Atheists and fellow Agnostics, what are your thoughts on Simulation Theory?

[tru_m.a.c]

So we have shyt like this. This is like admitting to a God but wanting it to be some mathematical genius person(s)

no. because only you are describing God as a person.

I do think everything boils down to math though. Either there's a god that kinda just popped shyt with no follow through.... or everything is based on complex mathematical structures that manifest into biological creatures and physical realities.... But also multiverses and alternative realities that lead to ..... what we consider shyt like death, souls, ghost, life, and time. i know that probably sounds retarded, but i havent decided all the theories i think are right yet.

We don't really know- We are just coming up with random ways to explain all this--- the same way we did thousands of years ago with religion - Except that we are increasingly becoming Wayyyyyyyyyyy less creative in doing so.

"for some of us, its about finding the most accurate way to describe the universe"

you obviously did not watch the video without bias. its not a random way to explain things. the dude is studying string theory. he dug deeper and found a system of codes, similar to the matrix, that describe the quantum environment of string theory. thats all. thats it.

 

[Poitier]

Exactly. Gives them something to toss around and give them importance.

being here for no reason is a reason, though the shortcomings of words and logic and this theory still doesn't give life any meaning, only explains it

Bullshyt.

What other reality are you comparing this too to be able to say that this one is less real than the other?

Its predicated on an unproven or unsubstantiated assertion.

The burden rests on you to suggest that this is a valid claim

What other reality? None right now, but we will be able to create one of our very own in a couple decades with the advance of quantum computing. Every major theory has taken time to work out, you're not very progressive.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

being here for no reason is a reason, though the shortcomings of words and logic and this theory still doesn't give life any meaning, only explains it

define "reason"

and it doesn't "explain" life because to explain life means to ascribe meaning.

We can play the semantic game if you want.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I find this shyt just as silly as the fables in the bible. Then again I think most philosophy is nothing more than smart dudes fapping to each others thoughts, to validate their poorly directed intelligence, in an attempt to separate themselves from us simple folk.

this is why the scientific revolution put (and continues to do so ) these dudes out of business

Stop mentally masturbating and get to proving shyt...and if you can't prove it...just say its a preference and move on.

 

[Poitier]

define "reason"

and it doesn't "explain" life because to explain life means to ascribe meaning.

We can play the semantic game if you want.

Let's go ahead, but just admit that we'll get nowhere because it's all just word salads and semantics. We can't escape our shortcomings but we can attempt to create what is described in this theory. Grand Theft Auto 2046 should be a hell of a game

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Let's go ahead, but just admit that we'll get nowhere because it's all just word salads and semantics. We can't escape our shortcomings but we can attempt to create what is described in this theory. Grand Theft Auto 2046 should be a hell of a game

making a more realistic simulation is still a sim since it exists within a range of possibilities and predetermined outcomes.

and until WE can understand our own limits, then we can never remove those on a system we create.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

embrace existential nihilism brehs















































...or not

 

[Poitier]

making a more realistic simulation is still a sim since it exists within a range of possibilities and predetermined outcomes.

and until WE can understand our own limits, then we can never remove those on a system we create.

Nope, like I said before, we cannot create anything something within our system that doesn't already exist in it. If we can recreate those conditions then it is highly likely that we live in a simulation.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Nope, like I said before, we cannot create anything something within our system that doesn't already exist in it. If we can recreate those conditions then it is highly likely that we live in a simulation.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

this doesn't make sense.

you can't recreate those conditions because its (1.) an "IF" and (2.) not necessarily true that you'd live in a simulation because you can create those conditions in another context.

 

[Poitier]

this doesn't make sense.

you can't recreate those conditions because its (1.) an "IF" and (2.) not necessarily true that you'd live in a simulation because you can create those conditions in another context.

It's not necessarily true but extremely likely

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It's not necessarily true but extremely likely

Don't put the cart before the horse.

its ALSO technically possible that the loch ness is just undiscovered ...or that theres a giant teapot on the dark side of the moon.

 

[ProfessionallyTrill]

Bu-bu-but happens when we die

 

[Blackking]

no. because only you are describing God as a person.



"for some of us, its about finding the most accurate way to describe the universe"

you obviously did not watch the video without bias. its not a random way to explain things. the dude is studying string theory. he dug deeper and found a system of codes, similar to the matrix, that describe the quantum environment of string theory. thats all. thats it.

lol @ both of these statements ^^^^^not being against what i said .... or adding to what i said... so really offering nothing of value.

I did watch the video without bias---- how exactly do u determine "without bias"?. I suggest u go back and read what i wrote... then really see without bias.

you're talking about "describe". If you want to describe it then you can describe how the elements most prominent in the universe are most prominent within humans and describe the physical laws of the universe and even speak about how gases exploded and created more matter that led to a series of reactions that lead to us and eventually our consciousness.

Maybe that's not accurate but that's "descibe"... Like I said, "Explain" is what this nikka is and people like him are Attempting to do... the same way we did thousands of years ago with religion - Except that we are increasingly becoming Wayyyyyyyyyyy less creative in doing so.

You can go to school to learn about the quantum environment (s) of string theories... but they are attempting not only explain that, but explain who /what determines that, set it up and manipulates that. The idea is even more looney than omnipotent gods n shyt. and no i don't mean person when i say mathematical genius... i mean being or intelligent force.

 

[Blackking]

NEVER in a millions years should I be agreeing with @Napoleon on any level.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

You can go to school to learn about the quantum environment (s) of string theories... but they are attempting not only explain that, but explain who /what determines that, set it up and manipulates that. The idea is even more looney than omnipotent gods n shut.

No they're not. They're not looking for a who. Every time they find a new level of complexity YOUR mind jumps to WHO because you can't stop thinking about a singular entity that you can call "God."

It's not looney. It's only looney because he compared the event to "The Matrix." A fantasy concept. But what's the difference between the code within string theory and looking at our physical reality only as molecular structure.

and no i don't mean person when i say mathematical genius... i mean being or intelligent force.

a single cell is infinitely more intelligent than your conscious state, but you don't consider it an intelligent force

using the word "intelligent" is just your back door way of PERSONIFYING the force

I don't understand whats so hard about the concept? You guys keep trying to humanize shyt that you consider Godly. How backwards is that?