Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2014, 10:13:31 PM »
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.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • The worst-hated god who perpetrated odd favors.
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2014, 09:23:53 PM »
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.
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5065
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2014, 09:31:01 PM »
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!
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Thork

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #43 on: January 06, 2014, 10:24:08 PM »
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. :(

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #44 on: January 06, 2014, 11:26:21 PM »
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. 
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 11:28:55 PM by Tintagel »

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8287
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2014, 11:54:18 PM »
That's a bold assumption. I've never actually personally met one of those types of atheist before.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #46 on: January 07, 2014, 12:02:40 AM »
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.

Thork

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #47 on: January 07, 2014, 12:11:53 AM »
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.

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #48 on: January 07, 2014, 12:14:41 AM »
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.

Thork

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2014, 12:17:34 AM »
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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5065
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #50 on: January 07, 2014, 12:28:50 AM »
If by real you mean presumptuous, then totally.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline spoon

  • *
  • Posts: 1132
  • Foxy wins
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #51 on: January 07, 2014, 01:18:08 AM »
No, Thork, you aren't real. You're part of the simulation just like all of us.
inb4 Blanko spoons a literally pizza

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #52 on: January 07, 2014, 01:34:49 AM »
Unless he is the "overseer" :o

Now is this simulation more like a Tron or more like  Matrix?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 01:36:53 AM by bj1234 »

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6603
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #53 on: January 07, 2014, 02:20:32 AM »
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.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #54 on: January 07, 2014, 04:02:02 PM »
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. 

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #55 on: January 07, 2014, 04:24:54 PM »
You should write sci-fi.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #56 on: January 07, 2014, 05:11:03 PM »
You should write sci-fi.
Perhaps too much sci-fi got me to this point.  I can't deny the elegance, though.

Offline bj1234

  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #57 on: January 07, 2014, 11:24:14 PM »
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.