How much do you hate Michio Cuckold right now?

Mathematicians hate physicists because physicists are pretentious retards who don't know shit with regards to math but constantly compare themselves to mathematics and spread retarded meme math. So yes, the last thing a mathematician wants to do is be helpful to a drooling retard.

math user, can I spread your memes after taking three analysis courses or am I still forbidden? Please respond

I think you're ready.

Of course not you ROACH! Now spend another 4 years at MY university and SUFFER!

t-thanks

Any scientist that doesn't believe in God can scarcely call himself a scientist

So Chris Langan was right after all. The article refers to Langan's unbound telesis concept:
ctmucommunity.org/wiki/UBT

Care to explain?

Skepticism and empiricism are literally the foundation of modern science.

What if Langan is the second coming? It was said that Jesus would rule the world and strike down the nations when he comes again. Chris Langan postulated to do exactly this. He expressed his will to do so, in fact.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HXSHXUtFw

>As an atheist I really, really, REALLY wish god was real and that the afterlife was a thing.

I know how you feel. Though I don't want a God in the Abrahamic sense. But I would love to live in my own dream universe.

Chris Langan - 11 letters
Jesus Christ - 11 letters

There is more proof of a creator than the existence of aliens.

God exists
ask
Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109)
or Kurt Gödel (1906–1978)

preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/03/18/what-the-god-particle-hath-wrought/

so yeah mr cuckoo is full of sshit

I've been hating this fuck more and more every year. I'm so fucking tired of bullshit in science.

There's going to be even more water!

I predict that by 2025 we will have a worldwide cult leader with more than 2 billion followers who will stage a coup and take over.

Take a look at how people are becoming more and more addicted to celebrity culture, it's invading politics now. What would happen if some guy in China convinces 300 million people he's the shit. It's not like you can stop him, he has a giant number of people fanatically protecting him.

>tfw Christians were right about the AntiChrist

>Take a look at how people are becoming more and more addicted to celebrity culture, it's invading politics now.
Nothing has changed, celebrity culture has always been that powerful. The general public is easy to sway.

No, there is equal proof of the two: absolutely none.

Kaku has always been infamous for his uses of analytic fallacies among his peers.
In this case, he's using his usual, which is abstract conceptualization equals reality equivocation, leaned up against the argument from ignorance while shifting the burden of proof due to personal incredulity.

Typical Michio Kaku.

Don't give that moron the benefit of the doubt - there is more evidence for the possibility of aliens because of the fact that the universe is massive and abiogenesis seems to have occurred at least once.

1.) Quantity doesn't equal quality.
2.) You're ignoring the laws of:
a. exploitable environments
b. shared weaknesses among groups
c. domino effect

That is not evidence.

I took the time to watch the full video where the article claims he thinks he proves the existence of God. He does not say that at any point at all. All he talks about is string theory and physics leading to new mathematical theory and the hunt for a unifying equation. Fucking liars.

>evidence for the possibility
Yes it is. Which "God" does not have.

The general public has never been as connected as they are today, that is the important change.

Except in every single period of human history the weight of numbers eventually wins.

Do you know what happens if enough people believe physicists are evil? All the physicists get rounded up and put in death camps. Who do you think will organize quicker? The physicists to defend themselves with superior intellect, or the gibbering mass of people driven by fear or anger.

Science is _permitted_ by the general consensus because it leads to desirable outcomes for everyone, it is also socially limited by a set of rules and ethics outside the realm of logic. Human experimentation at the cost of less than 1,000,000 test subjects might completely unlock the mysteries of the mind and improve the lives of the 7,000,000,000+ on the planet. We don't allow invasive human experimentation on a massive scale.

Quantity means organisation, impetus, the will of many to action. If you believe we won't have dictatorships and world religions in the future, reverting back to some primitive barbarism eventually, then you don't believe in human nature. Or you foolishly believe you can overcome it, without any evidence to suggest so.

no. that's not evidence.

All tachyons do is make it so Dr. Manhattan can't see the future

>Except in every single period of human history the weight of numbers eventually wins.
That's not true though.
Native American's outnumbered Europeans.
The British outnumbered the American Resistance.
Chinese outnumbered Japanese.
Then there's all the islands that were conquered by a small number of crew.
Apparently you don't know shit about history.

You sad attempt to incorrectly prove numbers are all that matter is just wrong.

In Iraq, for instance, entire tanks were taken out by children... because they were trained to run up to them and place grenades in the correct location.

You seem to think circular logic and anchoring in beliefs is a rational thing to do.
What are you foundations, because I just proved them wrong with historic examples.
But you're anchored down, and are therefore in a psychotic state of denial of history and basic combative logistics.

I mean the fact that governments and rich people are outnumbered yet control everything should clue you in to the reality of the quantity doesn't equal quality argument.

You are confusing evidence with proof.

Modern complex simulations aren't created by one person, they are generally an effort of hundreds, even thousands of people.

The old monkey with typewriters eventually making a novel is a flawed argument against a creator considering you have a set of mechanics that are already established for randomness occur. Geocentric, heliocentric, flat earth and round earth theories all have a common mechanic of establishment that enables everything else to work the way it does. You can test this. Programmers do it all the time when developing engines for simulations.

Aliens, not UFOs, is just a mere fantasy and wishful thinking, pushed by Hollywood. You can write all the Drake equations you want but there is no real observation or testable practices to prove it and everything that comes about it is muddy with skepticism and hoax. Just because the universe is big as they say it is, simply relying on faith is not enough. And if you want to believe in conspiracies about secret government's and control, why not believe in the one about education removing non denominational creationism as a possibility and pushing Darwinism and the big bang?

Going along with your line of bullshit, you could just say that the universe has laws and rules, so there must be a rulemaker aka god or use the same vast complexity to imply the watchmaker hypothesis.

>tachyons

So he's trying to prove something using the properties of a particle that hasn't been proven to exist?

>Quantity means organization
Nos organization get vastly more complicated with even minor increases in quantity and it gets harder to develop a consensus when you have more people.

It's not the first time physicists do that.

See gravity.

>Native American's outnumbered Europeans.
>The British outnumbered the American Resistance.

The first one depends on when you start counting, the second is just wrong.

You're right in general though, shear numbers are no guarantee of victory (although they probably help).

No, you are confusing evidence with speculation.

>so there must be a rulemaker
This does not follow. Considering anything outside of our observable universe is conjecture, there are unlimited explanations we could come up with, and there is no reason to assume any human concepts are involved.

Only if you accept Godels shitty axioms

ffs, you're an idiot if you think anything you just said offers any kind of proof whatsoever of the existence of a creator. Where is your "observation or testable practices" for that? You can't have it both ways, dipshit.

>there are unlimited explanations we could come up with
Yes and among those explanations are an unlimited amount that don't necessitate living components, so until you find actual traces of aliens, all you have is conjecture as well.

kek'd

I have tried to find the source for OP's article ie where Kaku supposedly published his original remark, but all I find are pop-sci or religious blogs citing the same article from the "GEOPHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL STUDIES" whatever the hell that is.

So, opinions of string theory aside, does anyone know if the phrase "primitive semi-radius tachyon" has any meaning in the literature? Because it sounds like techno-mumbo-jumbo drummed up by an unethical blogger with an agenda and the ability to embed YouTube links.

How does life come from non life?
Why do trees exist if everything according to evolution theory comes from a single source and have the potential to become a human?
What is DNA?

His interpretation of his own theory show how much Michio wants there to be a God. It is disgusting. Nothing in Michio's theory does entail a Creator. Even a banana can be a proof of God to some very feeble minds. It is a banana proof of God.

>among those explanations are an unlimited amount that don't necessitate living components
I was talking about explanations for the ~outside of the universe~ where such a ~lawmaker~ would be. Back to aliens, I suggest you follow back up the reply chain to my original suggestion - there is MORE evidence for the POSSIBILITY of aliens than for the POSSIBILITY of a supernatural being, because there IS life that APPEARS to have arisen via abiogenesis.

>How does life come from non life?
>Why do trees exist if everything according to evolution theory comes from a single source and have the potential to become a human?
>What is DNA?

Good grief. Your total lack of understanding of genetics and biology isn't proof of god's existence. Learn some things for crying out loud.

Underrated post. I'm genuinely confused if this is bait or ignorance.

There are thousands of attempts at simulating life in this universe as well, so there is much more evidence that our universe is a simulation by some God machine from a more complex universe.

>CHAD is eating PIZZA

Dude, it's time to put down the bong.

>Debates with criticism and no answers
>Leaves the thread
How to spot a trump voter

Can I have some of what you're having?

Just because we do not have answers to certain questions does not mean that God must be the answer to those questions (i.e. the ultimate solution). There is no food in the refrigerator, therefore the food must be under the bed. You see how this does not follow logically, the same applies to God when used in the following manner: We do not know how x, therefore God.

I wonder why all the results on the front page seem to be dogshit sources.

get into grad school and pass quals then maybe

Different user here.
1. Google abiogenesis.
2. Did you take high school biology? Do you know what speciation is? Plant cells and animal cells went separate directions a goddamn long time ago.
3. ? What is your question? Google DNA?
This is why you didn't get a response.

>TAKYON
>A
>K
>Y
>O
>N

Where are you?

Many do. I mean there are applied mathematicians, but pure mathematicians are a different breed.

I wasn't applying my own logic, I was using the ayy lmao logic that was presented which is why it was incoherent.

Trees are adapted just fine to their environment, they don't need to be humans while humans need to have trees around.
DNA is the catalyst for a complex chemical reaction.

Then your attempt at analogy is shit and you should feel bad. I don't claim aliens definitively exist. I claim it is less bullshit than God. I don't know how much clearer I can make that for you.

Langan is so full of shit, I can't stand the fucker. He's smart, but he's a straight up con artist. He uses intentionally confusing and poorly defined terms to make what he is saying vague and less clear which, therefore, makes it harder to actually poke obvious holes in.

I am saying they are equal amounts speculation and for every way you can vaguely speculate that ayylmaos are possible I can come up with an equally valid speculation for the possibility of a god or gods which is why the concepts are so often used interchangeably.

Ontological proofs of god are retarded. The idea that something must exist if the idea of it exists is totally unfounded. By that 'logic' unicorns, human immortality at present, and time travel must exist. In fact, nothing would be able to not exist.

Christianity was a cult, it only became a religion a while after Jesus died (supposedly, there isn't really any evidence that he ever existed in the first place).

>He uses intentionally confusing and poorly defined terms to make what he is saying vague and less clear which, therefore, makes it harder to actually poke obvious holes in.

Could it be that he's actually so intelligent that he truly does "get it" and his theory is correct, but the vast, vast majority of people (yourself included) simply aren't smart enough to understand it?

I don't have the answer to this - but as far as I know, no one has been able to disprove anything Langan has said, or really form a coherent argument against it, other than "the language is vague and confusing." I mean, could it be that it's confusing only because his thoughts are so advanced and so far out of normal cognitive abilities to grasp?

\thread

>which is why the concepts are so often used interchangeably.
That part was funny, anyway...

Then you have so drastically missed the entire argument I have no idea what more to say to you. Abiogenesis is widely accepted in the scientific community to have occurred at least once. Deities have not. I'm sorry that this is over your head. Goodnight user.

He sounds like a transcendentalist.

There are vastly more directly documented examples of people playing god with simulations than occurrences that are speculated to have happened of abiogenesis.

Ancient aliens always conflates god mythologies with aliens and there are numerous pagan gods that come from other planets.

The fucking king of pseudo-science. The absolute fucking king.

He is an idiot and I hope nobody takes him seriously.

Watch OP's video at 2:23:

>That's differential calculus, which you learn in 4th year calculus

What the fuck?
Who the fuck is learning differential calculus in their 4th year of calculus?

Is Kaiku literally retarded?

Prove that God does not exist using hypothetical empirical evidence.
Hint: It's not possible because that would require a devil's proof

Hypothetical and empirical are opposites you idiot.
I'm an atheist, but your statement makes no sense what so ever.

I am saying you can make up whatever measurable evidence you wabt to construct your argument.

I believe that proper form dictates that, if you invent a fantasy, the burden of proof lies with you.

There is zero empirical quantifiable evidence of the existence of substance GOD, therefore that substance can not be said to exist.

If God has the capabilities attributed to it it may exist regardless of evidence you can find.

Stop misusing the word literally

You mean an alien civilization?

>God

There goes his credibility. The entire academic establishment is going to ostracize him into oblivion.

WUBBALUBBADUBDUB!!!

>i don't want it to exist, so i will dismiss any proof and call that there is no proof

Nice scientist.

>logic' unicorns, human immortality at present, and time travel must exist
Except that those things aren't necessary to the universe/reality exist.

He didn't dismiss any and all proof, just a very specific kind of long form semantic philosophical rationalization based proofs.

Semantic arguments are sound if you define every term precisely.

>Except that those things aren't necessary to the universe/reality exist.
And the evidence that a god is nessisary is about as strong as the evidence that god exists.

Depending on the exact wording, the Ontological argument either proves almost nothing at all, or it requires you to accept absurd and obviously wrong premises as true.

Then why were you so careful to avoid calling your argument a proof?

This.

30 years, laddies. Hustle up.