posted by RRRGroup at
Thursday, April 28, 2016
The author of that article is far from convinced; as am I. How can this hypothesis be tested?Anyway, when people die, wouldn't they make that sound Pac-Man makes when the ghosts get him?
By scherben, at Thursday, April 28, 2016
People don't die in a simulation, Scherben......they just enter a algorithm purgatory.RR
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 28, 2016
Rich, if we are indeed participating in a simulation, then the simulation itself is based on one hell of an algorithm. Think of all of the algorithmic gateways embedded in the model.How do we define rational and irrational cognition in our "simulated" world? What algorithmic gateway set's this in motion? The lists of questions can go on and on.Since a model usually proceeds the actual simulation itself, can we assume that we and our world are examples of a portion of reality experienced by those who set this simulation in motion?If the simulation hypothesis is correct, then we may well make a good argument that mankind is at a juncture that was predetermined by the original algorithm...we are at a point in time with our technology/culture/societal levels because we are supposed to be.Algorithm purgatory? Just as good as any I suppose.
By Tim Hebert, at Thursday, April 28, 2016
Tim:See posting above this one.RR
With what we know *now* we can neither prove nor disprove "simulism". Sure, there are some who will say you can't *prove* it and therefore it is false. OTOH there is no actual way to *prove* that our subjective experience of "reality" is in actually a true representation of reality. There have been some here who have claimed that those who have observed UAP or other such phenomena were confused, misperceiving reality, or incorrectly identifying a known object. Why would that conclusion be any more true than what the observer claimed? Occam's Razor shaves the barber too. How can we affirmatively *know* what is "real" if we are dependent on subjective perceptions? Any time a "skeptic" insists they are right in the face of "accepted" science [such as QM or QED or even "spooky action at a distance"] they have exchanged their skeptical credibility for the broad, bright colors of a crank or troll.I think that is what deGrasse-Tyson was driving at (in the context of that debate)-- we can't really know what is the right way to perceive-predict-know what is real because our understanding of "fact" and of "Science" keeps changing. There is a non-zero chance that Simulism is true but with what we currently *know* it currently cannot be considered "factual"."Facts" are something like the old definition of history. They are "A lie agreed upon" un til something changes what we know or perceive.
By Joel Crook, at Thursday, April 28, 2016
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile