Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 74

Thread: Elon Musk: The chance we are not living in a computer simulation is 'one in billions'

  1. #1

    Elon Musk: The chance we are not living in a computer simulation is 'one in billions'


    Elon Musk: The chance we are not living in a computer simulation is 'one in billions'

    Andrew Griffin

    Elon Musk has said that there is only a “one in billions” chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation.

    Our lives are almost certainly being conducted within an artificial world powered by AI and highly-powered computers, like in The Matrix, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO suggested at a tech conference in California.

    Mr Musk, who has donated huge amounts of money to research into the dangers of artificial intelligence, said that he hopes his prediction is true because otherwise it means the world will end.

    “The strongest argument for us probably being in a simulation I think is the following,” he told the Code Conference. “40 years ago we had Pong – two rectangles and a dot. That’s where we were.

    “Now 40 years later we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, we’ll have augmented reality.

    “If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, just indistinguishable.”

    He said that even if the speed of those advancements dropped by 1000, we would still be moving forward at an intense speed relative to the age of life.

    Since that would lead to games that would be indistinguishable from reality that could be played anywhere, “it would seem to follow that the odds that we’re in ‘base reality’ is one in billions”, Mr Musk said.

    Read more


    Asked whether he was saying that the answer to the question of whether we are in a simulated computer game was “yes”, he said the answer is “probably”.

    He said that arguably we should hope that it’s true that we live in a simulation. “Otherwise, if civilisation stops advancing, then that may be due to some calamitous event that stops civilisation.”

    He said that either we will make simulations that we can’t tell apart from the real world, “or civilisation will cease to exist”.

    Mr Musk said that he has had “so many simulation discussions it’s crazy”, and that it got to the point where “every conversation [he had] was the AI/simulation conversation”.

    The question of whether what we see is real or simulated has perplexed humans since at least the Ancient philosophers. But it has been given a new and different edge in recent years with the development of powerful computers and artificial intelligence, which some have argued shows how easily such a simulation could be created.




    www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/elon-musk-ai-artificial-intelligence-computer-simulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.html



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Bit confused. We "are" in a video game. "One day" video technology will be good enough. "Hopes his prediction" comes true.

  4. #3
    What's the chance the simulation is not simulated? Turtles all the way down - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

  5. #4
    I've come to the same conclusion, but also realize it makes no difference.

    The premise is simple, if we can create 1 simulation, then we will inevitably create "billions", and therefore, the assumption is that if there is a higher reality they will have done the same. So, then the question is "are we the first reality", the true true reality against all odds, or are we 10 layers deep or 1000's. Odd's are we are not the original. So, anyway, if you accept that we can make a reality that can fool a human into believing it is real, then odds are you are in one.

    Likely that is how God works. He can effect our reality, but not be part of it, as the the computer reality is purely synthetic in relation to the real god, and if he entered it'd be via an Avatar that represented God but wasn't actually "God". Sound similiar to something. Also how could God know your essence upon death, how could bring you to a heaven which doesn't exist in this universe. Etc.... All explained if you think of this like you'd think of a computer simulation.

    Anyway. Doesn't matter really, you still have to live.

  6. #5

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    What's the chance the simulation is not simulated? Turtles all the way down - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
    If it's not simulated how can it be a simulation? Chance: ZERO!

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulIsGreat View Post
    I've come to the same conclusion, but also realize it makes no difference.

    The premise is simple, if we can create 1 simulation, then we will inevitably create "billions", and therefore, the assumption is that if there is a higher reality they will have done the same. So, then the question is "are we the first reality", the true true reality against all odds, or are we 10 layers deep or 1000's. Odd's are we are not the original. So, anyway, if you accept that we can make a reality that can fool a human into believing it is real, then odds are you are in one.

    Likely that is how God works. He can effect our reality, but not be part of it, as the the computer reality is purely synthetic in relation to the real god, and if he entered it'd be via an Avatar that represented God but wasn't actually "God". Sound similiar to something. Also how could God know your essence upon death, how could bring you to a heaven which doesn't exist in this universe. Etc.... All explained if you think of this like you'd think of a computer simulation.

    Anyway. Doesn't matter really, you still have to live.
    Are heaven and hell only simulations too, or just illusions (simulated)?

  9. #8

    Elon Musk believes we are probably characters in some advanced civilization's video game

    Updated by Ezra Klein on June 2, 2016, 2:03 a.m. ET @ezraklein

    By far the best moment of Recode's annual Code Conference was when Elon Musk took the stage and explained that though we think we're flesh-and-blood participants in a physical world, we are almost certainly computer-generated entities living inside a more advanced civilization's video game.

    Don't believe me? Here's Musk's argument in full:

    The strongest argument for us being in a simulation probably is the following. Forty years ago we had pong. Like, two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were.

    Now, 40 years later, we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously, and it's getting better every year. Soon we'll have virtual reality, augmented reality.

    If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now. Then you just say, okay, let's imagine it's 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale.

    So given that we're clearly on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality, and those games could be played on any set-top box or on a PC or whatever, and there would probably be billions of such computers or set-top boxes, it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality is one in billions.

    Tell me what's wrong with that argument. Is there a flaw in that argument?

    This came in response to a question from journalist Josh Topolsky, who pressed Musk further. "The argument makes sense," Topolsky said. "But what do you think?"

    "There's a one in billions chance we're in base reality," Musk replied. He continued:

    Arguably we should hope that that's true, because if civilization stops advancing, that may be due to some calamitous event that erases civilization. So maybe we should be hopeful this is a simulation, because otherwise we are going to create simulations indistinguishable from reality or civilization ceases to exist. We're unlikely to go into some multimillion-year stasis.

    In this answer, Musk is repeating one of my favorite thought experiments. It comes from philosopher Nick Bostrom's aptly titled paper "Are You in a Computer Simulation?" You can read the whole thing here, but the core is more or less as Musk describes it:

    One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations.

    Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea.

    The argument basically resolves down to three options, which Wikipedia summarizes thusly:

    "The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero," or

    "The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero," or
    "The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one."

    Musk is picking the third option here. It's worth noting that Bostrom doesn't share Musk's confidence. He's said that he doesn't see any obvious way to choose between the three options:

    If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3).

    This is a fun paper, and it's led to lots of debate. If you want to dive deep into it, head to the simulation argument website, and you can spend days digging into the debate. For what it's worth, I side with critics who think the three options aren't actual exhaustive: I don't see a reason to believe that even very advanced civilizations will manage to easily simulate consciousness.

    But that's just what a simulated consciousness who believes he's a special participant in base reality would say, isn't it?



    http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11837608...ation-argument



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

  12. #10
    Row, row, row your boat
    Gently down the stream,
    Merrily merrily, merrily, merrily
    Life is but a dream


  13. #11
    ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?

    BY NICK BOSTROM

    [Published in
    Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243 255. (First version: 2001)]

    http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

  14. #12
    So just like this thread, even Elon Musk is REALLY $#@!ING STUPID.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by libertyjam View Post
    So just like this thread, even Elon Musk is REALLY $#@!ING STUPID.
    Ah good, a simulated critic.

    It's only a simulation stupid.

  16. #14
    The most efficient way to build earth as a simulation would be to build it flat and enclose it with a dome. That's how it is done. There is a flat earth mass awakening in process. The education system is going to have to overhaul many of its studies to conform to the new flat earth model.

  17. #15
    If they ever figure out how to change the program let me know. Until then I'll just keep on keeping on.
    "The Patriarch"

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Casey View Post
    The most efficient way to build earth as a simulation would be to build it flat and enclose it with a dome.
    Really?

    -rep



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Really?

    -rep
    Yes, earth is flat. Understanding that it's a simulation is a more acceptable stepping stone to understanding that it's flat.

    We already have flat earth simulations on a smaller scale. They're called planetariums.

  21. #18
    L Ron Hubbard is sooooo 20th century.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Casey View Post
    Yes, earth is flat. .
    No, it isn't.

  23. #20

    Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat

    Created on 19 August 2008 Moriel Schottlender

    A few months ago I released an experiment video explaining how Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth using the shadow of sticks. The method was performed almost two millenia ago, and produced quite accurate results (considering the ‘equipment’ used). But it was far from being the only (or first) method to understand our planet’s shape.

    Humanity has known the Earth to be round for a few millenia and I’ve been meaning to refine that video and show more of these methods of how we figured out the world is not flat. I’ve had a few ideas on how to do that, but recently got an interesting incentive, when Phil Plait (The Bad Astronomer) wrote about a recently published BBC article about “The Flat Earth” society. Phil claims it’s ridiculous to even bother rebutting the flat earth society – and I tend to agree. But the history of our species’ intellectual pursuit is important and interesting, and it’s very much well worth writing about. You don’t need to denounce all science and knowledge and believe in a kooky conspiracy theory to enjoy some historical factoids about humanity’s quest for space.

    Though I have researched this subject, I am quite certain there will be much more to be said about it – feel free to add more in the comments. If all goes well, this might actually be a good post to refer to whenever anyone wants to discuss a bit of ancient science and the source of cosmological thought.


    On we go to the top 10 ways to know the Earth is unequivocally, absolutely, positively, 100% not flat:

    (1) The Moon


    Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.

    Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.

    Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.

    Refer to the following image from Wikipedia for more details on what happens during a lunar eclipse:
    Click for the Original

    (2) Ships and the Horizon

    If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.
    But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.


    Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.

    (3) Varying Star Constellations

    This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.



    After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)

    The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:


    (4) Shadows and Sticks

    If you stick a stick in the [sticky] ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:

    But they don’t. This is because the earth is round, and not flat:

    Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately. To see this demonstrated, refer to my experiment video about Eratosthenes and the circumference of the earth – “The Earth’s curvature is tasty!“.
    (5) Seeing Farther from Higher

    Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.
    Then, you climb up the closest tree – the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.
    The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.
    This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:


    (6) Ride a Plane

    If you’ve ever taken a trip out of the country, specifically long-destination trips, you could notice two interesting facts about planes and the Earth:

    • Planes can travel in a relatively straight line a very long time and not fall off any edges. They can also, theoretically (and some do, though with stops along the way), circle the earth.
      Correction (Courtesy of Klaynos, from scienceforums.net): Apparently, planes can circle the Earth without stopping!
    • If you look out the window on a trans-Atlantic flight, you can, most of the times, see the curvature of the earth in the horizon. The best view of the curvature used to be on the Concorde, but that plane’s long gone. I can’t wait seeing the pictures from the new plane by “Virgin Galactic” – the horizon should look absolutely curved, as it actually is from a distance.

    (A picture of the curved horizon from a Concorde plane can be seen here).

    (7) Look at Other Planets


    The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics – specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances – our planet is the same.
    In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they are taking this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.
    In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it (click here to see a beautiful video reconstruction of his observations). He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet – a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept as it followed a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.
    A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (as our sun would have to behave quite differently to accustom a “flat earth” theory), what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets orbits, and the effects of gravity, etc). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it.
    (8) The Existence of Timezones

    The time in New York, at the moment these words are written, is 12:00pm. The sun is in the middle of the sky (though it’s hard to see with the current cloud coverage). In Beijing, where Michael Phelps is likely getting ready for yet another gold medal, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found.
    In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone – so much so, that it’s soon going to rise up again in the beginning of a new day. Here’s a list showing what time it is around the world when it is 12:00pm in New York city.

    This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and timezones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.
    Another point concerning timezones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate timezones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.

    (9) The Center of Gravity

    There’s an interesting fact about mass: it attracts things to it. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object.
    Consider a sphere. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you. Imagine an ant (perhaps the same one from the previous point) walking around on a crystal ball. Assuming the crystal ball is polished, the ant’s only indication of movement would be the fact it’s moving its feet. The scenery (and shape of the surface) would not change at all.

    Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less – if you want to be more accurate, feel free to do the entire [shriek] integration [shriek] process), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.
    I am quite positive that even for Australians an apple falls downwards, but if you have your doubts, I urge you to try it out – just make sure it’s nothing that can break or hurt you. Just in case gravity is consistent after all.

    Further reading about the center of mass and about distribution of mass can be found here. And if you are brave enough to handle some equations (not involving integration), you can learn some more about Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
    (10) Images from Space

    In the past 60 years of the space exploration era of humanity’s history, we’ve launched satellites, probes and people to space. Some of them got back, some of them still float through the solar system (and almost beyond it) and transmit amazing images over to our receivers on Earth.
    You can find a full list of the chronology of manned space missions at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
    More Methods Throughout History


    • Abu Rayhan Biruni(sometimes known as “The Father of Geodesy“), has managed to calculate the circumference of the Earth using complex triangulation equations. I couldn’t find the actual calculation, or the method, so I can’t judge it this as a relatively easy “DIY” way to do it, but it’s still worth mentioning. If anyone has any more information about the method used, do post in the comments.
    • Bedford Level Experiment: At the Bedford river in Norfolk, England. The experiments were done initially in order to prove that the Earth is flat. Though the first results of this experiment seemed to agree with the flat-earth contention, later attempts to repeat this experiment agreed with the fact that the Earth is, in fact, spherical.
    • A Bit of History: Neil Armstrong narrating this videoof the Earth as viewed from the Apollo 11 Command Module on its way to the Moon.

    Credits and Thanks

    This is a very long post, but it was fun to write (and learn about!). There is some credit due to other people, and I am not one to hold out the cheers:

    • Klaynos, from scienceforums, for his Physics mastery late at night.
    • insane_alienfrom scienceforums, for directing me on the path of a good #9.
    • Cap’n Refsmmatfrom scienceforums, for clarity issues, physics help, and saving you (the reader) some of my ramblings.
    • Keren, for her editorial help and general (good) advice.
    • Daniel and KerenG, for their mental and grammatical support.
    www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
    There's no point in fighting it. The flat earth mass awakening is here. Science departments are going to have to be overhauled to conform with it. The globe has got to go.

  25. #22
    1. The earth is an Oblate Spheroid. - I would say round but, thanks to AF in another thread, I learned the correct term.
    2. Pluto is a planet.
    3. If we are in a video game, I have to wonder about the sanity of the alien overlord who created the people of Walmart.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    1. The earth is an Oblate Spheroid. - I would say round but, thanks to AF in another thread, I learned the correct term.
    2. Pluto is a planet.
    3. If we are in a video game, I have to wonder about the sanity of the alien overlord who created the people of Walmart.
    RADICAL!

  27. #24
    I don't think it's necessary for there to be alien creatures living outside of the enclosed dome with celestial simulations. There could just be other people who built the flat planed earth we know and live on, keeping some of us inside here for a long time.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Casey View Post
    I don't think it's necessary for there to be alien creatures living outside of the enclosed dome with celestial simulations. There could just be other people who built the flat planed earth we know and live on, keeping some of us inside here for a long time.
    "We?" I live on a roundish earth with no dome, people of Walmart, where the reptilians are in charge.


    Every time flat earth comes up, I can't help but think about Discworld.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    1. The earth is an Oblate Spheroid. - I would say round but, thanks to AF in another thread, I learned the correct term.
    2. Pluto is a planet.
    3. If we are in a video game, I have to wonder about the sanity of the alien overlord who created the people of Walmart.
    They were hatched.
    "The Patriarch"

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    "We?" I live on a roundish earth with no dome, people of Walmart, where the reptilians are in charge.


    Every time flat earth comes up, I can't help but think about Discworld.

    The simulation is designed to fool the inhabitants of earth into believing in a globe shaped earth. The designers knew that eventually we would develop sophisticated travel methods that would cross the oceans and ice to eventually reach the dome wall in Antarctica.

    When Admiral Byrd finally made it in the 1950's, the only thing left was for the governments to collaborate with the designers to keep people from finding out the truth of earth's flatness by agreeing to the United Nations Antarctic Treaty, the only treaty that has ever been adhered to for over half a century.

    Think of a planetarium, or the movie Truman Show. If you lived inside the simulation your entire life, would you ever know that it was just a simulation? You would only know if you found the border.

    It is an Intelligent Design, and now we are smart enough to make our own designs replicating the one we inhabit adding our own unique experiences and understanding to the environment.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Casey View Post
    The simulation is designed to fool the inhabitants of earth into believing in a globe shaped earth. The designers knew that eventually we would develop sophisticated travel methods that would cross the oceans and ice to eventually reach the dome wall in Antarctica.

    When Admiral Byrd finally made it in the 1950's, the only thing left was for the governments to collaborate with the designers to keep people from finding out the truth of earth's flatness by agreeing to the United Nations Antarctic Treaty, the only treaty that has ever been adhered to for over half a century.

    Think of a planetarium, or the movie Truman Show. If you lived inside the simulation your entire life, would you ever know that it was just a simulation? You would only know if you found the border.

    It is an Intelligent Design, and now we are smart enough to make our own designs replicating the one we inhabit adding our own unique experiences and understanding to the environment.
    We're on the Markovian well of souls, everyone knows that.
    "The Patriarch"

  33. #29
    What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet. Woody Allen

  34. #30
    This is nothing new.

    "I think therefore I am."

    Rene Descarte said this hundreds of years ago, and as far as I know it is the only provable thing with regards to "reality".

    Everything else, including and especially religion, is just conjecture because humans "want to believe" in something.

    That said, given that we exist in some reality and do not seem able to change the nature of the reality that our senses perceive, we may as well consider it "real" and get on with our lives.

    Even Elon Musk.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •