands by itself with no relation to your post.';

'>>16142979
Where is your single-celled organism that you created from scratch in your laboratory chud. You're not dumber than spontaneous, random processes, right?';

'>>16151808
oh this brain disease again. unless you can prove things don't have a cause then you have no standing. anything we observe has a cause (or a chain of them). always. this filters the midwits';

'>>16142979
>anthropic principle
All of that (hyperbolic) part is my jam, all of my geometry is hyperbolically hyperdimensional.

Its where the various sub-optimal points of evolution/matter, delicate and requires stillness for it to balance, hence "Golden Ages" are not -always-.';

'>>16151834';

'>>16151814 (me)
the best scientific argument for God (regarding life) is that He might have had a hand in manipulating the quantum foam field/Brownian noise around the atoms/molecules that started this whole shit we call life. that's a more honest argument for God having created us/life.';

'>>16151858
>quantum foam field
And in current day life, it is the BioMagmetic pressures from the Environment (+Technology(Artificial emergy pressure allowing for easier BioMagmetic manipulation (Chaos)).

A vector of attack from an Xeno force unknown to Hueman-kind but known to those without voice.

https://youtu.be/TMxJnoPOFkg

An invisible, mathematically perfect, being attempting to communicate with an imperfect, asymmetrical, being.

It is Neutral and Good, it is also Satan.';

'I don't think God made or guided evolution to make humans. I don't see any need for it. However, there is not really a scientific theory of sentience. It may be that if there is a God, and I feel like there definitely could be, sentience is us tapping into whatever it is that makes God a god, even if just slightly.';

'>>16151814
In quantum mechanics, the decay of an excited quantum state to a lower energy state truly has no cause. It happens at random and when it will happen cannot be predicted.';

'>>16146709
>exactly like General Relativity
>low energy
So not General Relativity. Spacetime curvature in GR is proportional to the stress-energy in that region. If you can curve space time greatly without a lot of energy, that isn't following General Relativity';

'>>16146468
There is no scientific description whatsoever of what sentience is.';

'>>16148271
tucker is an actual retard who got famous by hiring 160 IQ internet spergs to write for him. without charlesXII feeding him lines he's worthless.';

'Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God.';

'>>16151689
The scientific community is filled with autists who can’t into barriers.';

'>>16152623
Yeah pretty much';

'God isn't real.';

'>>16154753
What is real but a miserable pile of secrets...';

'>>16154753
I'm agnostic, we don't know that.';

'>>16152623
no it isn't';

'>>16140417
>Do you ever think a godlike alien being
I entertain the thought, but don't accept it

>Could nature's one way cause-and-effect, or evolution, truly produce such intelligent beings as humans on its own?
let's agree on the definitions of "nature", "evolution", "truly", and "its own." an interesting question. consider the central dogma of nucleotides -> DNA -> proteins. the "primordial soup" theory is as compelling as it is unquestioned. in a substrate containing nitrogen, oxygen, carbon and sulfur, with an appropriate stimulus, nucleic acids could have spontaneously formed. given how those would likely spontaneously hydrolyze, there would need to be something to protect the acids (micelle, membrane, or primitive analogue). even if the nucleotides spontaneously assemble into sequences, some mechanism would need to be present for R/DNA replication. really, most any of the cellular machinery involved in the fundamental process. it's possible these primitive mechanisms were made obsolete over evolution, and aren't found in any extant life. theres room for reason and room for doubt on that one. the development of self-awareness is another phenomenon bordering on the miraculous.

if "nature" is the complete manifestation of reality, then it would occupy a divine role. if so, then yes, it could produce humans on its own. if "nature" is only a part of reality, and has a metaphysical counterpart: maybe. one's answer might change based on subjective convictions of the importance of our species.

>Just how delicate and precious is life really
as delicate and precious as you decide.';