The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: Tintagel on January 03, 2014, 04:21:45 PM
-
"Everything intuited or perceived in space and time, and therefore all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomenal appearances, that is, mere representations [and] have no independent, self-subsistent existence apart from our thoughts."
-Immanuel Kant
I'm coming out, FES.
This is a post I've thought about writing for a long time, but I haven't because it isn't strictly zetetic. I've been reluctant to speak out because I needed to be sure of my own mind. But it's a new year, and it's time to start the discussion.
The earth is flat. I know that as surely as I know my own name Observations support this. I can see it as clearly as the colour of the sky. Down is down, the horizon is actually the vanishing point, and we exist in a closed system distinct from all other celestial bodies. Our earth is flat.
The earth is stationary. It does not rotate or move in any way relative to perceived space around us. We see evidence of this because objects farther from the hub do not exhibit effects of centripetal force. Universal acceleration could account for the force we perceive as gravity, but my instincts say that this force is something still undefined. All our interpretations may be wrong.
The earth is infinite, but not (in my opinion) in the way some infinite plane theorists think. More on this later.
Some observations can also support a spherical earth. The southern sky, lunar phases, eclipses, have been used to support a spherical earth. This interpretation is wrong.
What follows is hypothesis.
Our earth is flat because it was engineered that way. It was designed for us. It's our puzzle. I am of the belief that we live inside a simulation.
The simulation becomes more advanced as we solve the puzzles before us. Our predecessors believed that the earth was flat because all observations supported that conclusion. They still do.
The simulation began to introduce subtleties that seemed to contradict their findings. The spherical, geocentric model was widely accepted because all observations seemed to support that conclusion. They still do.
The heliocentric model arose because the simulation evolves. It becomes more complex as our model of the universe becomes more complex. We're being tested.
Those first observations, of a flat and stationary earth, were correct. The remain valid today, we're simply being fed more complex data, possibly to see what we'll do with it. The "curved shadow" on the moon during an eclipse. The retrograde motion of planets. The inscrutability of quantum mechanics. The seemingly arbitrary limitations placed on physics such as the speed of light and the conservation of angular momentum. All of these things are, to me, clear indication that we're being tested by an overseer. I do not know its purpose.
Our earth is an infinite plane around which phenomenological evidence of various "truths" manifest. In this model, Antarctica is a discrete continent and there is no ice wall. Rather than expanding off into an infinite ocean, however, the infinite plane of our earth simply loops back onto itself. You can never reach the edge because no edge exists. Our earth seems physical. Based upon observation and intuition alone, I do not believe it is an electronic or computerized simulation.
Or, our earth is a finite plane resolved to a disc, but the spatial dimensions around the southern hemidisc are bent to a greater extend than near the hub, perhaps by aether / UA.
We experience bending light. The curvature of light is the same as the curvature of earth in the spherical model. Those of us who support a spherical model believe the earth is round because light sometimes makes it look round. This ambiguity, as well as the ambiguity between gravity and UA, is deliberate.
I do not know who the overseers of this simulation are. I do not know the bounds or rules. But everywhere I look I see evidence of its reality.
I'm posting this in S&AS because it is not strictly a flat-earth hypothesis.
There you go. My confession.
-
This isn't the first time I'v eheard the suggestion that we are part of a simulation. Some scientists see evidence that the universe may be a complex computer simulation based on the pixelated appearance of subatomic particles.
-
If the many worlds hypotheses are true, there is actually quite a high probability that the simulation hypothesis is correct.
-
But can it be hacked?
-
But can it be hacked?
I can open the command line interface for the universe, but all it returns is "this user does not have root access privileges."
-
I will delete the Universe's system 32.
-
The Universe doesn't run on Windows, I know this because everyone doesn't receive a UAC pop-up when they wake up in the morning.
-
Interesting idea, but do you think there's any way to gain concrete evidence of such a simulation, or would the creators likely be too smart for us to prove it for sure?
-
That would really just depend on your idea of concrete evidence. Some argue that arbitrary physical constraints, such as Planck lengths, are evidence of a simulation. That being said, the issue of whether the universe is a simulation is philosophical, not scientific, and therefore evidence probably doesn't exist in any true sense of the word. Simulation theories are not scientific and therefore should be regarded more as a religious preference, not one based in a scientific endeavor or based on pseudo-scientific evidence. Such philosophies deal with the "whys" of the universe and not the "hows" which is what science attempts to explain. We may know how an electron is negative, but a scientist wouldn't ask why is it negative, because in all actuality it isn't a relevant thing to ask when dealing in a scientific pursuit of knowledge.
-
But can it be hacked?
That would make the programmer God and you a virus. Do you really want attract God's attention in that way? Just run your script and stop trying to corrupt the database. >o<
-
Didn't John Davis start a religion where he said he was god? In that case, JD is the one running the simulation.... Oh god we're fucked... As soon as something gets fucked up in this world, he'll transfer us to a new universe without backing up the database!! We'll all disappear!!
-
That would really just depend on your idea of concrete evidence. Some argue that arbitrary physical constraints, such as Planck lengths, are evidence of a simulation. That being said, the issue of whether the universe is a simulation is philosophical, not scientific, and therefore evidence probably doesn't exist in any true sense of the word. Simulation theories are not scientific and therefore should be regarded more as a religious preference, not one based in a scientific endeavor or based on pseudo-scientific evidence. Such philosophies deal with the "whys" of the universe and not the "hows" which is what science attempts to explain. We may know how an electron is negative, but a scientist wouldn't ask why is it negative, because in all actuality it isn't a relevant thing to ask when dealing in a scientific pursuit of knowledge.
I seem to recall a group of scientists developing an experiment that they hoped would "breach" the simulation... and perhaps we already have. Bizarre experimental results like those from the "two-slit" experiment make perfect sense if viewed from the perspective of "let's see how this software works"
Of course, we use terms like 'software' and 'computers' as if they would apply to the architects of earth. Everything we know of reality could be a mere shadow of the truth. Concepts like four-dimensional spacetime (or even the ten dimensional space of M theory) and general relativity could well be laughably silly notions outside of our ethereal universe.
We are someone else's flatland (http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/).
-
And to be clear - my hypothesis is not that we are an electronic or computer simulation. The earth seems physical, I seem physical, and everything around me seems physical, so when I break my version of the simulation hypothesis down to constituent parts, I have to include the apparent physical reality of things. I use the term "simulation" because it's similar to the more popular simulation hypothesis that made some headlines a couple of years ago, and because of its similarity to the Descartes "brain in a vat" thing, but I don't think I am a brain in a vat, because I cannot see it.
I cannot deny the physical nature of reality because I can experience it. Perhaps "engineered" is a better term than "simulation" in this regard.
We live on a planar petri dish.
-
One more question, for my fellow members. I've always been agnostic, and more recently a resigned atheist, but this line of thinking troubles me because of how closely it skirts the edges of religion.
I don't think the architect ever interferes. I think that we're a closed system. I just think there has to be something outside it.
Is this a sort of 'theism' on my part? I'm having some trouble with that question.
Sorry for triple-posting.
-
One more question, for my fellow members. I've always been agnostic, and more recently a resigned atheist, but this line of thinking troubles me because of how closely it skirts the edges of religion.
I don't think the architect ever interferes. I think that we're a closed system. I just think there has to be something outside it.
Is this a sort of 'theism' on my part? I'm having some trouble with that question.
Sorry for triple-posting.
That's Deism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). There are a surprising number of Deists on this site. Its kind of a magnet for them here. Deists believe in a God or creator that set the wheels in motion and lets the universe play itself out. Its know as the 'clockwork universe' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory).
Now think to core flat earth theories like celestial gears and you can see why its such a natural choice for an FEr. It seems, My Dear, as though Deism found you.
Besides, Deism suits you better. Atheists are wretched individuals. They are a faith based religion like any other but refuse to allow their beliefs to be grouped in with all other religions. It does sit in the same little group on the census though ;-) They think their religion is the superior one and better than all others. They are usually very militant about it and spend more time thinking about religion than anyone else.
Theirs is the destructive religion. One that takes strength from the sick, comfort from the bereaved, hope from the downtrodden.
Its also the one that is hypocritical. They want to get married in churches, have funerals for their deceased and tell everyone how great their religious choice is (they are unbearably preachy).
And they always think they are super smart because science. Arrogant, self-absorbed and destructive. I hate atheists.
Deists on the other hand have a sense of spirituality. They don't feel worthless, insignificant, a fluke. And that means they don't have the same chip on their shoulder as atheists. To admit to being an atheist is to declare your own life absolutely meaningless. Wretched beings are atheists. Deism was an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Atheism was a consumer movement of the 1960s to get you to have less children, work longer hours, lust for plastic crap from corporations and pay more tax.
-
Considering how much of our perception is a neural process, ultimately determining what is truly physical in a simulation would be very difficult.
I would say that putting blind faith in a proposition such as this is a form of Deism, since there is no empirical evidence to support it, but seeing as it is also fairly value free, compared to Abrahimic religions, it is fairly innocuous. Go to I say!
-
What makes a simulation different from reality?
We simulate air flow across vehicles by actually blowing air. We use nature to simulate nature, in essence.
If that's the case then if God created the Universe, what's to say that's not a simulation? God's reality isn't our reality according to Religion. So by creating an entire universe with it's own set of rules, isn't that the same as saying God made a simulation of a physical universe?
-
One more question, for my fellow members. I've always been agnostic, and more recently a resigned atheist, but this line of thinking troubles me because of how closely it skirts the edges of religion.
I don't think the architect ever interferes. I think that we're a closed system. I just think there has to be something outside it.
Is this a sort of 'theism' on my part? I'm having some trouble with that question.
Sorry for triple-posting.
That's Deism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). There are a surprising number of Deists on this site. Its kind of a magnet for them here. Deists believe in a God or creator that set the wheels in motion and lets the universe play itself out. Its know as the 'clockwork universe' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory).
Now think to core flat earth theories like celestial gears and you can see why its such a natural choice for an FEr. It seems, My Dear, as though Deism found you.
Besides, Deism suits you better. Atheists are wretched individuals. They are a faith based religion like any other but refuse to allow their beliefs to be grouped in with all other religions. It does sit in the same little group on the census though ;-) They think their religion is the superior one and better than all others. They are usually very militant about it and spend more time thinking about religion than anyone else.
Theirs is the destructive religion. One that takes strength from the sick, comfort from the bereaved, hope from the downtrodden.
Its also the one that is hypocritical. They want to get married in churches, have funerals for their deceased and tell everyone how great their religious choice is (they are unbearably preachy).
And they always think they are super smart because science. Arrogant, self-absorbed and destructive. I hate atheists.
Deists on the other hand have a sense of spirituality. They don't feel worthless, insignificant, a fluke. And that means they don't have the same chip on their shoulder as atheists. To admit to being an atheist is to declare your own life absolutely meaningless. Wretched beings are atheists. Deism was an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Atheism was a consumer movement of the 1960s to get you to have less children, work longer hours, lust for plastic crap from corporations and pay more tax.
Huh. I've been aware of Deism as a thing that exists (or at least existed), but I guess I never really knew what it was. That could well be where I land.
For what it's worth, I've made a true effort to not be militant in my atheism and have an intense dislike those who are as you claim. Evangelical atheism is as dangerous as any other evangelism, but that's a discussion for another thread.
Thanks for the reply, I'll keep reading.
-
One more question, for my fellow members. I've always been agnostic, and more recently a resigned atheist, but this line of thinking troubles me because of how closely it skirts the edges of religion.
I don't think the architect ever interferes. I think that we're a closed system. I just think there has to be something outside it.
Is this a sort of 'theism' on my part? I'm having some trouble with that question.
Sorry for triple-posting.
That's Deism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). There are a surprising number of Deists on this site. Its kind of a magnet for them here. Deists believe in a God or creator that set the wheels in motion and lets the universe play itself out. Its know as the 'clockwork universe' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe_theory).
Now think to core flat earth theories like celestial gears and you can see why its such a natural choice for an FEr. It seems, My Dear, as though Deism found you.
Besides, Deism suits you better. Atheists are wretched individuals. They are a faith based religion like any other but refuse to allow their beliefs to be grouped in with all other religions. It does sit in the same little group on the census though ;-) They think their religion is the superior one and better than all others. They are usually very militant about it and spend more time thinking about religion than anyone else.
Theirs is the destructive religion. One that takes strength from the sick, comfort from the bereaved, hope from the downtrodden.
Its also the one that is hypocritical. They want to get married in churches, have funerals for their deceased and tell everyone how great their religious choice is (they are unbearably preachy).
And they always think they are super smart because science. Arrogant, self-absorbed and destructive. I hate atheists.
Deists on the other hand have a sense of spirituality. They don't feel worthless, insignificant, a fluke. And that means they don't have the same chip on their shoulder as atheists. To admit to being an atheist is to declare your own life absolutely meaningless. Wretched beings are atheists. Deism was an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Atheism was a consumer movement of the 1960s to get you to have less children, work longer hours, lust for plastic crap from corporations and pay more tax.
Atheism is not a movement.
-
Atheism is not a movement.
Of course it is.
New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."
The internet is crawling with these arses.
-
That says New Atheism, though.
-
That says New Atheism, though.
Yeah, I have some of those friends. They're thoroughly unpleasant. I don't care if anybody worships an imaginary sky fairy, as long as they're not hurting other people because of it.
Deism still has the "deus" root in it so it sits a little sideways in my stomach, but that's just because I've been so resistant to the idea of the personal 'god' for all my life. We'll see how it digests. Much of it seems philosophically intriguing.
-
Deism is a little easier to swallow, thanks to the lack of personal god, I'll agree with that.
-
That says New Atheism, though.
There have been atheists since the day religion was conceived. But the majority of atheists these days are New Atheists. Lead by frothy mouthed idiots like Richard Dawkins. Its a movement.
-
That says New Atheism, though.
There have been atheists since the day religion was conceived. But the majority of atheists these days are New Atheists. Lead by frothy mouthed idiots like Richard Dawkins. Its a movement.
So, Atheism isn't a movement.
-
The type of atheism we have today is. 99% of all atheists are these smug preachy 'science' atheists that hate everything to do with religion but still take their Christmas vacation, demand a Christmas bonus, eat Easter eggs and remark OMG! all over twitter and facebook.
But that there were a vengeful God to smite these horrible gonks. :(
-
Thork with all the evidence.
-
Deism still has the "deus" root in it so it sits a little sideways in my stomach, but that's just because I've been so resistant to the idea of the personal 'god' for all my life.
I suspect your lack of acceptance of gods in general is rooted in most gods not being particularly sympathetic to your sexuality. God hates me so I hate him etc etc.
Deism is the best. No worship, no guilt, no rules but when everything is going wrong, you can still moan "Why the hell are you letting this happen to me God? Just be nice and help me. >o<"
And God doesn't get offended because he's not listening anyway. In fact he might have lost interest in this universe all together and be busy playing with another one, granting prayers and performing flashy miracles for a race of interesting crustaceans that are just the most awesome life-forms he's ever made and provide millennia after millennia of fun.
-
Thork just has an irrational hate-on for atheists. Forgive him, he knows not what he does.
-
Thork is devolving into an awful EJ troll that doesn't bother purposefully misspelling words.
-
but still take their Christmas vacation
Speak for yourself. I'd much rather work on (and around) the 25th of December and get paid for those days.
-
The type of atheism we have today is. 99% of all atheists are these smug preachy 'science' atheists that hate everything to do with religion but still take their Christmas vacation, demand a Christmas bonus, eat Easter eggs and remark OMG! all over twitter and facebook.
But that there were a vengeful God to smite these horrible gonks. :(
I'm part of the 1%!
-
This thread needs some [citation needed] slapped all over it.
-
The type of atheism we have today is. 99% of all atheists are these smug preachy 'science' atheists that hate everything to do with religion but still take their Christmas vacation, demand a Christmas bonus, eat Easter eggs and remark OMG! all over twitter and facebook.
But that there were a vengeful God to smite these horrible gonks. :(
I'm part of the 1%!
No, you are definitely a New Atheist.
-
OMG Thork is so irrational. There is no good reason to accept his assessment of atheism. I take Yule vacation and bonuses and eat spring tide eggs. Not everything revolves around your barbaric religions! Science! OMG!
-
The type of atheism we have today is. 99% of all atheists are these smug preachy 'science' atheists that hate everything to do with religion but still take their Christmas vacation, demand a Christmas bonus, eat Easter eggs and remark OMG! all over twitter and facebook.
But that there were a vengeful God to smite these horrible gonks. :(
I'm part of the 1%!
No, you are definitely a New Atheist.
I don't hate everything to do with religion. I just hate the "God is fact" bit.
-
I just hate the "God is fact" bit.
That isn't part of religion, since you can be an agnostic religious person, they're just a lot more rare than gnostic folk.
-
Thork, i find most theists hypocritical, practicing when its convenient, ignoring what they don't like, very few "theists" actually attend services and so on. also demanding a Christmas bonus or vacation isn't so bad, as even if you don't believe in, it is probably celebrated by family and friends and its a time almost all can get together.
-
We should probably get this back on topic.
-
It appears to be on topic.
-
Of course we live in a simulation. At a fundamental level, that's exactly how your brain presents you with information from your sense organs. None of the things you experience are reality itself; they're just your brain's interpretation of the signals it got from some nerves connected to some tiny machines.
The map is not the territory.
-
I suspect your lack of acceptance of gods in general is rooted in most gods not being particularly sympathetic to your sexuality. God hates me so I hate him etc etc.
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
-
I suspect your lack of acceptance of gods in general is rooted in most gods not being particularly sympathetic to your sexuality. God hates me so I hate him etc etc.
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
Takes one to know one. MIright Thork? Snap!
-
I suspect your lack of acceptance of gods in general is rooted in most gods not being particularly sympathetic to your sexuality. God hates me so I hate him etc etc.
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
Takes one to know one. MIright Thork? Snap!
Not really, no. :(
-
I suspect your lack of acceptance of gods in general is rooted in most gods not being particularly sympathetic to your sexuality. God hates me so I hate him etc etc.
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
Yeah, I refrained from replying at the time because I wanted to word my response more carefully than 1am would have allowed, then never came back to the thread.
But no, I've never felt that "god hates me," because I've never been able to conceive of the existence of a distinct divine being, personal or impersonal, much less one capable of something so banal as feelings. I've often felt that some of said god's devotees dislike, or at least disapprove of, who I sleep with, but that's their fault, and I don't paint all religion with that broad brush.
God doesn't hate me nor do I hate it, because that implies said god exists, and I don't believe that's so. Reducing my atheism to some kind of "rebellion" spurred on by my sexuality shows a pretty gross misunderstanding of sexuality as a part of human experience, and of me as a person.
If there is an architect, and I think if there is a simulation there must be, it is certainly not a god fitting any definition of divinity I've ever seen, and I'll not ascribe that name to it.
-
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
-
I suspect your lack of acceptance of gods in general is rooted in most gods not being particularly sympathetic to your sexuality. God hates me so I hate him etc etc.
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
Yeah, I refrained from replying at the time because I wanted to word my response more carefully than 1am would have allowed, then never came back to the thread.
But no, I've never felt that "god hates me," because I've never been able to conceive of the existence of a distinct divine being, personal or impersonal, much less one capable of something so banal as feelings. I've often felt that some of said god's devotees dislike, or at least disapprove of, who I sleep with, but that's their fault, and I don't paint all religion with that broad brush.
God doesn't hate me nor do I hate it, because that implies said god exists, and I don't believe that's so. Reducing my atheism to some kind of "rebellion" spurred on by my sexuality shows a pretty gross misunderstanding of sexuality as a part of human experience, and of me as a person.
If there is an architect, and I think if there is a simulation there must be, it is certainly not a god fitting any definition of divinity I've ever seen, and I'll not ascribe that name to it.
Thork has made a powerful enemy.
-
I suspect your lack of acceptance of gods in general is rooted in most gods not being particularly sympathetic to your sexuality. God hates me so I hate him etc etc.
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
Yeah, I refrained from replying at the time because I wanted to word my response more carefully than 1am would have allowed, then never came back to the thread.
But no, I've never felt that "god hates me," because I've never been able to conceive of the existence of a distinct divine being, personal or impersonal, much less one capable of something so banal as feelings. I've often felt that some of said god's devotees dislike, or at least disapprove of, who I sleep with, but that's their fault, and I don't paint all religion with that broad brush.
God doesn't hate me nor do I hate it, because that implies said god exists, and I don't believe that's so. Reducing my atheism to some kind of "rebellion" spurred on by my sexuality shows a pretty gross misunderstanding of sexuality as a part of human experience, and of me as a person.
If there is an architect, and I think if there is a simulation there must be, it is certainly not a god fitting any definition of divinity I've ever seen, and I'll not ascribe that name to it.
Thork has made a powerful enemy.
And Tintagel has made an even more powerful enemy by sleeping with people The Almighty disapproves of. Wow, I'm coming over all Land Over Baptist. It was simply an observation that many gay people I have met whilst slithering on my belly across the earth, really really hate religion. It is not a large stretch of the imagination to assume that's because most religions hate them.
-
I suspect your lack of acceptance of gods in general is rooted in most gods not being particularly sympathetic to your sexuality. God hates me so I hate him etc etc.
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
Yeah, I refrained from replying at the time because I wanted to word my response more carefully than 1am would have allowed, then never came back to the thread.
But no, I've never felt that "god hates me," because I've never been able to conceive of the existence of a distinct divine being, personal or impersonal, much less one capable of something so banal as feelings. I've often felt that some of said god's devotees dislike, or at least disapprove of, who I sleep with, but that's their fault, and I don't paint all religion with that broad brush.
God doesn't hate me nor do I hate it, because that implies said god exists, and I don't believe that's so. Reducing my atheism to some kind of "rebellion" spurred on by my sexuality shows a pretty gross misunderstanding of sexuality as a part of human experience, and of me as a person.
If there is an architect, and I think if there is a simulation there must be, it is certainly not a god fitting any definition of divinity I've ever seen, and I'll not ascribe that name to it.
Thork has made a powerful enemy.
And Tintagel has made an even more powerful enemy by sleeping with people The Almighty disapproves of. Wow, I'm coming over all Land Over Baptist. It was simply an observation that many gay people I have met whilst slithering on my belly across the earth, really really hate religion. It is not a large stretch of the imagination to assume that's because most religions hate them.
Had you said this instead of assuming tintagel's reasoning was the same you'd have sounded far more respectable.
-
I suspect your lack of acceptance of gods in general is rooted in most gods not being particularly sympathetic to your sexuality. God hates me so I hate him etc etc.
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
Yeah, I refrained from replying at the time because I wanted to word my response more carefully than 1am would have allowed, then never came back to the thread.
But no, I've never felt that "god hates me," because I've never been able to conceive of the existence of a distinct divine being, personal or impersonal, much less one capable of something so banal as feelings. I've often felt that some of said god's devotees dislike, or at least disapprove of, who I sleep with, but that's their fault, and I don't paint all religion with that broad brush.
God doesn't hate me nor do I hate it, because that implies said god exists, and I don't believe that's so. Reducing my atheism to some kind of "rebellion" spurred on by my sexuality shows a pretty gross misunderstanding of sexuality as a part of human experience, and of me as a person.
If there is an architect, and I think if there is a simulation there must be, it is certainly not a god fitting any definition of divinity I've ever seen, and I'll not ascribe that name to it.
Thork has made a powerful enemy.
And Tintagel has made an even more powerful enemy by sleeping with people The Almighty disapproves of. Wow, I'm coming over all Land Over Baptist. It was simply an observation that many gay people I have met whilst slithering on my belly across the earth, really really hate religion. It is not a large stretch of the imagination to assume that's because most religions hate them.
Had you said this instead of assuming tintagel's reasoning was the same you'd have sounded far more respectable.
I just said it like it is. I'm too real for some of you kids.
-
If by real you mean presumptuous, then totally.
-
No, Thork, you aren't real. You're part of the simulation just like all of us.
-
Unless he is the "overseer" :o
Now is this simulation more like a Tron or more like Matrix?
-
Can we please not make this thread about Thork? He is almost better at shitting up threads than Markjo is.
Followers of the simulation hypothesis have to accept that if one simulation exists then the universe is likely to be stuck in an infinite chain of simulations, as each universe contains a simulation of itself.
-
Thork is right about modern atheists. You can claim that you aren't part of the movement all you want, but when you start quoting Dawkins and Hitchens and (a new favorite, it seems) Krauss in your support of the evils of religion, you are a new atheist like it or not. And most modern atheists get a hard-on at the mere mention of any one of those names.
Dawkins is a jerk, you're correct. Hitchens was too. I'm not sure who Krauss is. Sorry I got snarky, but when someone snipes at my sexuality I get snippy. I know more LGBT people with religion than without, and contrary to Thork's assertion, I don't think most religions are necessarily anti-gay.
But yes. Let's not make this thread about Thork. Back to the topic at hand.
I don't think it's as simple as the Matrix or Tron. I think our simulation runs far deeper than both of those. In both of those pieces, the laws of physics in the simulations were at least approximations of the laws of physics in the "real" world, and I believe that we have at best a very rudimentary set of rules that we interpret as the laws of physics.
That we may be a simulation within a simulation is certainly possible, but that gets into truly untestable territory - though arguably the initial simulation hypothesis is largely untestable too.
I believe that we're a physical simulation curled up into a dimension containing four dimensional spacetime as we perceive it. There may be more dimensions curled up inside ours. I do not know. However, I do maintain that an infinite plane earth is the simplest way by far to curl up our reality along one of these "pocket" dimensions, so that much is clear.
Speculation, and speculation based on the laws of physics as given to us by our architects in particular, is likely only a shadow of the truth.
-
You should write sci-fi.
-
You should write sci-fi.
Perhaps too much sci-fi got me to this point. I can't deny the elegance, though.
-
Thork is right about modern atheists. You can claim that you aren't part of the movement all you want, but when you start quoting Dawkins and Hitchens and (a new favorite, it seems) Krauss in your support of the evils of religion, you are a new atheist like it or not. And most modern atheists get a hard-on at the mere mention of any one of those names.
But yes. Let's not make this thread about Thork. Back to the topic at hand.
I don't think it's as simple as the Matrix or Tron. I think our simulation runs far deeper than both of those. In both of those pieces, the laws of physics in the simulations were at least approximations of the laws of physics in the "real" world, and I believe that we have at best a very rudimentary set of rules that we interpret as the laws of physics.
Well I guess my question about if it was more like Tron or Matrix was that whether the creators even know the simulation is running. For example, if my memory serves me correctly since it has been YEARS since I have seen Tron, the programs existed inside the computer and ran around and did things unbeknownst to the creator, until they brought the creator into the simulation.
Or more like the Matrix where the simulation is running because the creators specifically created it for a specific purpose. Not specifically to keep human batteries, but for some purpose unbeknownst to the entities within the simulation.