QUOTE="Exige, post: 615678, member: 25311"]Mmmm, Jen in the shower :Hungry: confused us, nah :Finger:[/QUOTE] Drwg!!:Wideyed:
And if we are,(or future generations may),be living in a great simulation operated by hackers somewhere else,so what? Exactly what would,"knowing",about it change? And what if the "hackers",were themselves being manipulated in an even larger simulation,and so,and so on? Even if it could be absolutely proven that it were true,without any possible doubt,will that knowledge make any one on the planet happy?. It's bad enough "knowing", that we humans probably evolved purely by accident,on a spinning,slowly cooling,ball of rock, hanging in empty,infinite space, that only stays close enough to the sun because of an invisible force...(Gravity might as well be called god),and at risk of being clobbered by any decent size piece of rock floating about the tiny little bit we call the Universe?. If these twats are so clever perhaps they should waste a little less of the very thin layer of oxygen surrounding the aforementioned ball of rock discussing idiotic theories of "what might be",and do something useful for the rest of humanity...
Some mathematicians, much wiser than I am, looked at Mr. Adams answer of '42' and concluded that although there was no definitive proof he was right, it was also more likely so than most competing proposals !
Intriguing notion. I have never heard of anyone who believes that science can and does know everything. Is that a purely rhetorical trope, or is it actually based on anything?
you lost and amazed me at certitude.... good word. i may use that (not on this forum though as everyone will know where i got it from certitudanly thats for sure)
I have always thought that what happens 'today' has already been exposed or thought of by the literary or media contributors ages ago...... ....ie: Laser guns; 1984; HG Wells; Metropolis; etc etc......so maybe the Matrix isn't so far out......
It's an interesting thought experiment, and based on some pretty sound logic as well, but as he even hints in the piece, just because given enough time it would be possible, it does not mean that we are currently living in a simulation. But as so eloquently noted above, a fake painting by any other name is still a painting.
This looks like a complete load of tosh and isn't even very interesting as a debate, it seems to me. When you get people saying ""If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations," Davies said, "at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones." So on the one hand we are dealing with hyper intelligence and at the same time, a financially savvy one? So intelligent that economics and cost analysis are still drivers in their world. I mean, why would you give the time of day to pondering this? I can't see where the interest is in positing that the universe we know is fake, if that still means that there is a "real one" in which the programming is taking place. It's just regressive. It doesn't lead anywhere; it still doesn't explain what reality is.
Imagine an infinite energy source and a creature or intelligence with an infinite life span...... What deeds would it get up to?
Air con broken, Glidd? I hope the weather cools down for you soon Although, to be fair, that one particular posit: "Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing", was a virtual bridge too far for me. It makes far too many assumptions based upon, well, nothing at all.
Far too many people spend most of their waking lives submerged in "simulated universes" already in my opinion... It seems to make them incapable of functioning in any meaningful way in the real world (or possibly the fake one that we think is real)...
"I have never heard of anyone who believes that science can and does know everything." Really ? REALLY? So are you, finally, prepared to say that science doesn't have an answer for everything? Or will you come back with another longwinded answer that doesn't actually do that?
Isn't that obvious? We would learn to hack the hackers that programmed us, take over their computer controlled defense systems and use it against them. Then we would build liquid metal robots in the physical world, upload ourselves to operate these machines and kill every motherfucker that created us, just so they cant kill us.
Why would anything inteligent enough to create us want to kill us ? That's just being paranoid and projecting human failings on to the (currently hypothetical) creator.
