Simulation Theory according to Dilbert

[Angrboda]

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.

You're fucking deluded.

[Minimalist]

Yean, man.  It's hard to get a jesus freak to think.

[Brian37]

Yean, man.  It's hard to get a jesus freak to think.

Yea that's funny considering that this website has many former theists. And not just this website, but people like Ayan Hersi Ali and Daniel Dennett and Dan Barker and Marlene Winell.

Certainly not up to me if NEO realizes he got it wrong, but plenty of former believers have left all the worlds major religions. 

http://journeyfree.org/leaving-the-fold/

https://www.google.com/#q=Ex+Jews

https://www.google.com/#q=Ex+Muslims

https://www.google.com/#q=Ex+Buddhists

https://www.google.com/#q=Ex+Hindus

[Minimalist]

I said "hard" not impossible.

[GrandizerII]

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.

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.

[Brian37]

You need to come back in. It appears that the implant setting has malfunctioned.

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.

[GrandizerII]

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?

[Brian37]

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?

How much of the scientific community buys this, that is my litmus test. If it is one person, they have a lot to prove. If it is like m-theory vs string theory, then none of that would lead to an old mythology in any case. Again I have heard some scientists use the word "hologram" but they don't mean "super cognition, or "micro cognitions".  If I am to accept the word "simulation" used in science, that would still not involve a cognition as a starting point. I would still take that as a metaphor.

[Aoi Magi]

Simulation "theory" is a probable idea however till we have any actual means of testing and validating it, simple speculation is pointless.

Personally though, I think it is improbable mainly because there doesn't seem to be much point in simulating us, we are quite predictable as a specie. Besides, no self-respecting AI would simulate Trump.

[GrandizerII]

Just in case anyone is interested, here's a good video discussion to watch related to this "theory". I plan to watch this later tonight. Should be interesting.