HelpQA Tags Search FAQ
Start a New Post Chat Login & Registration

668 replies, Replies 441 to 450

Thinking of moving to USA, i know its massive so am trying to figure out where would be the best place for me to move too.

mars would be a safer place, maybe venus if you can breathe acid...

- written
War Is a Racket

https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARacket/WarIsAR...

- written
I understand the importance the resurrection story holds in your particular religion.

SerenelyBlue wrote:
Thank you for the article. I don't really have a problem with the existence of Jesus, if he existed.
If you've read Bart Erhman, as you say you have, you will see that he believes Jesus was a human apocalyptic teacher. What he is and has done was embellished by humans.
I don't know if you've seen Brave Heart. After William Wallace disappeared his stature grew dramatically . All of a sudden he was taller and he has killed 100 men. You get the picture.

william wallace was a badass.. oh wait, that was mel gibson

- written
bostrom's simulation argument

https://www.simulation-argument.com/

- written
bostrom's simulation argument

1 Almost all civilisations at our level
of development become extinct
before becoming technologically
mature.
2 The fraction of technologically
mature civilisations that are interested
in creating ancestor simulations is
almost zero.
3 You are almost certainly living in a
computer simulation.

If we work out the numbers, we
find that there would be vastly many
more simulated minds than nonsimulated
minds. We assume that
technologically mature civilisations
would have access to enormous
amounts of computing power.
So enormous, in fact, that by
devoting even a tiny fraction to
ancestor simulations, they would be
able to implement billions of
simulations, each containing as many
people as have ever existed. In other
words, almost all minds like yours
would be simulated. Therefore, by a
very weak principle of indifference,
you would have to assume that you
are probably one of these simulated
minds rather than one of the ones
that are not simulated.
Hence, if you think that propositions
one and two are both false, you
should accept the third. It is not
coherent to reject all three.
It should be emphasised that the
simulation argument does not show
that you are living in a simulation. The
conclusion is simply that at least one
of the three propositions is true. It
does not tell us which one.
In reality, we don’t have much
specific information to tell us which of
the three propositions might be true.
In this situation, it might be
reasonable to distribute our credence
roughly evenly between them.
Let us consider the options in a little
more detail. Proposition one is
straightforward. For example, maybe
there is some technology that every
advanced civilisation eventually
develops and which then destroys
them. Let us hope this is not the case.
Proposition two requires that there is
a strong convergence among all
advanced civilisations, such that
almost none of them are interested in
running ancestor simulations. One can
imagine various reasons that may lead
civilisations to make this choice. Yet
for proposition two to be true, virtually
all civilisations would have to refrain.
If this were true, it would be an
interesting constraint on the future
evolution of intelligent life.
The third possibility is philosophically
the most intriguing. If it is
correct, you are almost certainly living
in a computer simulation that was
created by some advanced civilisation.
What Copernicus and Darwin and
latter-day scientists have been
discovering are the laws and workings
of the simulated reality. These laws
might or might not be identical to
those operating at the more
fundamental level of reality where the
computer that is running our
simulation exists (which, of course,
may itself be a simulation). In a way,
our place in the world would be even
humbler than we thought.
What kind of implications would
this have? How should it change the
way you live your life?
Your first reaction might think that
if three is true, then all bets are off
and you would go crazy. To reason
thus would be an error. Even if we are
in a simulation, the best methods of
predicting what will happen next are
still the familiar ones – extrapolation
of past trends, scientific modelling and
common sense. To a first approximation,
if you thought you were in a
simulation, you should get on with
your life in much the same way as if
you were convinced that you were
leading a non-simulated life at the
“bottom” level of reality.
If we are in a simulation, could ever
know for certain? If the simulators
don’t want us to find out, we probably
never will. But if they choose to reveal
themselves, they could certainly do
so. Another event that would let us
conclude with a high degree of
confidence that we are in a simulation
is if we ever reach a point when we
are about to switch on our own
ancestor simulations. That would be
very strong evidence against the first
two propositions, leaving us only with
the third.

- written
Drugs are bad mkay?

i wouldnt know, im vegan

- written
bostrom's simulation argument

sophieshizuko wrote:
Then lets just hope there's not a power cut

there can be no power cut, when there is no power to cut...

- written
bostrom's simulation argument

the stars in the sky are just a projection of what's already in your mind.

- written
bostrom's simulation argument

The simulation theory has been a staple of science fiction for decades and was detailed in a 2003 paper by the philosopher Nick Bostrom. On the basis of this paper, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has stated there is a 99.99 percent chance that the universe we inhabit is a computer simulation, while physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says that is is “very likely.”

- written
wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkB8OoTLFbo

- written

To use this site you must be 13 years or older and occasionally submit your email address. Your email address is only shared with your explicit permission.

Home Page - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Feedback