The Simulation Theory

[kbdfr]

[…] it seems all these concepts are under the premises that we are entities and living in a real world, but are we? What if the player(god) turns off his computer now... […]

In ancient Babylone they had arrows and cattle, so they used belomancy and haruspicy for divination.
Had they had computers, they would have imagined we are figures in a computer game run by gods.

[…] the content is irrelavant to the OP but if you think deeply and closely enough you will find there is something relavant […] buddhism […] has been preaching the same way of thinking since centuries ago.

… while Descartes' philosophy was dismissed as having "nothing to do with the simulation theory" and being "out-dated" - after only 380 years

[Mr.Nobody]

@KBDFR
Yeah, Elon Musk must be rather stupid,for he believes we are living in a simulation, can he be more absurd for Descartes' sake? What? This guy is a billionaire? How could a dumbass make so much money? what? He also has a Space X project launching reuseable rockets into space? How could a dumbass manage to do that? I think you must make more than he does,and since you don't believe keeping income in secrecy anyway, then why not just tell us how much you make a year; you must be filthy rich, at least richer than Elon Musk, and you must have a space XXL project which is XL times better than Elon Musk's pathetic joke, and BTW could you please kindly tell us when will you launch your new car the revolutionary Edson Model S?

[kbdfr]

[…] since you don't believe keeping income in secrecy anyway[…]

You already proved to be to be a shameless liar not much interested in truth, and again regarding "secrecy" you obfuscate the fact that I I simply challenged your assertion that keeping salaries secret inside a company is for the benefit of all, including those with low wages.
Nothing else, but obviously you love your "alternative facts"

[…] Elon Musk must be rather stupid,for he believes we are living in a simulation, can he be more absurd for Descartes' sake? What? This guy is a billionaire? How could a dumbass make so much money? […]

So for you the fact that Elon Musk is a billionaire while I am not proves that we are living in a simulation.
That for sure is a compelling argument

Please keep enriching us with your deep insights

[fohat]

Please keep enriching us with your deep insights

Perhaps Mr Nobody is the TP4tissue wannabe for Deskthority.

[Mr.Nobody]

Maybe even have a chitchat about the possibility that we are living in a simulation scares the shit out of some folks, , maybe admitting the fact that somebody started from nothing is doing better is more difficult for some people as well, so let's just keep Elon Must's life a Sci-fi story and incomes in secrecy, lest some people who have nothing whatsoever lose more--- their mental health.

It always causes embarassment and bewilderment that something seems impossible and byound reach becomes completely possible and within reach for somebody else.Happy Rooster Year Gents!

EDIT:
Just like there is difference between "typos" and "unable to spell",there is difference between "inaccurate statement" and "deliberate lie" ,however, the difference is unexplainable to those who have difficulty thinking logically and reasonably.

At least I won't spend my time educating those people. Definitely, it's a better idea spending time reading contents from those who have insights or worthy opinions especially those who are able to see things from untraditional angles...

[kbdfr]

[…] a chitchat about the possibility that we are living in a simulation […]

It's funny to see you change your point of view and doing so as if you wouldn't.
You were definitive about it in your OP ("In one word, we are just sims or NPCs living in a computer game run by gods..."), and a billionaire thinking the same was proof enough to you, now it's just "a chitchat about the possibility".

[…] there is difference between "inaccurate statement" and "deliberate lie"

The assertion in your post that the word "God" was the most frequent in Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" was not just a mistake: it was obviously intended to give weight to your following statement that "Einstein and other physicists use this word frequently, it's inevitable when discussing modern science, especially physics".
It was a clear case of intellectual dishonesty.
You obviously did not expect anyone to know better

however, the difference [between "inaccurate statement" and "deliberate lie"] is unexplainable to those who have difficulty thinking logically and reasonably. […]

[seebart]

I have the final and ultimate summation of living simulations and everything else covered in this cozy thread:

Spoiler:

1ig4h7.jpg (37.59 KiB) Viewed 4848 times

[Mr.Nobody]

The dirty trick is to muddle the pool...for in stance:If I say there might be a bomb in the building 20 meters away, The smart ass will jump out and say "Hey, you are telling a plain lie, there is no building 20 meters away at all, there is one 18.93 meters away, I just measured it myself, if you say there is a building 20 meters away,it's an alternative fact..." It seems some one is unable to catch the point or he chooses to miss the point deliberately to ruin the OP... But this trick is too inferior to apply for any decent debator that is trying to bring sound arguments into a discussion.

[Mr.Nobody]

Spoiler:

If someone who has a brain of an 8 years old girl(no offence to 8 years old girls) wants to argue with you,the wise thing to do is to ignore him and do something else...so I'm going to watch videos on youtube instead.

[Khers]

Your arguments are sound? That's news to me.

[Mr.Nobody]

Your arguments are sound? That's news to me.

By decent debator I am refering Beardsmore Menuhin and others of course including myself who keep bring in thoughts and interesting contents...if this is news to you, then apparently you know too less.


@some guys...
Beardsmore Menuhin and many others had some petty friction with me days ago, but they never follow all my threads and pick on me, instead they always post inspirational and informational contents relavant to the OP, and their own threads are full of intriguing and useful contents for this reason I respect them, that's the mature thing to do, I guess, that's the difference between man and boy. I kind of depise those who click into a thread just to pick on people he doesn't like personally, why not just pick on my misuse of punctuation marks...if picking on me is the only thing you like to do so much.

[seebart]

Beardsmore Menuhin and many others had some petty friction with me days ago, but they never follow all my threads and pick on me...

Not me!

[Mr.Nobody]

Beardsmore Menuhin and many others had some petty friction with me days ago, but they never follow all my threads and pick on me...

Not me!

I always love the pictures you posted, especially vintage ads, and when I was confused about buying a terminal blue switch or an XT or an AT, you knew exactly what I was confused about and gave me sound advice, I owe you many thanks for that in fact.

[Mr.Nobody]

speak of the devil...topic expanded into the meaning of life...

[seebart]

Beardsmore Menuhin and many others had some petty friction with me days ago, but they never follow all my threads and pick on me...

Not me!

I always love the pictures you posted, especially vintage ads, and when I was confused about buying a terminal blue switch or an XT or an AT, you knew exactly what I was confused about and gave me sound advice, I owe you many thanks for that in fact.

If you like vintage ads use our search function to see mr_a500 posts, he used to post very nice old computer ads.

search.php?author_id=3639&sr=posts

[kbdfr]

[…] The dirty trick is to muddle the pool...for in stance:If I say there might be a bomb in the building 20 meters away, The smart ass will jump out and say "Hey, you are telling a plain lie, there is no building 20 meters away at all, there is one 18.93 meters away, I just measured it myself, if you say there is a building 20 meters away,it's an alternative fact..." It seems some one is unable to catch the point […]

The "dirty trick", as you put it, is doing so now as if you had merely asserted an approximation.
while you claimed something completely and absolutely untrue in order to support your argumentation:

[…] in fact in the book "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, the most frequent word is "God" […] in fact, Einstein and other physicists use this word frequently, it's inevitable when discussing modern science, especially physics.

In Hawking's book the word "God" is by no means (of course not taking into account all the "a", "the", "of" and such) the most frequent word - it is just randomly mentioned a few times, as I proved it.

What you did is arguing Hawking is mainly concerned with God, which is plainly untrue - not just "20 meters" instead of "18.93 meters". You asserted a plain lie only in order to be able to conclude that the same would apply to "Einstein and other physicists").
That is a "dirty trick" which has nothing to do with an honest discussion.

[kbdfr]

This being said, your few "arguments" are just crap.

You even postulate that the simulation theory must be right because it is supported by Telon Musk, a guy so smart that he made billions.

You obviously are not aware of the paradox this entails.
To put it short, if the simulation theory is right, then we all are figures in a simulation game run by gods,
including Telon Musk - whose "smartness" then is nothing than a feature his figure has been fitted with.
So Telon Musk is smart only if he is a real person - and if he is a real person, then the simulation theory is wrong.

This can be seen as an application of the basic liar paradox (nothing to do with you, it just happens to be called so ).

[Mr.Nobody]

If you like vintage ads use our search function to see mr_a500 posts, he used to post very nice old computer ads.

search.php?author_id=3639&sr=posts

Reading for hours, 8 pages finished, what happened to this guy, why he stopped visiting DT? And have you successfully got the IBM 6113442 working? Obviously you are the one who has tons of awesome vintage keyboards...

[matt3o]

You obviously are not aware of the paradox this entails.
To put it short, if the simulation theory is right, then we all are figures in a simulation game run by gods,
including Telon Musk - whose "smartness" then is nothing than a feature his figure has been fitted with.
So Telon Musk is smart only if he is a real person - and if he is a real person, then the simulation theory is wrong.

I do not agree with Mr.Nobody but this argument is weak, and only valid if you take "Intelligence" in an absolute archetypal form. In our case he is a "smart" guy by simulation standards, which totally fits his role. When you create a neural network you rarely know exactly which is the outcome until you execute the code and see the result, so we as AI could have unpredictable behaviors even for a "Maker".

[seebart]

If you like vintage ads use our search function to see mr_a500 posts, he used to post very nice old computer ads.

search.php?author_id=3639&sr=posts

Reading for hours, 8 pages finished, what happened to this guy, why he stopped visiting DT? And have you successfully got the IBM 6113442 working? Obviously you are the one who has tons of awesome vintage keyboards...

Honestly I don't know why mr_a500 is not active here at DT anymore. He does have a quite impressive vintage keyboard collection, in fact he is one of the users that got me into this hobby in the first place. The IBM 6113442 can be used with soarers converter yes:

photos-f62/ibm-5954339-t4564.html#p114200

[Mr.Nobody]

@KBDFR
Elon Musk is no fool to me, if he said seriously that we only have a 1 millionth chance living in a real world we'd better think about it at least for the sake of discussion, BTW a sim could be smart and smarter than his peers I think, just like an app can be better than another one in the same category.
@matto3o
Good point...I don't think the "maker" controls everything directly either, he might have just set up the model and algorithm and everything runs and evolves automatically, just like in a computer game, you don't control all the NPCs even though this game is written by you...and do we have limitation for inbox capacity again?
@seebart
Glad to know that, if only I were geekier, I'd have bought one myself,so give me some time, let me grow geekier

[kbdfr]

You obviously are not aware of the paradox this entails.
To put it short, if the simulation theory is right, then we all are figures in a simulation game run by gods,
including Telon Musk - whose "smartness" then is nothing than a feature his figure has been fitted with.
So Telon Musk is smart only if he is a real person - and if he is a real person, then the simulation theory is wrong.

I do not agree with Mr.Nobody but this argument is weak, and only valid if you take "Intelligence" in an absolute archetypal form. […]

Taking intelligence "in an absolute archetypal form" is s not what I did, that’s what Mr.Nobody did with his implicit, yet forcefully claimed equation:
"Telon Musk has made billions = he is real smart = he must be right when postulating a simulation game run by gods".
So as you say it ("only valid if"), under these premises set out by Mr.Nobody himself, the paradox stands.

On the other hand, if the postulated simulation theory just exactly reproduces life as it is without the simulation theory, then:
- it is nothing else than mental masturbation,
- it is for those who postulate it to prove it, not for its detractors to prove it is wrong,
- see what I said before about artifacts as the common basis of deity beliefs in human history:

[…] In ancient Babylone they had arrows and cattle, so they used belomancy and haruspicy for divination.
Had they had computers, they would have imagined we are figures in a computer game run by gods. […]

[kbdfr]

Now let’s introduce a new dimension to the "simulation theory".

If there are reasons why we live in a simulation game run by gods,
then those very reasons will obviously also have to apply to those "gods",
who themselves then are just figures living in a simulation game run by "2nd level gods",
who themselves then are just figures living in a simulation game run by "3rd level gods",
and so on ad infinitum.

So the "gods" postulated in the simulation theory iteratively are just figures themselves,
which in the end reasonably implies there cannot be such "gods" at all.

[matt3o]

"Telon Musk has made billions = he is real smart = he must be right when postulating a simulation game run by gods".
So as you say it ("only valid if"), under these premises set out by Mr.Nobody himself, the paradox stands.

I don't find that to be archetypal at all, on the contrary it is a very subjective ("Earthly" if you want) statement. more money = more intelligence is very much bound to the simulation rules.

By archetypal I mean Knowledge Of All. Those who know all = God/Maker/Whatever. The more you know the closer you get to God. Being impossible to prove that we are actually in a simulation it's impossible for us to effectively become god.

[kbdfr]

I disagree.
Mr.Nobody's statement as an obvious answer to the first part of my post clearly implied that in his mind, Telon Musk holds the absolute truth regarding at least the simulation theory - that's exactly why I objected the paradox.
Inside this framework, the paradox clearly stands, that's what I had pointed at.

But well, let's not argue about things which, as the weird diction reveals, he apparently posted in a sort of second state

Spoiler:

And - this precision at the address of the censors who might be reading this - I do not mean in a second State

[matt3o]

clearly implied that in his mind, Telon Musk holds the absolute truth regarding at least the simulation theory

if true, that would be silly (of Mr.Nobody to think). but hey everyone is entitled to an opinion, especially on the internet.

[kbdfr]

clearly implied that in his mind, Telon Musk holds the absolute truth regarding at least the simulation theory

if true, that would be silly (of Mr.Nobody to think). but hey everyone is entitled to an opinion, especially on the internet.

I did not challenge his opinion, I just pointed at the paradox it entails.

In fact it was more of a joke, as from his diction it seems that some (probably liquid) entity must have taken control of his brain at the time he posted

[matt3o]

reading that message in full makes me want to ban someone, or just leave shaking my head...

[kbdfr]

reading that message in full makes me want to ban someone, or just leave shaking my head...

[matt3o]

I mean that message