 | | Are we all processes in a simulation —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | At the risk of starting too many interesting threads at once, I present a link I found by reading Kung Fool, a rather amusing webcomic. (URL) only STARTED reading this, I haven't read to the end yet but it's fascinating so far! I can say this, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | Quoting Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com>: (...) hate to tell you, but you wouldn't know if you're running on an RCX - since to simulate each second you experience the RCX would have an infinite amount of time to compute it, it's power is (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) Pat Shepard (posted here a few years ago a few times) worked for me at MU and had dropped out of the PhD program in philosophy to learn Flash and stuff. He seemed to pretty seriously believe in this. But then he was a seminary student for a (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Are you saying you don't buy it? I finished it and I have to admit it's a persuasive argument as written. So either he's right or there is some assumption left out or logic flaw... (certainly possible!) To a certain extent it doesn't matter (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) It runs into the same logical flaws as religious belief - there is no evidence, or way to acquire credible evidence within the context of the simulation, therefore it is on faith. The principle of Occam's Razor applies, and the simplest answer (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
