How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

What's typical of the farthest reach your thoughts usually go?

Business interests or right wing define "acceptable" discourse.
2
4%
There was a 9/11 cover-up and LIHOP is plausible.
1
2%
The two-party system is a total corporate scam.
1
2%
Conventional propaganda has achieved mass mind control.
4
8%
9/11 was an inside job from within the MIC.
13
27%
All big events and actors, including opposition, are scripted.
2
4%
9/11 was produced as ritual by secret societies.
3
6%
Mass mind control is effected through water/food/radiation.
4
8%
Egregore is not a metaphor, demons or aliens already rule.
5
10%
This whole thing is a simulation / dream / matrix.
14
29%
 
Total votes : 49

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby justdrew » Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:19 pm

Wombaticus Rex » 17 Jan 2014 09:50 wrote:
Saurian Tail » Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:48 am wrote:
Wombaticus Rex » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:18 pm wrote:I see the Simulation Thesis the same way -- when you consider the system requirements for a simulation of this scale, it's basically 1:1 isomorphic to the Universe Thesis ...

Simulation is such a sketchy metaphor. The point from my perspective is not that it is a simulation, but that it is non-physical. There are no billiard balls at the center of matter ... it is ALL empty space.


I very much agree and hope you didn't register any of my rantage as a response what you've been saying in this thread, which has been good shit.

Think of my riff as more related to lectures at Singularity University, or blog posts that rely on extended Matrix metaphors and a Nova for Kids level of quantum factoids. You are saying something altogether more subtle. And crazy-making! Always a strong Good Shit indicator.

"I refute it thus!" - Samuel Johnson.


IIRC, Heim Theory states that all particles are composed of "twists/knots" of spacetime. Maybe some other theory tho.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby semper occultus » Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:30 pm

Saurian Tail » 16 Jan 2014 14:48 wrote:
Simulation is such a sketchy metaphor.


....is it...?

all seems rather literal to me ..albeit I suspect not entirely serious...

ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?

BY NICK BOSTROM

Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford University

Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

ABSTRACT


This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.


I. INTRODUCTION


Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully.

Apart form the interest this thesis may hold for those who are engaged in futuristic speculation, there are also more purely theoretical rewards. The argument provides a stimulus for formulating some methodological and metaphysical questions, and it suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions, which some may find amusing or thought-provoking.
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby slimmouse » Fri Jan 17, 2014 4:35 pm

OK,

My final answer would be that I'm still digging.

Im hoping for a breakthrough anytime soon.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby FourthBase » Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:21 pm

I'm on board with more than half, to varying degrees. Rabbit holes are by their nature expansive, elusive, networked. Rabbit holes defy this kind of categorization. But, at the same time, if you're a subscriber to a couple of those -- namely, the sixth and the last -- then you ought to seek a new perspective, to put it kindly, one more adaptive to being useful on this earth to other human beings and more tethered to reality. Because, sorry, there is a reality. And, no, everything is not a big script. If you believe either of those, then you might want to prepare yourself for an inevitable nervous breakdown, because those are crazy-making premises. And if they reflected objective reality, then maybe the enlightenment would be worth the cost, but there's no way either reflects an objective reality, so, there's zero benefit to believing either. Less than zero.

Edit: Sorry for the late editing.
Last edited by FourthBase on Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby slimmouse » Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:29 pm

FourthBase » 17 Jan 2014 21:21 wrote:I'm on board with mote than half, to varying degrees. Rabbit holes are by their nature expansive, elusive, networked. Rabbit holes defy this kind of categorization. But, at the same time, if you're a subscriber to a couple of those -- actually, just one, the last one -- then you ought to seek a new perspective, to put it kindly, one more adaptive to being useful on this earth to other human beings.


I kind of allured to that very perspective myself in the "food for the Gods thread", where I intimated that in order to invoke the true divine within yourself, whether you accept the afterlife contention or not, is to summon it from within.

Which I hope you'll agree gives it a very physical angle.

And yet, there I was voting off the scale.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby semper occultus » Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:21 am

...what happens when the people in the ancestor-simulations start running ancestor-simulations....?
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:14 am

semper occultus » Sat Jan 18, 2014 7:21 am wrote:...what happens when the people in the ancestor-simulations start running ancestor-simulations....?


All turtles. More Matryushkas.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:21 am

George W Bush/GWB.....9/11/2001 .....Port Authority.....Twin Towers.....Chris Christie.....9/11/2013......George Washington Bridge/GWB.....Rudy Giuliani....Port Authority Chairman David Samson




The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey expects to move into 4 World Trade in 2015. The authority lost its home in the twin towers during the 2001 terror attacks.

The official opening means it can start building out its new office space.



Port Authority: $10 WTC name rights sale shameful
Officials remain unclear about who at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed off on a decades-old deal to sell a nonprofit rights to use the World Trade Center name to a nonprofit.

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 7:12 P.M.


Patrick Foye
Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye called a contract "a shameful episode."
Photo: Buck Ennis
(AP) -- The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on Wednesday called a deal that sold the World Trade Center's name rights to a nonprofit for $10 decades ago "a shameful episode" and vowed to cooperate with an anticipated investigation by New York's attorney general.
A newspaper story this month revealed that the name rights were sold to the late Port Authority executive Guy Tozzoli in his role as head of the nonprofit World Trade Centers Association, formed to promote international trade. The Port Authority, which owns the lower Manhattan land where the Twin Towers stood before Sept. 11, 2001, is among more than 300 worldwide members that pay the WTCA a fee to use the words "World Trade Center."
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has criticized the deal. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said he has referred the matter to state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to determine whether the WTCA "properly acquired from the Port Authority and developed the exclusive rights to the World Trade Center brand" and whether Tozzoli or others "improperly received the benefit of such intellectual property without right" at the expense of the Port Authority and taxpayers.
At a Port Authority board meeting on Wednesday, Executive Director Patrick Foye called the contract "a shameful episode," and board chairman David Samson said it appears "troubling." But neither could say with specificity who signed off on it.
The Record newspaper, of Woodland Park, N.J., reported in its initial story on the deal that a board secretary had signed off, and on Wednesday Mr. Samson said the original transaction "was approved by a prior board commissioner." Mr. Foye said it was approved by Port Authority officers but not by the full board of commissioners. Mr. Foye added that the Port Authority's executive director at the time of the deal, Stephen Berger, told him he hadn't signed off on it.
Mr. Samson said he had referred the matter to the Port Authority's audit committee and counsel.
"Just off the surface facts, this appears to be troubling," Mr. Samson said. "We're going to take a careful look at it."
The World Trade Center had been standing for more than 15 years by the time the rights were sold, and the brand already was valuable, Mr. Foye noted. Its value has grown exponentially since the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The Record reported that in exchange for the Port Authority's use of the trademark on merchandise, which the newspaper estimated could bring the Port Authority up to $28 million annually, the WTCA is requesting free office space worth an estimated $585,000 per year at the rebuilt World Trade Center site.
Tozzoli died in February, and the WTCA said Wednesday that no one there was available to comment.




Samson Destroying the Temple of the Philistines by Phillips Galle (16th century)

Image



Guy F. Tozzoli, 90, Who Led Team That Built Twin Towers, Is Dead
By DAVID W. DUNLAP
Published: February 6, 2013

“You are going to build the trade center,” Guy F. Tozzoli was told on his 40th birthday in 1962 by the head of the Port of New York Authority. Eleven years later, he had.

Don Hogan Charles/The New York Times

Mr. Tozzoli, among the most important figures in the development of the original World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, died on Saturday in Myrtle Beach, S.C. He was 90.

His death was announced by the World Trade Centers Association, an international group that he helped found and then led for more than four decades.

As director of the World Trade Department of the Port Authority, Mr. Tozzoli not only superintended development of the twin towers, but was also given credit for having brought the architect Minoru Yamasaki to the job, after admiring a pavilion by Mr. Yamasaki at the 1962 World’s Fair in Seattle; for shepherding the enormously popular Windows on the World restaurant atop the north tower into existence with his friend, the restaurateur Joseph Baum; and for coming up with the idea — while shaving one morning — to use the tremendous volume of rubble from the trade center excavation as landfill for Battery Park City.

“Tozzoli led the team of dreamers, planners, architects and builders who overcame countless obstacles to construct the tallest buildings on earth,” James Glanz and Eric Lipton wrote in The New York Times Magazine of Sept. 8, 2002. “Sometimes it seemed as if Tozzoli, the director of the project for the Port of New York Authority, had personally willed the towers into existence — outfoxing enemies, bullying colleagues, maneuvering around one intractable problem after another.”

Though it was not Mr. Tozzoli who first proposed making the World Trade Center the tallest building in the world, he embraced the idea.

Mr. Yamasaki himself favored a plan to build two 80-story towers, not 110-story behemoths, Mr. Glanz and Mr. Lipton wrote in the 2003 book “City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center.”

“Yama, I have something to tell you,” they quoted Mr. Tozzoli as telling the architect. “President Kennedy is going to put a man on the moon. You’re going to figure out a way to build me the tallest buildings in the world.”

Patrick J. Foye, the current executive director of what is now known as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said Mr. Tozzoli was “one of the agency’s groundbreaking pioneers.”

Guy Frederick Tozzoli was born on Feb. 12, 1922, in North Bergen, N.J., to Silvio Tozzoli, who owned a construction company, and his wife, Rose. He received a bachelor’s degree in analytic mechanics and a master’s degree in physics from Fordham University. He served as a lieutenant in the Navy during World War II and the Korean War.

Mr. Tozzoli’s first marriage, to Miriam Lane Johnson, ended in divorce. Their children — Susan Tozzoli, Kathleen Bernaldo, Richard, William, Michael and Tom — survive him, as do his wife, Cynthia; his sister, Rita Albert; and two grandchildren.

Mr. Tozzoli joined the Port Authority in 1946. As the manager of marine terminal planning and construction in the 1950s, he supervised the construction of cargo-handling centers in Brooklyn, Port Newark and Elizabeth, N.J. Mr. Foye credited him with having helped build the first container port in New Jersey.

In 1960, Austin J. Tobin, who was then executive director of the authority, lent Mr. Tozzoli to Robert Moses to help develop the 1964-65 World’s Fair in Flushing Meadows, Queens. The fair had not even opened before Mr. Tozzoli learned of his next horizon while dining with his wife at an Italian restaurant on East 14th Street. Mr. Tobin, at a nearby table, summoned him over. He wanted to know what Mr. Tozzoli thought of the embryonic trade center project, which was then planned as a complex on the East River designed by three prominent New York architects.

“It looks worse than the bus terminal,” Mr. Tozzoli said, according to Mr. Glanz and Mr. Lipton in the book. “It’s for the birds. I just don’t think three architects can do it. It is just impossible.”

On Feb. 12, 1962, Mr. Tobin rewarded Mr. Tozzoli’s candor by telling him: “I’m going to create the largest department the Port Authority has ever had, the World Trade Department. And I’m going to put you in charge of it.”

There were benefits to the job as well as headaches. Mr. Tozzoli liked to say that he, his father and his son Michael were the first diners at Windows on the World as it was preparing to open to the public in 1976. To the disappointment of the chef, however, the elder Tozzoli and the young boy both asked for hamburgers and French fries.

As the towers took form in 1970, Mr. Tozzoli was instrumental in establishing the World Trade Centers Association, which promotes international commerce. In his dual role at the authority and the association, he was caught up in a 1977 scandal over extravagant travel budgets. While not denying that he and his wife had taken many trips to cities around the globe at the authority’s expense, Mr. Tozzoli said, “never have I put a penny in my pocket.”

Mr. Tozzoli remained at the authority until 1987. After retiring, he became the full-time president of the association, with an office on the 77th floor of the north tower.

That was where he was headed on Sept. 11, 2001, hoping to make a 9 a.m. meeting. Instead, as he approached the Holland Tunnel entrance after leaving his home in New Jersey, he saw smoke pouring from a gash in the tower, not far from his own office. “ ‘It’s going to take us a long time to fix that,’ Tozzoli said in his gravelly voice to someone in the clot of people around him,” Mr. Glanz and Mr. Lipton wrote in the book. No one answered. Then the second plane struck.



Down The Rabbit Hole With Chris Christie
Last Updated on Thursday, 21 November 2013 17:49
Written by Toby Grace
Thursday, 31 October 2013 00:00

"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't— till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock- down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock- down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean— neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master— that's all." (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass)

Amendent One for October 2013 by Mike PettyjohnGovernor Christie intends to be master— let there be no doubt of that. Our governor's close resemblance to Humpty Dumpty is intellectual as well as in other, more obvious ways. When he uses a word such as "over- reaching," or "activist judge," it means exactly what he wants it to mean, regardless of the best efforts of Miriam- Webster or the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. For example, the court recently denied Christie's authority to terminate the Affordable Housing Authority. The governor gets really upset when his power to do just as he pleases is questioned, regardless of the fact that the Authority was established by the legislature, not by executive mandate. "The chief justice's activist opinion arrogantly bolsters another of the failures he and his colleagues have foisted on New Jersey taxpayers," Christie said. "This only steels my determination to continue to fight to bring common sense back to New Jersey's judiciary." Translation; "activist" means someone who doesn't agree with Christie. "Common sense" means Christie's opinions.
"Over-reach," a term Christie has often flung at the court, is indeed a serious problem. But it is not the court that has been over- reaching. The governor's blatant desire to end the state supreme court's independence and make it his own political creature was never more obvious than in his widely condemned refusal to re-nominate Justice John Wallace Jr. for another term on the bench. Without any basis, the governor said that the justice had contributed to "out of control" activism on the court. Translation: Wallace voted contrary to Christie's opinion.
Let's pause here for a short civics lesson regarding how one gets to be a justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. To quote from the state constitution: "SECTION VI, 1. The Governor shall nominate and appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the Chief Justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court, the Judges of the Superior Court, and the judges of the inferior courts with jurisdiction extending to more than one municipality...Section VI, paragraph 2 amended effective December 7, 1978... The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior Court shall hold their offices for initial terms of 7 years and upon reappointment shall hold their offices during good behavior... Such justices and judges shall be retired upon attaining the age of 70 years."
In essence, a justice serves a 'probationary' term of seven years, after which he can be re-nominated and, upon Senate confirmation, then holds his seat on the bench for the rest of his working life. This is a system designed to elevate the court above politics and has resulted in the New Jersey Supreme Court being one of the most respected in the nation. Since the adoption of the present state constitution in 1947, the seventh year re-nomination of justices by every governor has been automatic— until Chris Christie came along. In a move that shocked the Bar Association and many legal/political analysts, he broke the otherwise inviolable tradition and refused to re-nominate Justice Wallace, a jurist of unimpeachable reputation and wide respect. The problem? Wallace could be counted on to vote progressively on marriage equality and other social issues. In so doing, Christie made naked and plain his intention to politicize the court and bring it under his control. If that isn't the very definition of over- reach, it would be difficult to imagine what is.
Nothing so well illustrates the governor's forthright and fearless charge straight down the rabbit hole as his administration's August filing urging the State Supreme Court to refuse the motion for summary judgment in the marriage equality case. As a teacher with over 30 years in the classroom, I can say without hesitation that if this brief had been handed in to me as a student paper, I would have failed it and called the student in for remedial counseling. In it's brief, the Attorney General's office claimed the issue was not yet ready for a decision because "Plaintiffs, by virtue of their summary judgment motion, seek to side-step the Supreme Court mandate concerning the need for a factual record." Factual record? Considering the mountains of paperwork Lambda Legal and Garden State Equality have provided in this case, plus the exhaustive study done by former Governor Corzine's Marriage Equality Commission, it's difficult to understand what the Attorney General is talking about until we recall that the governor has appropriated to himself the power to re-define the English language. We simply call all that paperwork and the study "non-facts" or "unsubstantiated opinion" and presto — the summary judgment motion is without supporting material. Who says magic isn't real?
In its brief, the state said it believes the June ruling by the U.S. Supreme court throwing out elements of the Defense of Marriage Act ruling will give couples in civil unions federal marriage benefits even if they live in states where they are not recognized as married. The state notes that some federal agencies are considering extending protections to non-married gay couples. The state also argues that New Jersey courts should show caution because there's a dispute over the question. The logic of this argument seems to be that there is no need for the New Jersey Supreme Court to express its agreement with the U.S. Supreme Court because the issue is already a done deal. That begs the question that if the issue is already over and done with, why is the governor so intent on continuing to oppose marriage equality? What possible difference could it make if the state court goes ahead and agrees with the federal court? The answer is simple. It makes a political difference to Christie's national political aspirations if he comes from a state that has endorsed full marriage equality. That doesn't play well with the fundies in the hinterlands— those angry, middle aged white men with little education but lots of guns and plenty of misspelled protest signs who are, these days, the only block of votes the Republican Party can absolutely rely upon.
Governor Christie is many things— some good and some not so good—but one thing he most certainly is not is subtle. His ham-handed approach to the independence of the judiciary combined with his Orwellian habits with the language and his flat refusal to recognize the fact that the tide is running heavily against continued discrimination against the LGBT community shows a character that does not comprehend the true meaning of democracy and a person who would be ill-placed and dangerous in national office.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby slimmouse » Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:37 pm

In it's brief, the Attorney General's office claimed the issue was not yet ready for a decision because "Plaintiffs, by virtue of their summary judgment motion, seek to side-step the Supreme Court mandate concerning the need for a factual record." Factual record? Considering the mountains of paperwork Lambda Legal and Garden State Equality have provided in this case, plus the exhaustive study done by former Governor Corzine's Marriage Equality Commission, it's difficult to understand what the Attorney General is talking about until we recall that the governor has appropriated to himself the power to re-define the English language. We simply call all that paperwork and the study "non-facts" or "unsubstantiated opinion" and presto — the summary judgment motion is without supporting material. Who says magic isn't real?


Seems like your in a similar category to me, SLAD
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:41 pm

Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby semper occultus » Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:29 pm

JackRiddler » 18 Jan 2014 15:14 wrote:
semper occultus » Sat Jan 18, 2014 7:21 am wrote:...what happens when the people in the ancestor-simulations start running ancestor-simulations....?


All turtles. More Matryushkas.


......I should have finished reading the paper.......

It may be possible for simulated civilizations to become posthuman. They may then run their own ancestor-simulations on powerful computers they build in their simulated universe. Such computers would be “virtual machines”, a familiar concept in computer science. (Java script web-applets, for instance, run on a virtual machine – a simulated computer – inside your desktop.) Virtual machines can be stacked: it’s possible to simulate a machine simulating another machine, and so on, in arbitrarily many steps of iteration. If we do go on to create our own ancestor-simulations, this would be strong evidence against (1) and (2), and we would therefore have to conclude that we live in a simulation. Moreover, we would have to suspect that the posthumans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings.

Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for the hierarchy to bottom out at some stage – the metaphysical status of this claim is somewhat obscure – there may be room for a large number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over time. (One consideration that counts against the multi-level hypothesis is that the computational cost for the basement-level simulators would be very great. Simulating even a single posthuman civilization might be prohibitively expensive. If so, then we should expect our simulation to be terminated when we are about to become posthuman.)
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby slimmouse » Sat Jan 18, 2014 2:57 pm

I always think about the computer simulation thesis in terms of who or what created that?

Simulation, Big Bang, RNG ,- all of em,

they should surely all leave the same questions in each of us?

Cos here we all are, like it or not.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 18, 2014 3:09 pm

My words but a whisper your deafness a SHOUT.



I may make you feel but I can't make you think.



What do you do when the old man's gone - do you want to be him?
And your real self sings the song. Do you want to free him?
No one to help you get up steam
and the whirlpool turns you `way off-beam.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby justdrew » Sat Jan 18, 2014 3:18 pm

slimmouse » 18 Jan 2014 11:57 wrote:I always think about the computer simulation thesis in terms of who or what created that?

Simulation, Big Bang, RNG ,- all of em,

they should surely all leave the same questions in each of us?

Cos here we all are, like it or not.


well, a very real possibility is that 'we' created it. This could be a form of therapy or entertainment in the far future. When 'life' ends, you wake up in your "VR" tank in the Mall of the Future, having been in there just an hour, the lid opens up, and you get out like... "wow, that was incredible! I was really there at the start of the 21st century!" (or whenever you picked from the menu)

such methods may be needed to retain our humanity and sense of history as life extension and technology achieve what today could only be considered impossible. So maybe it's not a diversion/entertainment but some right-of-passage.

Image
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How far down the rabbit hole do you go?

Postby slimmouse » Sat Jan 18, 2014 3:29 pm

So maybe it's not a diversion/entertainment but some right-of-passage.


Thats rather how I see it all actually.

This life really isnt a game.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 150 guests