|
Darth Walrus posted:Does that phrase really work if he keeps sharing his photos with us? He's plucking the most amusingly absurd bits of the abyss to share with us, while shielding us from the dangerously not funny matrix surrounding them, like a miner digging gemstones from radioactive waste.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
LunarShadow posted:Nah, even if I didn't know it was a gimmick at first, ironically parroting this poo poo is still lovely. So again, gargle some buckshot. It's not ironic this is literally a thread where you are supposed to post your favorite that poo poo so we can mock it, without him it basically would just be us talking about Rev and maybe occasionally moldbug when he does something stupid 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
LoB can gently caress off IMHO
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:LoB can gently caress off IMHO Baby tier post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:LoB can gently caress off IMHO Yeah, pretty much. It's the Mother Night principle as much as anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Yeah, gently caress the dude posting quotes from the Dark Enlightenment in the Post Your Favourite Dark Enlightenment Quote thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
I like LoB, because anytime I start wondering, 'am I wrong?', I read one of their posts and realise, 'no, no I'm not'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Posting DE in the DE thread: good Advising suicide in the DE thread: bad There are many spaces which can benefit from a "no importing badness" rule, but is a "pyf badness" thread one of them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
pookel posted:If we can quit bitching about TERFs for a minute, here's what Vox Day is up to: I would laugh at this but it got funded. That isn't funny at all. Now i'm sad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
I can't believe that lob is at all contentious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I would laugh at this but it got funded. That isn't funny at all. Now i'm sad. What are you talking about? Idiots wasting money to make something that'll be infinitely mockable is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:I would laugh at this but it got funded. That isn't funny at all. Now i'm sad. It getting funded actually makes it funnier. Much like Star Citizen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bmcclendon/status/914988314784038914 Vaguely related to the "rational" dumbasses featured in this thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:https://twitter.com/bmcclendon/status/914988314784038914 You should post this in C-SPAM, there's a lot of these types there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Vaguely related to the "rational" dumbasses featured in this thread I think this was from either this thread or the old Yud one: Saeku posted:On the topic of simulation hypothesis: I met a Rationalist who said he tried his best to spend his life around influencers and great men. If outsiders are simulating this world to observe it, at some point they might turn off the boring parts of the simulation to save processing power, so he wanted to be in the interesting part. MizPiz posted:If the observers wanted to save processing power, wouldn't they delete the people leeching off the influencers and great men first? BioEnchanted posted:*Alt-righter is turned off while right in the middle of a conversation with Mark Twain and Steven Hawking* Syd Midnight has a new favorite as of 09:56 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Ever since the very first "could we be living in a simulation?" actual science papers started coming out there was almost immediately physicists running experiments that said "no, no we're not" but that's not interesting so they mostly got ignored. Hell I even first found out that people were seriously considering it from an experiment with a null result that was trying to look for weird anomalies you'd get if spacetime were only being approximated down to very tiny scales, which set an incredibly high experimental lower limit to the resolution universe-simulating jesus would need to be running. Pretty much all real science related to this has come back consistently on the "well if it's a simulation then it's a simulation that is exactly as computationally complex as the entire universe itself, so uh..." but nope let's all keep breathlessly wanking about it because elon musk paid some scientists to jack him off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
What the hell was the pro-simulation argument supposed to be, anyway? Beyond "I want it to be true."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:What the hell was the pro-simulation argument supposed to be, anyway? Beyond "I want it to be true." Crudely: Assuming a sufficiently complex and powerful civilisation will create simulations of other worlds for artistic or scientific or whatever interest, there will be a lot more of those than the 'real' world, so chances are you're living in one rather than the real world. It's interesting to think around but doesn't really stand up, however it has a certain intuitive appeal, which is enough to make a certain sort of mindset freak seriously out about it. See also: the killing star argument, the entire lesswrong memeplex version of AI risk, etc etc. Peel has a new favorite as of 11:44 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
It is based on the HUGE assumption that simulations of full universes with sapient inhabitants are both A) possible and B) have already been created. Both of which are assumptions on par with A) There is a higher power and B) it is the Zoroastrians specifically who are right. So straight up nerd religion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
There's actually a branch of computational physics that attempts to break down the universe's mechanisms into what amounts to a massive quantum computer. It's a pretty interesting way of describing the universe, since at the subatomic level particles sort of break down into information that behaves in bizarre, quantized, computer-y ways. However one of the big points (from my understanding, please jump in and correct me if i'm wrong) is that any volume of space is in effect equivalent to (or describable as) a quantum computer. So sure you could also simulate that same space using a different quantum computer, except even in 100% ideal conditions it would require a quantum computer that contains a volume of space equal to or greater than the volume of space you're trying to simulate, because you can't physically store or compress the information any smaller than, you know, fundamental particles. So yeah, the universe could be simulated... by a quantum computer that is equal to or bigger than the universe itself. Which I suppose could be possible since we don't really have any idea of how "big" this universe is if you look at it from outside but by that point you might as well just say god's doing it
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
So it's turtles all the way up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
I mean, if we're already imaging god-computers, it's not a significant step to say the computers are advanced enough to simulate a quantum-computer the size of a universe, in the same way a modern computer can run multiple simulations of windows 98.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I mean, if we're already imaging god-computers, it's not a significant step to say the computers are advanced enough to simulate a quantum-computer the size of a universe, in the same way a modern computer can run multiple simulations of windows 98. Yeah I'm just saying that if the god-computer existed in any sort of universe that obeys similar laws of physics as this one it would need to be as big as or bigger than this universe, and at that point you might as well just, idk, create this universe itself since you probably can and it would probably be easier (and definitely more efficient). If whatever universe houses god-computer does not obey the same laws of physics we're back to the whole "might as well just say god did it" thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I mean, if we're already imaging god-computers, it's not a significant step to say the computers are advanced enough to simulate a quantum-computer the size of a universe, in the same way a modern computer can run multiple simulations of windows 98. Read the article, cause no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
So how many of these simulation fans are self-proclaimed atheists because lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
pr0zac posted:Read the article, cause no. Simulated universe Who What Now has a new favorite as of 15:33 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Yeah I'm just saying that if the god-computer existed in any sort of universe that obeys similar laws of physics as this one it would need to be as big as or bigger than this universe, and at that point you might as well just, idk, create this universe itself since you probably can and it would probably be easier (and definitely more efficient). I always hear this but what if this outer universe is way more complicated than our universe. Like some 5th dimensional beings made thier own version of dwarf fortress. Not that I believe any of this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Laputanmachine posted:So how many of these simulation fans are self-proclaimed atheists because lol. Probably most of them. God substitutes breed like rabbits in the ruins of nu atheism. All in all the simulation thing sounds like the problems that always come up when people don't get the difference between "the way the universe works" and "the laws of physics."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Hihohe posted:I always hear this but what if this outer universe is way more complicated than our universe. Like some 5th dimensional beings made thier own version of dwarf fortress. What if we're all the dream of a turtle floating through space
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Can we stop with the the arguments about whether we live in a simulation or not? It's boring and pointless. Now let's all go home and step on our gooble boxes for the daily mandated hour to appease the volcano
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Probably most of them. God substitutes breed like rabbits in the ruins of nu atheism. I wonder if, assuming that's true to some degree, this phenomenon is just a bunch of naturally receptive people who are latching on to the next religion substitute they run into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
pookel posted:Back when I was hanging out in internet atheism circles, it was conventional wisdom that some people are simply "wired" to be religious/receptive to faith-based belief, while others are "wired" to be skeptical/non-religious. Basically? Yes. You see it in atheist circles all the time. They equate atheism with being smart, and they consider themselves smart so they must be atheists, but deep down they still have that part of them that wants to believe that there's something out there that counts as some kind of higher power. Maybe it's aliens, maybe it's a god AI, maybe it's whatever beings created the simulation we exist in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
pookel posted:Back when I was hanging out in internet atheism circles, it was conventional wisdom that some people are simply "wired" to be religious/receptive to faith-based belief, while others are "wired" to be skeptical/non-religious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:What the hell was the pro-simulation argument supposed to be, anyway? Beyond "I want it to be true." "Computer is god, therefore I am enlightened"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:What the hell was the pro-simulation argument supposed to be, anyway? Beyond "I want it to be true." It's a requirement for many of their other beliefs. Rationalists are very strange people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:It's a requirement for many of their other beliefs. Rationalists are very strange people. Roko's Basilisk doesn't work without the possibility of AIs simulating the universe. That simultaneously shows how dumb it is and how dumb these nutheads are to freak out about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
The worst is when they really go off the narcissism deep end and hypothesise that it's not the whole universe being simulated, it's just the interesting people, ie them. It ties in neatly with calling nonrationalists NPCs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Munin posted:Roko's Basilisk doesn't work without the possibility of AIs simulating the universe. That simultaneously shows how dumb it is and how dumb these nutheads are to freak out about it. It's also a requirement for Timeless Decision Theory and a bunch of other Capitalized Words that for some reason we're not allowed to call obvious psychosis manifestations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Simulation Theory feels to me a lot like the Problem of Induction - you think it through, accept the logical validity of it, then you ignore it because actually embracing it's conclusions is loving incompatible with functioning as a living human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 04:31 |
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:The worst is when they really go off the narcissism deep end and hypothesise that it's not the whole universe being simulated, it's just the interesting people, ie them. yeah, you haven't philosophically proven that you can't simulate someone well enough that they'll believe it's real, so therefore give all your money to MIRI
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 21:41
|
|
