What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

[SIMIΔN]

What's the magic year that's the specific point in human history where we can say "Anyone living in this region is native, and anyone who comes after is an invader or colonizer."

Never, Everyone in the UK is equally native no matter if you came here 3 or 3000 years ago

 

[RougeRed]

Or that God made the ability for life to evolve and change in a changing universe. Otherwise he’d have to be constantly fiddling around and maybe He’s not so keen on that. Kind of allows you to kick things off and … well like a giant game of Spore basically. Which raises its own questions as well but it’s a thought.
Evolution as a process, or rather natural selection as a process, allows life to change in a changing environment

That's always been my thoughts on the subject. I think that if a God did specifically and intentionally create life as it exists, it would make the most sense that they just set everything up in a way they knew would cause it to eventually happen. When you want to create a tomato, you don't assemble it yourself atom by atom, you create conditions in which a tomato will assemble itself.

 

[Otterly]

When you want to create a tomato, you don't assemble it yourself atom by atom, you create conditions in which a tomato will assemble itself.

Yeah, that’s it. It also seems to fit with this impression I get that the universe isn’t set up atom by atom like that. You could probably talk about free will in this context as well, but if there’s going to be degrees of freedom for growth and exploration and development, the ability of life to evolve is just a lovely way of doing it.

 

[30+GameOvers]

These features are being pushed into all auto manufacturers likely by government mandate, directly or indirectly because obviously they benefit from our reliance on dealerships, and their ability to spy on us, and remotely access our vehicles. But there still exist old vehicles, and the government is unlikely just going to ban all of them. That would cause far too much upset. There is going to be another cash for clunkers in the next 5ish years. It won't be temporary, either. Slowly but surely, all the good ole reliable pieces of machinery are gonna dry up, and all we're gonna be left with are modern shitboxes that break down and spy on you. The sudden shift by the right-wing to being fine with electric vehicles because leftists ree'd at Tesla has me worried. They're gonna accept it hook, line, and sinker, and all the old reliables are gonna get cubed for some sweet sweet cash to go towards the ALL AMERICAN TESLA traps.

If you have the land, I would suggest buying up a few older vehicles and storing them away safely if you can. It's what I am planning on doing. Just in case some jeet crashes into you and irreparably destroys your older car, you won't have to resort to a newer computerized nightmare car.

I am never, ever going to drive one of those new piece of shit "smart cars", not after Micheal Hastings. If it's not a possible government assassination, then there is script kiddies to worry about who can easily jailbreak shitty pajeet coded software and hack into your car, possibly killing you. Then there is tracking, as you said and the car or it's features straight up not working if you don't pay a subscription fee, or whatever ridiculous new non-feature they will implement. At this point, I would rather just buy a motorcycle, at least I know what I'm driving then.

 

[Cuntspiracy Man]

Never, Everyone in the UK is equally native no matter if you came here 3 or 3000 years ago

every immigrant immediately becomes a native in their new country upon stepping off the boat but if a white guy whose family was there for generations dare say that he too is a native then suddenly all the spirits of every preexisting race on the continent wanna talk

next time a cherokee tells you this land is his, correct him and inform him that he's wrong, his tribe was not the first in the americas and he's a filthy landgrabber who stole it from an older, less developed and potentially browner tribe

These features are being pushed into all auto manufacturers likely by government mandate, directly or indirectly because obviously they benefit from our reliance on dealerships, and their ability to spy on us, and remotely access our vehicles. But there still exist old vehicles, and the government is unlikely just going to ban all of them. That would cause far too much upset. There is going to be another cash for clunkers in the next 5ish years. It won't be temporary, either. Slowly but surely, all the good ole reliable pieces of machinery are gonna dry up, and all we're gonna be left with are modern shitboxes that break down and spy on you. The sudden shift by the right-wing to being fine with electric vehicles because leftists ree'd at Tesla has me worried. They're gonna accept it hook, line, and sinker, and all the old reliables are gonna get cubed for some sweet sweet cash to go towards the ALL AMERICAN TESLA traps.

If you have the land, I would suggest buying up a few older vehicles and storing them away safely if you can. It's what I am planning on doing. Just in case some jeet crashes into you and irreparably destroys your older car, you won't have to resort to a newer computerized nightmare car.

aside from the obvious incentive to want every car to be computerized for easy logging, there's another, frankly simpler reason that hits much closer at the moment- the average consumer is an idiot
a machine should do what you tell it, if i wanna use my machine wrong that's my business, i shouldn't have the computer inform me that i'm an idiot if i try and drive on the 5th speed at 2 mph and then physically lock my gear shift to prevent me from doing it
but people are dumb and fantasize about a world where a machine is smarter than them, no need to think hard, ow ow head hurty ): computer do thoughts for me (:

 

[Overly Serious]

The Moari got to NZ about 800 years ago. I read something not too long ago about how fucking the Aboriginees would have been if the Moari's discovered Australia.

Here's some science that got done. If you exclude Africans and look at Aboriginal people as a group. They're more diverse than everyone else on the planet. How does that fit with our notions of race and culture?

This is very interesting. On the off-chance do you have any good links that discuss this? I can't say I'd trust Wikipedia on this.

Or that God made the ability for life to evolve and change in a changing universe. Otherwise he’d have to be constantly fiddling around and maybe He’s not so keen on that. Kind of allows you to kick things off and … well like a giant game of Spore basically. Which raises its own questions as well but it’s a thought.
Evolution as a process, or rather natural selection as a process, allows life to change in a changing environment

Yes, that's logically viable. But it misses my argument against Creationism which is that Creationism is not "God set things up aeons ago and let it run" but that higher order beings like humans, tigers and bears (oh, my!) resulted from God's direct creation not via some billion year forecast. So you either invalidate the fossil record, set caps on Evolution so that humans etc. require direct intervention to create (which is incompatible with @Bog-standard Poster 's idea of a God-like entity resulted from evolution because if Evolution is capped that can't happen - it's a Chicken God and Cosmic Egg problem). Basically reconciling Creationism and Evolution means a scenario of Evolution relegated to small inconsequential changes and Creationism being "make plants, wait several million and add arthropods, few million years more, make dinosaurs, several hundred million years later make some lemur like creature that will eventually turn into Man." Except that the lemur like creature must never turn into Man because that negates the need for direct intervention to create him.

That's my point. Not that your or @Bog-standard Poster 's proposal is necessarily wrong (separate discussion) but that Creationism is not "God exists" or "God created Suns and planets and Carbon". Creationism beliefs under anybody who is called or calls themselves a Creationist, is God directly made lifeforms close to their "final" form. The two wont reconcile. Not without inventing a new and far watered down version of Creationism.


EDIT: My tone may have been a little strident. I actually like the theory myself for reasons below. But I don't think it's Creationism nor something any Creationist would recognize as such.

Yeah, that’s it. It also seems to fit with this impression I get that the universe isn’t set up atom by atom like that. You could probably talk about free will in this context as well, but if there’s going to be degrees of freedom for growth and exploration and development, the ability of life to evolve is just a lovely way of doing it.

Whenever I'm dealing with Complex Systems I like to deal with processes, not end results. Because the latter are usually more work-intensive than setting things up to grow in the way I want. Often to the point it's unfeasible for me. Of course that would suggest a Creator who cares about efficiency. But I would sooner term it elegance if we were to go down this route.

 

[Otterly]

That's my poin

Oh yes, I’d agree with that. Young earth creationism is incompatible with evolution for sure. You are right
I’m just enjoying batting the ideas around.

 

[Overly Serious]

Oh yes, I’d agree with that. Young earth creationism is incompatible with evolution for sure. You are right
I’m just enjoying batting the ideas around.

To be clear, it's not the age of the Earth per se, or even the length of the species. It's still incompatible even if stretched over hundreds of millions of years of life on Earth, because a creator directly creating higher order life is in a zero sum game with same life being produced via Evolution. The more you allow Evolution to create advanced life forms the less you require a being to directly create them. And vice versa. As one of these tends to 0 the other tends to 1.

It's not if the Earth is 4,000 years old or ten billion. It's if higher life is made directly by a creator or not. You can have two possible explanations for the same thing happening. You can't have two actual explanations for the same thing happening. And Creationism is a belief in one of those explanations.

Now smart people will start thinking in multiple layers, metaphors, spiritual underlying reasons for material effects. That's all cool. I do too. But I just want to say that's moving away from what Creationists believe. They don't have "God is in the Evolutionary Process" mysticism. Even though I like mysticism myself.

EDIT: And again, if my tone comes across as a bit didactic, I apologise. I too enjoy batting ideas around.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Creationism being "make plants, wait several million and add arthropods, few million years more, make dinosaurs, several hundred million years later make some lemur like creature that will eventually turn into Man." Except that the lemur like creature must never turn into Man because that negates the need for direct intervention to create him.

That's not the view I take, as that sounds too labour intensive. Free will, as @Otterly mentioned is a way of looking at the same process from a different angle, while avoiding the use of analogy (win/win).
God gave free will, but he didn't tell Shakespeare how to write Hamlet.
God set the rules and will for life; survive, and let everything else play out as it may.
Dinosaurs wiped out? Whoopsie-doodle. That's just rules of the game.
Evolution is human interpretation of the rules, just as we observe physics, mathematics, gravity, magnetism etc.

If we move away from the religious idea and transplant it to the popular theory of "we are living in a simulation" we get the same conclusion; Coder writes the code for the simulation, the simulation plays out how the code says, without planning every interaction and line.

 

[Meriasek]

The truly transcendent can't exist within this universe, and can't interact with it since interaction is revelation and thus lessening of transcendence.
The purpose of intelligence is to seek the limits of the universe, and prepare for the inevitable end and what is beyond. It falls to intelligent life to make sure that the universe expands again with conditions to allow intelligent life to exist to repeat the cycle.
God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end of the universe. God IS the universe, the totality of it, and will be reborn of itself.

/edit:
Alternatively, the universe is CP symmetric and there's an antimatter universe expanding backwards in time, so that the entirety of the cosmos is a vacuum fluctuation that exists and collapses from and into nothing again and again.

/edit 2: Going back to the first hypothesis, the universe as a complete system cannot be understand fully if Gödel's incompleteness theorem holds up, thus making the universe itself truly transcendent until the final moment when it reaches a singularity or maximum entropy. At this moment it can reverse itself, starting the cycle again.

 

[𖦹Junkpop𖦹]

Marjorie Taylor green is a tranny. No I am not going to clarify.

 

[Overly Serious]

That's not the view I take, as that sounds too labour intensive. Free will, as @Otterly mentioned is a way of looking at the same process from a different angle, while avoiding the use of analogy (win/win).
God gave free will, but he didn't tell Shakespeare how to write Hamlet.
God set the rules and will for life; survive, and let everything else play out as it may.
Dinosaurs wiped out? Whoopsie-doodle. That's just rules of the game.
Evolution is human interpretation of the rules, just as we observe physics, mathematics, gravity, magnetism etc.

If we move away from the religious idea and transplant it to the popular theory of "we are living in a simulation" we get the same conclusion; Coder writes the code for the simulation, the simulation plays out how the code says, without planning every interaction and line.

I do feel you're speaking past me a little bit. I've said multiple times now what I am disagreeing with - your terminology. And I keep getting back responses about beliefs and ideas.

To me this entire exchange feels a little like:
- "I love kittens. I love their eight legs and big yellow eyes."
- "That's an octopus".
- "Kittens have those suckers too. How can you not agree they're awesome?"
- "Octopuses are lovely. They are not kittens."
- <Further description of octopuses ensues to show me why Octopuses make sense>

An engagement would be to argue that my definition of Creationism is wrong, but I don't think it is, based on, well, being around for a long time and seeing debates with Creationists and about Creationism, etc.

The truly transcendent can't exist within this universe, and can't interact with it since interaction is revelation and thus lessening of transcendence.
The purpose of intelligence is to seek the limits of the universe, and prepare for the inevitable end and what is beyond. It falls to intelligent life to make sure that the universe expands again with conditions to allow intelligent life to exist to repeat the cycle.
God is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end of the universe. God IS the universe, the totality of it, and will be reborn of itself.

This is pretty close to what I usually believe. And that's a very nice description.

 

[Otterly]

It's if higher life is made directly by a creator or not.

No I get what you mean. By young earth creationism I don’t mean a specific age I mean a creation in toto ‘as it is now.’
Then I would tend to no. The idea that the creation was a one and done, dinosaurs cheekily in the substrata like a cosmic joke and cats made as they are right now with nothing previous, I don’t believe that. I could of course be wrong.
I prefer the ‘set it up and let it wheel’ version, although I DO think there’s some weighting if that wheel because there are certain things that seem to happen just so.

the universe as a complete system cannot be understand fully if Gödel's incompleteness theorem holds up,

Explain for us smaller of brain, if you would?

 

[Trump's Chosen]

Most arguments for evolution fall flat on its face. Same with the old earth theory. We haven’t even found the missing link yet

The issue with finding the missing link, is that when you do, you now have 2 new missing links to look for.

$$$

My conspiracy theory is that whenever this thread is diverted onto topics that aren't conspiracies, it's done by cia niggers. It can't possibly be the case that some people are dumb/interested in topics that I'm not/sharing genuine conspiracies that I'm too dumb to understand.

 

[Meriasek]

Explain for us smaller of brain, if you would?

Basically, Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system you can have statements in the language describing that system that can neither be proven or disproven.
It's something from logic, but with a bit of squinting you could say that the universe can be seen as a consistent formal system (as in, the universe is causal and repeatable [quantum mechanics might disagree, but for the purpose of logic it would still hold up]) and the language describing it is physics. Even a complete set of physics could, according to the theorem, still have somehow statements that can't be proven or disproven. As such it is transcendent and cannot be fully grasped. The universe itself can thus be equated to God.

In reality I don't think you can actually argue like that, I was being a bit tongue in cheek throwing around big philosophical sounding words that don't really work like that.

 

[Rei is Shit.]

Got a new one for you guys: The aboriginal Australians genocided the people who were there before them.
I was talking to someone online and he told me to look into the "Lake Mungo remains". They're ancient remains found in a dry lakebed, but when you read the story, it raises the same alarm bells for me as what happened with Kennewick man re: "Oh no, you can't see the remains! It's cultural tradition! We got rid of it provided it with a traditional burial! Stop asking questions!"

The language distribution in Australia strongly suggests a second immigration wave that conquered most of the continent.

 

[Overly Serious]

If you have the land, I would suggest buying up a few older vehicles and storing them away safely if you can. It's what I am planning on doing. Just in case some jeet crashes into you and irreparably destroys your older car, you won't have to resort to a newer computerized nightmare car.

The danger however, is that once the number of people who own such vehicles is small enough that they're unlikely to generate much upset, the State will outlaw the vehicles on whatever pretext and simply seize them (then charge you for the cost of seizing them). I agree with you though, and that doesn't mean one shouldn't try.

Explain for us smaller of brain, if you would?

@Meriasek has already replied and though I would question whether one can extrapolate from 'no description can be complete and self-consistent' to 'a thing described cannot be complete and self-consistent', he has firstly already self-critiqued and secondly, I honestly kind of like his idea of the Universe being self-contradictory. Every fucking else thing is, so As Above, So Below? (I feel like reality is conceptually below description but that's probably an intuitive approach developed from modelling systems half my life).

 

[big pauper]

the universe can be seen as a consistent formal system (as in, the universe is causal and repeatable [quantum mechanics might disagree, but for the purpose of logic it would still hold up]) and the language describing it is physics.

quantum physics likes to get corrupted by new age hippy gobbedygook because they're both more or less jewish relativism. jewish relativism could be summed up succintly with the idea that "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound" which sounds smart but it's objectively just incorrect. the same thing applies to quantum mechanics, i've heard countless times that quantum concepts like the pauli exclusion principle, uncertainty principle, and wave function collapse are manifestations of how consciousness influences the universe.

ontologically it doesn't matter if you or a rube goldberg machine opens schrodinger's box, the cat will be dead every time.

 

[Meriasek]

quantum physics likes to get corrupted by new age hippy gobbedygook because they're both more or less jewish relativism. jewish relativism could be summed up succintly with the idea that "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound" which sounds smart but it's objectively just incorrect. the same thing applies to quantum mechanics, i've heard countless times that quantum concepts like the pauli exclusion principle, uncertainty principle, and wave function collapse are manifestations of how consciousness influences the universe.

ontologically it doesn't matter if you or a rube goldberg machine opens schrodinger's box, the cat will be dead every time.

Problem is that quantum mechanics are rather abstract and frankly weird. It's weird mathematics that are somehow real and observable, but the weird hippy shit only comes in at the interpretations of said mechanics. Particularly when it comes to wave function collapse. So basically, the fundamental quantum mechanical equation, the Schrödinger equation, deals with complex wave functions. Unlike, say, the Maxwell equations that describe electromagnetic waves, the Schrödinger wave function is a complex function that isn't something directly tangible in reality. It only collapses into a real measurement value when you observe it somehow. This is where it gets a bit weird and easily misunderstood, because we tend to ascribe a certain will and consciousness to "observe", but the quantum mechanical measurement really means any form of interaction. The wave function collapse and its results can be observed (the famous double slit experiments for example, and pair entanglement), but they're... Weird and we don't really know where they come from. There are several interpretations, the most common being that the Schrödinger equation describes a probability wave that collapses into a real value. So the equation describes something abstract, not something tangible.
Like the theory of relativity by Einstein, which is also not very intuitive and annoying to do the math more, but sadly also found to be pretty damn solid with experimental evidence. We all wished it wasn't because it'd make physics a lot easier, but nope, shit's sadly real.
Fun fact about the tree in the forest, one could say that if nobody is there to observe the tree falling, it'll be in a state of quantum superposition and be both standing and fallen at the same time. In reality, of course, it definitely fell because the wave function collapsed by all the interaction with its surroundings (not to mention that the wave function description doesn't really hold up for macroscopic objects anyway, where quantum mechanics become commensurate with classical mechanics).

@Meriasek has already replied and though I would question whether one can extrapolate from 'no description can be complete and self-consistent' to 'a thing described cannot be complete and self-consistent', he has firstly already self-critiqued and secondly, I honestly kind of like his idea of the Universe being self-contradictory. Every fucking else thing is, so As Above, So Below? (I feel like reality is conceptually below description but that's probably an intuitive approach developed from modelling systems half my life).

You can probably argue with information density that you can't "simulate" or describe the entirety of the universe down to the last elementary particle because you can't actually put that much information into code somehow. Maybe each subsequent universe in the cycle gets a little bit smaller or has to use increasingly restrictive weird physics like quantum mechanics and relativity to optimize the required information density... It's simulations all the way down, and at the bottom the universe is basically Conway's Game of Life because its parent universe is marginally bigger.

 

[Overly Serious]

You can probably argue with information density that you can't "simulate" or describe the entirety of the universe down to the last elementary particle because you can't actually put that much information into code somehow. Maybe each subsequent universe in the cycle gets a little bit smaller or has to use increasingly restrictive weird physics like quantum mechanics and relativity to optimize the required information density... It's simulations all the way down, and at the bottom the universe is basically Conway's Game of Life because its parent universe is marginally bigger.

I can compress a large quantity of information down to a smaller set than the thing itself by using algorithms. In fact, I've just done so to send you this. So if the Universe is real, maybe we can simulate it with less than the whole. Though if the Universe is an information system and was created by an intelligent being, perhaps it was already compressed. What does an uncompressed universe look like?

I adore Conway's Game of Life, btw. I'll have to think about what you said more properly when I have time. Conway's game takes place in an infinite expanse of Space. The Universe, I am told, includes Space (and Time). It's its own board.

EDIT: Conway's Game of Life online for anyone who fancies a quick play around on their lunch break.