Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 22, 2024, 12:06 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
#1
Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
I don't really have an opinion about simulation theory. And as far as time goes I see valid arguments of both sides between presentism and eternalism. That said I just wanted to call attention to a blog post by Scott Adams. He always has an interesting take on things.

Scott Adams on Simulation Theory
Reply
#2
RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
You know, for quite a number of years (15 years or so), I've been experiencing really bizarre coincidences that seem implausible as mere coincidences, and it still drives me nuts thinking about them. I won't describe my experiences here because they're too embarrassing, very personal, and extremely difficult to explain in words anyway. For a while, I have been reasoning that it could be just my brain playing tricks with me or (given a multiverse exists) I could be existing in a universe where these bizarre coincidences necessarily occur. But very lately, I have been considering the simulation theory as well, and I wonder ...

Who the hell knows, though? The best explanation may be I'm just crazy.
Reply
#3
RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
Meh. We live in a soup that creates a world. Most of the time we're unaware of the boundaries created by our own minds.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
(April 28, 2017 at 12:08 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I don't really have an opinion about simulation theory. And as far as time goes I see valid arguments of both sides between presentism and eternalism. That said I just wanted to call attention to a blog post by Scott Adams. He always has an interesting take on things.

Scott Adams on Simulation Theory

You have no business commenting on it considering your end goal is defending an old book of myth.

But, I can cut you a little slack in this case. I don't like even si fi fans, say fans of Star Trek twisting what real scientists say when using words. No, we are not the product of a old mythological sky hero, nor are we "simulated" by a bunch of si fi little Bill Gates or one giant Steve Jobs. 

"Simulation" does not equal Jesus.
"Simulation" does not equal Yahweh.
"Simulation" does not equal Buddha.
"Simulation" does not equal Brahma.
"Simulation" does not equal Klingons.

Not that I even agree with this theory. 

Tons of  Star Trek fans lost their shit masturbating over a NASA article a couple years ago regarding the "warp drive" as depicted in the show. If those idiots had bothered to READ the entire article it merely meant "on paper only" but the real life application would require all the energy in the universe to produce that effect. 

Woo is woo, old mythology, new age crap and even si fi woo. Unless you can prove it in a lab and have it independently peer reviewed you have NOTHING.

Now even with this guy, how much of the scientific community agrees with him? I don't think you are using the word "simulation" in the same manor a scientist does regardless. 

You have been all over the map in your history here. You cant simply quote the bible, so you try to debunk science. When you cant get away with that, you pull shit like this.
Reply
#5
RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
Brian37, your post is insulting without provocation and unrelated to subject of the thread. Please stop.
Reply
#6
RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
(April 28, 2017 at 4:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Meh.  We live in a soup that creates a world.  Most of the time we're unaware of the boundaries created by our own minds.

Thank you. I think it frustrates people of all religions to think of themselves as not mattering to "all this". 

I have seen some credible scientists use the word "hologram" to describe the universe. But again, they don't mean that a bigger si fi cognition is doing that, they are using it as metaphor to give us a visual as to what it might look like if we were bigger than the universe looking in. 

There is no super cognition, or a bunch of sub atomic cognitions controlling any of this, not an old mythological god, and not a si fi programer. "All this" is merely a giant weather pattern of which we are merely a brief outcome as a result of conditions. 

It is the same mistake with words that theists have with scientific words like "Theory". Scientific language has a far different meaning than when a layperson uses the same word. Even si fi fans make the same mistake.

(April 28, 2017 at 5:01 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Brian37, your post is insulting without provocation and unrelated to subject of the thread. Please stop.

No sorry. Your problem is not me, your problem is your own cognitive dissonance. It is not my fault you think my bluntness is meant to hurt you or that I hate you. NO, my bluntness is because I have been down this road before. 

You have a position so stop lying about that. 

Stop pretending that by starting this thread you really aren't trying to sell something. If you are going to sell Jesus sell him, but don't pull this shit, and claim it isn't a distraction. 

EVERY religion pulls crap like this. Every religion has followers who not only cherry pick their writings, also cherry pick science when they think they can get it to point to their club, and then run away from science when it does not.

You believe in a magic baby with super powers. You believe that a man magically escaped an execution. I don't see how a thread about "simulation" does you any good to prove those two most important stories. 

Would this same article you quoted prove Allah to be the one true God if a Muslim posted it and not you? Would this same article prove to you Jews were right, if they posted this and not you? 

That is what you keep failing to consider. 

And as far as "insults" really? I think Kurdish and Koptic Christians in the East have far more to worry about than you do. You simply don't like me pointing out that this is nothing more than a distraction on your part.
Reply
#7
RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
I think it's a good thing that a x-tian is considering or exploring other view points.
Brian, I'm sure that Neo will say something further down the track that you can attack without seeming a little over enthusiastic.
Reply
#8
RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
(April 28, 2017 at 1:45 pm)Grandizer Wrote: You know, for quite a number of years (15 years or so), I've been experiencing really bizarre coincidences that seem implausible as mere coincidences, and it still drives me nuts thinking about them. I won't describe my experiences here because they're too embarrassing, very personal, and extremely difficult to explain in words anyway. For a while, I have been reasoning that it could be just my brain playing tricks with me or (given a multiverse exists) I could be existing in a universe where these bizarre coincidences necessarily occur. But very lately, I have been considering the simulation theory as well, and I wonder ...

Who the hell knows, though? The best explanation may be I'm just crazy.

You need to come back in. It appears that the implant setting has malfunctioned.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#9
RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
(April 28, 2017 at 6:20 pm)Little lunch Wrote: I think it's a good thing that a x-tian is considering or exploring other view points.
Brian, I'm sure that Neo will say something further down the track that you can attack without seeming a little over enthusiastic.

WHAT? I had the electric chair ready. I had the Guillotine ready. I had the needle ready. Now you say this? How the hell am I supposed to preform atheist miracles if you get in my way? 

You want to play Martin Luther King, be my guest. I am a foaming at the mouth rabid NFL recorder without their permission and I rip the tags off of my mattress TOO. 

How silly of me to point out that out of 7 billion humans NEO isn't the only one with a sales pitch.

In all seriousness Lunch, if NEO is that bothered by me, he has the option to do what Steve did, and block me. As much I cant stand his arguments, NEO has lasted longer than Steve did with me. I am getting under his skin, not because I hate him, but because I am causing him to think.
Reply
#10
RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
Scott Adams is a brilliant cartoonist.

He should stick to that.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Star Trek theory Won2blv 10 1558 June 24, 2023 at 6:53 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Intelligent Design as a scientific theory? SuperSentient 26 6807 March 26, 2017 at 11:07 pm
Last Post: SuperSentient
  Simulation Theory Documentary Neo-Scholastic 25 6082 August 30, 2016 at 3:45 pm
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  New theory on how life began KUSA 19 4191 March 3, 2016 at 6:33 pm
Last Post: Fireball
  New theory on Aboigenesis StuW 11 4091 February 26, 2015 at 4:11 pm
Last Post: Heywood
  Can you give any evidence for Darwin's theory? Walker_Lee 51 11073 May 14, 2014 at 11:30 am
Last Post: Simon Moon
  Creationists: Just a theory? Darwinian 31 8083 October 26, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  PZ Myers destroys Daniel Friedmann's YEC theory little_monkey 1 1268 June 17, 2013 at 10:56 am
Last Post: Silver
  Big Bang theory confirmed (apparently) and amendments to make Joel 2 1986 March 21, 2013 at 8:28 pm
Last Post: Joel
Thumbs Up Does Death Exist? New Theory Says ‘No’ Phish 30 14639 March 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Last Post: ManMachine



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)