RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
April 28, 2017 at 9:02 pm
(This post was last modified: April 28, 2017 at 9:05 pm by GrandizerII.)
(April 28, 2017 at 8:43 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(April 28, 2017 at 8:32 pm)Grandizer Wrote: I am still aware enough to consider it's all in the head. But I won't close my mind to other possibilities. Because who the hell knows what's going on? Definitely not you.
If anyone has "strange" things they think they are "experiencing" the most likely answer is still natural, sample rate error, stress, false perception, mental defect or a combo of some or all of those. And I don't say that to be mean. It really still is all in your head.
Magic is not an answer. ESP is not an answer, ghosts are not an answer. Little green men is not an answer. Super natural is not an answer. It certainly is ok to say "I don't know", it is not ok to assume the absurd though. There is always a natural explanation even if we cant figure it out in the moment.
I agree overall, Brian. The "all in the head" is the best explanation. I'm not going completely nuts that I can't see this, and it's been like this for 15 years at least, so it's not like I've suddenly just now succumbed to any of what seem to be absurd explanations (I am still an atheist and still willing to think critically about everything the best I can, nothing's changed about me). Contemplating is not believing. That said, let me ask you the following:
Would you not say that stimulation theory is a natural sort of explanation rather than supernatural or magic? What is the boundary between natural and supernatural really? Also, if quite a number of people smarter than us both are lending credibility to the simulation theory, does it have any impact at all on how you would think about this?
