Subject:
|
Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:56:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
>
> http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
>
> I only STARTED reading this, I haven't read to the end yet but it's
> fascinating so far!
>
> I can say this, though.. I am NOT a process running on an RCX.. it would
> take a much more powerful computer to simulate MY twistiness. :-)
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 long time too...
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are we all processes in a simulation
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Are we all processes in a simulation
|
| 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)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
