[Misc] Conspiracy theories

[Guinness Boy]

1/ We are not living in a video game or computer simulation. Believing we are living in a video game or computer simulation is not “science” or “science demonstrated”. It is not narrow minded or foolish to discount the notion we are living in a video game or computer simulation. This is the sort of accusation flat earthers throw around “ open your mind man, don’t be so narrow minded and foolish”

2/ Parallel worlds is an interesting concept, everything though becomes interesting and possible when you throw the rule book on the laws of physics out the window. But you are confusing theorises with “showing that there are”


2/ The Golden Ratio
Much easier just to quote extracts from here

https://www.fastcompany.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio-designs-biggest-myth

“It’s bullshit. The golden ratio’s aesthetic bona fides are an urban legend, a myth, a design unicorn. Many designers don’t use it, and if they do, they vastly discount its importance. There’s also no science to really back it up. Those who believe the golden ratio is the hidden math behind beauty are falling for a 150-year-old scam”

……..

“First described in Euclid’s Elements 2,300 years ago, the established definition is this: two objects are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities. The value this works out to is usually written as 1.6180”

….

When you do the math, the golden ratio doesn’t come out to 1.6180. It comes out to 1.6180339887… And the decimal points go on forever.
“Strictly speaking, it’s impossible for anything in the real-world to fall into the golden ratio, because it’s an irrational number,” says Keith Devlin, a professor of mathematics at Stanford University. You can get close with more standard aspect ratios. The iPad’s 3:2 display, or the 16:9 display on your HDTV all “float around it,” Devlin says. But the golden ratio is like pi. Just as it’s impossible to find a perfect circle in the real world, the golden ratio cannot strictly be applied to any real world object. It’s always going to be a little off.
It’s pedantic, sure. Isn’t 1.6180 close enough? Yes, it probably would be, if there were anything to scientifically support the notion that the golden ratio had any bearing on why we find certain objects like the Parthenon or the Mona Lisa aesthetically pleasing.
But there isn’t. Devlin says the idea that the golden ratio has any relationship to aesthetics at all comes primarily from two people, one of whom was misquoted, and the other of whom was just making shit up.
The first guy was Luca Pacioli, a Franciscan friar who wrote a book called De Divina Proportione back in 1509, which was named after the golden ratio. Weirdly, in his book, Pacioli didn’t argue for a golden ratio-based theory of aesthetics as it should be applied to art, architecture, and design: he instead espoused the Vitruvian system of rational proportions, after the first-century Roman architect, Vitruvius. The golden ratio view was misattributed to Pacioli in 1799, according to Mario Livio, the guy who literally wrote the book on the golden ratio. But Pacioli was close friends with Leonardo da Vinci, whose works enjoyed a huge resurgence in popularity in the 19th century. Since Da Vinci illustrated De Divina Proportione, it was soon being said that Da Vinci himself used the golden ratio as the secret math behind his exquisitely beautiful paintings.
One guy who believed this was Adolf Zeising. “He’s the guy you really want to burn at the stake for the reputation of the golden ratio,” Devlin laughs. Zeising was a German psychologist who argued that the golden ratio was a universal law that described “beauty and completeness in the realms of both nature and art… which permeates, as a paramount spiritual ideal, all structures, forms and proportions, whether cosmic or individual, organic or inorganic, acoustic or optical.”
He was a long-winded guy. The only problem with Zeising was he saw patterns where none exist. For example, Zeising argued that the golden ratio could be applied to the human body by taking the height from a person’s navel to his toes, then dividing it by the person’s total height. These are just arbitrary body parts, crammed into a formula, Devlin says: “When measuring anything as complex as the human body, it’s easy to come up with examples of ratios that are very near to 1.6.
……….

In conclusion birds aren’t real

Yep.

It all makes sense in the middle of the night when you’ve had a few though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

These polls were not done today but in 2008 (the picture) and 2004 (the link).

The theory that i.e. the US government arranged this themselves occured immediaty, its not some far away afterthought.

As for "people on the internet", that includes you and 4,6 billion other people.

Really grasping for straws here. That you wont accept anything but the US Government official version is not surprising, a lot of people function like that. But its quite astonishing what a hard time you have to accept that a fairly large amount of people see it in a different way.

I don't think you understand how opinion polls work.

 

[eric young hero diplomat]

Good podcast called The Paranoid Strain that covers a wide range of conspiracy theories, from protocols of zion, chem trails, flat earth, anti vaxxers and the bizarre sovereign citizen well worth a listen to https://theparanoidstrain.com/

 

[Goldstone1976]

1/ We are not living in a video game or computer simulation. Believing we are living in a video game or computer simulation is not “science” or “science demonstrated”. It is not narrow minded or foolish to discount the notion we are living in a video game or computer simulation. This is the sort of accusation flat earthers throw around “ open your mind man, don’t be so narrow minded and foolish”

2/ Parallel worlds is an interesting concept, everything though becomes interesting and possible when you throw the rule book on the laws of physics out the window. But you are confusing theorises with “showing that there are”

Computer simulation: an age-old hypothesis, dating back to at least Plato’s cave allegory. Recent philosophical research really kicked into gear on the back of Prof Nick Bostrom’s 2003 paper (https://academic.oup.com/pq/article-abstract/53/211/243/1610975), and has been assessed by Scientific American as roughly 50/50 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

Multiverse: specific interpretations of current physics theories do allow for multiverses https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/

Indeed, the New Scientist published a piece claiming evidence of at least one parallel universe had been found in Antarctica. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-a-parallel-universe-going-backwards-in-time/


Mainstream academics from world-class universities, and tier 1 scientific journals publishing stuff indicates to me that both are definitely possible. Damn those experts; won’t they ever stop?

 

[Baldseagull]

It depends on if you were a victim that believe the official version or not.

You seem to believe that only a handful of ****tards have any doubt about it, which is really not the case - no matter if you are right or wrong.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081217161036/http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

"Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals"

I think its actually quite likely a lot of victims who do not believe the official 9/11 version would be happy if someone listened to them rather than being like the establishments and its lickers (like you) rather than being seen as lunatics for ever doubting the Holy US Government.

View attachment 129966

I believe that there was intelligence that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks from happening, that is not the same as believing that the US Government was behind it.

 

[Baldseagull]

Indeed. One of my best mates is an ex-submariner. One time he told me, after a couple of beers, something he really shouldn't and that I hope never to repeat. Not a big conspiracy but an "operational incident". I would bet quite a lot of money that I'm not the only person in the UK who wasn't on the sub who knows the story.

You are now in on the conspiracy of silence, unless you spill the beans, here and now would be a good time and place.

 

[Albion Dan]

1/ We are not living in a video game or computer simulation. Believing we are living in a video game or computer simulation is not “science” or “science demonstrated”. It is not narrow minded or foolish to discount the notion we are living in a video game or computer simulation. This is the sort of accusation flat earthers throw around “ open your mind man, don’t be so narrow minded and foolish”

Wow NSC user and well known physicist Pastafarian can confidently discount something that even Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Elon Musk believe is a plausible possibility. [emoji23]

 

[beorhthelm]

Computer simulation: an age-old hypothesis, dating back to at least Plato’s cave allegory. Recent philosophical research really kicked into gear on the back of Prof Nick Bostrom’s 2003 paper (https://academic.oup.com/pq/article-abstract/53/211/243/1610975), and has been assessed by Scientific American as roughly 50/50 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

the point that it is such an old philosophical hypothesis shows its something we use to make sense of the world. it does not make it scientifically valid. its quite reasonable to discount the hypothesis as it doesn't provide any provable conclusion. it remains in arena of philosophy and fringe science, as you cant disprove it either.

the multiverse is really same, it comes from nicer maths to rule out the unpalatable inference from Copenhagen interpretation. its not a provable theory as it stands, its an alternative. there's just as many scientists favor Copenhagen over multiverse.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Indeed. One of my best mates is an ex-submariner. One time he told me, after a couple of beers, something he really shouldn't and that I hope never to repeat. Not a big conspiracy but an "operational incident". I would bet quite a lot of money that I'm not the only person in the UK who wasn't on the sub who knows the story.

Something to do with being under a load of ice up north?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[rogersix]

Something to do with being under a load of ice up north?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

spill the bloody beans

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

spill the bloody beans

.. not that exciting tbh. And no I wasn’t there thank ****. Who in their right mine would go on a sub.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Juan Albion]

Computer simulation: an age-old hypothesis, dating back to at least Plato’s cave allegory. Recent philosophical research really kicked into gear on the back of Prof Nick Bostrom’s 2003 paper (https://academic.oup.com/pq/article-abstract/53/211/243/1610975), and has been assessed by Scientific American as roughly 50/50 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

Multiverse: specific interpretations of current physics theories do allow for multiverses https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe/

Indeed, the New Scientist published a piece claiming evidence of at least one parallel universe had been found in Antarctica. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-a-parallel-universe-going-backwards-in-time/


Mainstream academics from world-class universities, and tier 1 scientific journals publishing stuff indicates to me that both are definitely possible. Damn those experts; won’t they ever stop?

The idea we might be living in a computer simulation is a theory, but it is not a conspiracy theory, unless you think some people have proof that we are and are covering it up (probably the Rothschilds that live in Southwick Tunnel). But then maybe the simulation being run is one to see how dominant tinfoilers can become before and after the invention of social media.

 

[McTavish]

The "proof" that it is fake is as watertight as the proof that it isnt. One could say that one of these perspectives is anti-semitic and that the other is anti-slavic. Its a very fascinating read either way: to me its more about the detailed description of how you could change the world in a specific way. If its written by someone from the Russian Empire or someone from the Zionist leadership or some random dude with great fantasy matter less (and will remain unknown) - its the construction itself of a specific society that is intriguing.

Quoting it here was to exemplify that the idea that Marx was really an agent of the Rothschild family is not as absurd and unheard of as it may seem.

No. You are wrong. It is a fake. To give it any credence at all is anti-semitic.

 

[Albion Dan]

Yep.

It all makes sense in the middle of the night when you’ve had a few though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

�� The actual irony of someone who actually has the user name of an alcoholic drink repeatedly trying to again demean a users post suggesting he's had a drink. Where is your actual credibility? Do you actually pay Darren to let you be a mod because he must be embarrassed by your behaviour.

 

[Music City Gull]

May I humbly ad this one to the list.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNtr0RahRqM

How the presenters didn't call the men in white coats with their nice jacket that holds the arms in place I will never know

That’s awesome. Though I might be able to one up that beauty! Are there leprechauns in Mobile, AL?

 

[Goldstone1976]

Something to do with being under a load of ice up north?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That was one of them, yes.

 

[Goldstone1976]

The idea we might be living in a computer simulation is a theory, but it is not a conspiracy theory, unless you think some people have proof that we are and are covering it up (probably the Rothschilds that live in Southwick Tunnel). But then maybe the simulation being run is one to see how dominant tinfoilers can become before and after the invention of social media.

It’s absolutely not a conspiracy theory, as you say. My post was a response to another user’s post dissing the theory; I was merely providing a counter argument.

 

[Goldstone1976]

the point that it is such an old philosophical hypothesis shows its something we use to make sense of the world. it does not make it scientifically valid. its quite reasonable to discount the hypothesis as it doesn't provide any provable conclusion. it remains in arena of philosophy and fringe science, as you cant disprove it either.

the multiverse is really same, it comes from nicer maths to rule out the unpalatable inference from Copenhagen interpretation. its not a provable theory as it stands, its an alternative. there's just as many scientists favor Copenhagen over multiverse.

While I’d agree that neither are proven (and I didn’t claim either were), I think that ‘fringe science’ is a bit of a push when Scientific American reckons that simulation theory is roughly 50/50.

Unproven, yes; profound implications, yes; a plausible theory worthy of consideration, yes imo.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Having recently watched ‘The Trial of the Chicago 7’ on Netflix at the end we were told that the two main protagonists against the US Government, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin still died relatively young. Hoffman in an ‘apparent’ suicide in 1989 and Rubin in a car accident in 1996, given their part in this piece of American history, as soon as the words came up on the screen I thought was it more than a coincidence?

Then I watched the FBI effectively destroy Jean Seberg on Sky Movies and anything is possible.

 

[highflyer]

even...Elon Musk

Let me stop you there...