|
AbysmalPeptoBismol posted:Don't worry. This isn't our hell though because he's certain to lose and destroy the party for at least one midterm election, and that's because there are no longer enough white people to swing elections. We are in old white man hell.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:This isn't our hell though because he's certain to lose and destroy the party for at least one midterm election, and that's because there are no longer enough white people to swing elections. We are in old white man hell. The best kind of hell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Old white man hell is basically the best possible world
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:There's a few interesting actual scientific avenues for establishing if we actually are in [certain types of] a simulation, but so far they've all come back negative and set a ridiculously high upper bound in terms of how "accurate" the simulation would have to be. So either we're real, the universe is such a good simulation as to be indiscernable from the actual universe (in which case it would require a quantum computer at least the volume of the actual universe to simulate it so why bother), or the simulation is happening on a much smaller scale, controlling neural inputs matrix-style, in which case a) the so what clause applies, and b) this case can be reduced enough to show that simulating everyone on earth's experience is basically indiscernible from and equivalent to simulating a single random guy's experience and faking other people. If this is the case all the actual investigations to "break us out" are pointless since the simulation can just simulate the scientists trying to break out of the simulation. More importantly, let's say that we prove beyond the shadow of doubt that we're in a simulation, it's possible to break out, and we succeed at doing so. Three big fuckin' impossible steps right there, but let's grant all of them. Is that it? Do you think that they'll now be okay saying "yup this is the real world?" Because, and here's the kicker for why this idea is so fuckin' stupid, even if they are right and they succeed and they break out and they see the true world for what it really is, if they were in a simulation before there's no reason for them to believe that they are now not inside a simulation. There's no upper limit to this stupid thing. Layers and layers and layers on up. The 'the universe that I am currently inside is simulated' postulate cannot be disproven- there can always be a more powerful computer, a grander conspiracy, a more sufficiently advanced alien.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Perhaps he would even be killed, as Plato intuited in his parable of the cave — surely the earliest form of simulation theory — but in that case our creators wouldn’t simply give up on us. They would raise him up, in an unmistakable sign of their power and glory, validating his message and inviting all who listen to join a higher level of existence. ... did this "smart atheist" just unironically invent Jesus?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
The Sin of Onan posted:... did this "smart atheist" just unironically invent Jesus? Tech Nerds Accidentally Create Religion In Search Of Having No Religion is fast becoming a cliche for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
do they think we are in the matrix and if we hack the matrix we can climb out of the pod we're in? I mean, the other option is that we're all just the dream of some unimaginably powerful computational device, and in that case we can no more escape the simulation than Mario the plumber can jump out of my TV screen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
uber_stoat posted:do they think we are in the matrix and if we hack the matrix we can climb out of the pod we're in? I think they generally go for the latter, and think if they can hack the computer they're running on they can escape into the internet of the universe doing the simulation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
They don't know, but having Deep Thoughts about it is significantly more important than solving world hunger, curing cancer, or doing a single goddamn useful thing with their lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
The Sin of Onan posted:... did this "smart atheist" just unironically invent Jesus? It's a joke, which is why I linked the source so people knew I wasn't stealing said joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Somfin posted:More importantly, let's say that we prove beyond the shadow of doubt that we're in a simulation, it's possible to break out, and we succeed at doing so. Three big fuckin' impossible steps right there, but let's grant all of them. They only need to reach the layer where anime is real.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
sleeptalker posted:They only need to reach the layer where anime is real. Those fools! They're going in the wrong direction!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/07/tech-billionaires-think-we-live-in-the-matrix-and-have-asked-scientists-to-get-us-out.html Future advanced cyborg human emulations to keep being arseholes Improbable Lobster posted:This just in: Tech morons keep accidentally creating religion ikanreed posted:A lot of nu atheists really lack the basic philosophy skills needed to actually be atheists. They do, but some do OK: nu-atheist PZ Myers correctly nailed these bozos: they are literally using the same arguments as creationists. AbysmalPeptoBismol posted:Don't worry. DON'T YOU WISH YOU'D DONATED TO MIRI IN TIME
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
divabot posted:They do, but some do OK: nu-atheist PZ Myers correctly nailed these bozos: they are literally using the same arguments as creationists. Don't get me wrong. I've got absolutely nothing against being an atheist. Or even a neoatheist. I probably am one: smug condescending rear end in a top hat on the internet and everything. Just the popularization of it has not been accompanied by the requisite amount of basic epistemology to approach fundamental questions in a great many people. Edit: also I'm one of the drat comments on that article.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
divabot posted:They do, but some do OK: nu-atheist PZ Myers correctly nailed these bozos: they are literally using the same arguments as creationists. It goes one further. One of the great hypothetical counter-arguments to Occam's Razor is 'the old lady down the street is a witch, she did it.' This is ludicrous on its face because it means that the old woman down the street has to exist, has to have existed, and has to continue to exist for all of the times when that phenomenon is observed; it presupposes that witches exist and that witches can cause whatever phenomenon is being observed to happen in the way that it did; it moves the issue of creation elsewhere- whence came the witches?- without resolving it; and it presupposes that this one witch was capable of causing the phenomenon every single time it is observed to happen, and was motivated to do so. It sounds simpler than a lot of things, but it isn't. It is far more complicated than any situation it is trying to explain. These fuckers are saying 'there's an entire universe full of witches and they are actively doing everything.' Somfin has a new favorite as of 05:48 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:The whole 'we live in a super simulation' thing doesn't really pass the 'so what' test. I mean, if all of reality is how we perceive it and effectively physical law as we know it applies, and we live and die and experience the world as we do, what the hell would it even matter if it's a ~simulation~? It's effectively the same world and you could never prove the simulation theory anyway. The simulation argument was a neat thought experiment providing a stealthy alternate proof of a "higher power" that I don't think its creator(s) really intended to be taken this seriously. But, it does go into some implications of this. One of which is that if we're being simulated, it's likely someone is watching the simulation. In which case it's to our benefit to either be someone interesting or be attached to someone interesting so that we're less likely to be, uh, "written out of the show," I guess. The appeal of this to certain political tendencies seems pretty clear, especially if you believe your wealth and power and success and writing fart apps for the iPhone make you "interesting." It implies you are basically God's chosen. I think Vosgian Beast beat me to this but I can't stand reading whatever he quoted so idk for sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It goes one further. One of the great hypothetical counter-arguments to Occam's Razor is 'the old lady down the street is a witch, she did it.' This is ludicrous on its face because it means that the old woman down the street has to exist, has to have existed, and has to continue to exist for all of the times when that phenomenon is observed; it presupposes that witches exist and that witches can cause whatever phenomenon is being observed to happen in the way that it did; it moves the issue of creation elsewhere- whence came the witches?- without resolving it; and it presupposes that this one witch was capable of causing the phenomenon every single time it is observed to happen, and was motivated to do so. It sounds simpler than a lot of things, but it isn't. It is far more complicated than any situation it is trying to explain. The "simplest explanation" thing is kind of a gloss. Occam's razor is actually that you shouldn't multiply theoretical entities beyond necessity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
National Review writer notices how terrible the alt-right is: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441319/donald-trump-alt-right-internet-abuse-never-trump-movement
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
The simulation thing is obviously ridiculous, but its weakest part (why would someone simulate me and everyone else, like this, a squintillion times?) is not clear to narcissists, so it makes a pretty good litmus test. Well, I suppose it draws in the Zeno-wannabe dropouts too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:The simulation argument was a neat thought experiment providing a stealthy alternate proof of a "higher power" that I don't think its creator(s) really intended to be taken this seriously. But, it does go into some implications of this. One of which is that if we're being simulated, it's likely someone is watching the simulation. In which case it's to our benefit to either be someone interesting or be attached to someone interesting so that we're less likely to be, uh, "written out of the show," I guess. The appeal of this to certain political tendencies seems pretty clear, especially if you believe your wealth and power and success and writing fart apps for the iPhone make you "interesting." It implies you are basically God's chosen. It's Last Thursdayism for geeks. Curvature of Earth has a new favorite as of 22:00 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
The Sin of Onan posted:... did this "smart atheist" just unironically invent Jesus? Jesus is a venture capitalist, and by demonstrating the skill and the willingness to get on your knees and suck a golfball through a garden hose verbally or practically, you can be His apostle and perhaps have some of the scraps or funding that He is tossing your way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:There was an anti-drug PSA that I was made to watch in middle school where it turns out being dead is being suspended on a bench in a cold black void next to other people who died the same way you did. Wanna hang with the the erotic asphyxiation and/or sexual exhaustion crowd. They seem like they would be fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Wanna hang with the the erotic asphyxiation and/or sexual exhaustion crowd. They seem like they would be fun. And if you hang too long, they rapidly get cooler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
These billionaires supporting research into whether we're in a simulation reminds me incredibly of the Gilded Age high society spending untold amounts of money on mediums and seances. Their money has made them completely detached from the rest of society, so they get these stupid ideas and nobody is willing to tell them the ideas are stupid because they can *ruin* you if they get offended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
pookel posted:National Review writer notices how terrible the alt-right is: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441319/donald-trump-alt-right-internet-abuse-never-trump-movement this is the monster they've been creating for, frankly, decades
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/leyawn/status/789916005640335360
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
"I'm not owned! I'm not owned!" etc -- @dril
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Man I never should have left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:It's Last Thursdayism for geeks. It's also the Evil Demon, or Brain in a Vat, or whatever thought experiment someone came up with in a more modern time compared to the previous attempt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon So since at least 1641 people have been grappling with this issue, but the whole idea behind these kinds of questions is that a philosophical system can't be complete, or isn't sufficient to answer <x>, or whatever, until we come up with a solution to the problem. The people who come up with stuff like this don't actually believe any of it to be true. It's like questioning whether we can "know" something to be true. It's pretty obvious we can know something to be true, but from a purely philosophical perspective, is our belief actually knowledge, or just the appearance of? *eerie keyboard noises*
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Don't worry guys, Wesley never really stopped caring about politics! He remains a source for horrible political opinions that he's afraid will get him purged by Anil Dash or somesuch. Because if anyone who employs him were to find out about his embarrassing online posting career, he'd be promptly fired, and that's the fault of the commies. https://twitter.com/nydwracu/status/789880474072211456 https://twitter.com/nydwracu/status/789880834094399489
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
I suppose if someone was going to try and claim that the Nazis weren't fascist enough, this would be the person and time for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I dunno if it's already been posted but someone suggested I post this hilarious article here Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Fututor Magnus posted:Don't worry guys, Wesley never really stopped caring about politics! He remains a source for horrible political opinions that he's afraid will get him purged by Anil Dash or somesuch. Because if anyone who employs him were to find out about his embarrassing online posting career, he'd be promptly fired, and that's the fault of the commies. then why do you call yourself a fascist, wesley
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
I don't call myself a federalist
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I don't call myself a federalist Sometimes I call myself an anti-monarchist just in case someone mistakenly thinks I want a king to rule America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Sometimes I call myself an anti-monarchist just in case someone mistakenly thinks I want a king to rule America. Occasionally I'll announce that I'm a Monarchist, then see who tries to high-five me, and if it's not a cute girl I'll say "SIKE" and then report them to the local officials
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 00:50
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Sometimes I call myself an anti-monarchist just in case someone mistakenly thinks I want a king to rule America. In Australia that makes me a Republican (one who wants a republic instead of a monarchy) (which is a minority position). Most republicans aren't Liberals, who are conservatives. Why don't these monarchists just move to a monarchy like Australia or the UK?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:In Australia that makes me a Republican (one who wants a republic instead of a monarchy) (which is a minority position). Most republicans aren't Liberals, who are conservatives. They (by which I mostly mean Moldbug, I guess) want anti-populist hereditary autocracy, not the title "King" or "Queen." The kind of governments they want never really existed for very long at any point in history anyway (monarchies have often been less absolutist in practice than their propaganda suggests, and hereditary succession is rather unstable). Silver2195 has a new favorite as of 03:01 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty sure modern constitutional monarchy is the exact opposite of what alt-right monarchists want. Have any of those dudes ranted about constitutional monarchies creating WEAK, TAINTED LINES like the slightly-silly-looking Prince Charles, instead of the pure, powerful blood of the Habsburgs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Antivehicular posted:Yeah, pretty sure modern constitutional monarchy is the exact opposite of what alt-right monarchists want. I just watched a Vice Documentary about polygamists in Utah today and yeah... They frequently interbreed to keep blood 'pure'
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 03:00
|
|