Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/4/08 01:57 PM, Drakim wrote: But must information be thought of to exist?

If you define information as an abstraction of what exists, then yes. You have to think of the statement 2+2=4, for the statement to exist. If that's not tangible enough, you can write it down on paper. So now, the abstraction "2+2=4" exists on paper.

If you however define information as that which exists, then no. The paper and graphite, despite its new arrangement, did not have to be thought of to exist - at least not by a human.

If a true simulation is possible by moving rocks, wouldn't rocks preplaced in this patten be this simulation in that particular frame?

What mean you by 'true simulation'?

If I write down "two apples + two apples = 4 apples," I haven't just materialized four apples, yet I've run a simulation to the same degree one would run a simulation with rocks.

At 12/4/08 03:11 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/4/08 02:04 PM, Elfer wrote: Yes, you have to think up a representative system in order for meaning to exist in a pattern. Try this experiment: Go to a publisher, dump out a big box of pebbles on the desk. Say there's a great book in there, you just haven't decoded it yet. You won't be published.

Duh, that's because the publisher hasn't read Drakim's reality shattering theory yet. D:

No, it's because the publisher isn't crazy and realizes that patterns don't have meaning unless/until they're interpreted or produced by something related to that meaning.

In this case, Dr. Desert has produced a system of representation using rocks to represent numbers. In the case of throwing a bunch of rocks and seeing where they fall, the pattern doesn't have meaning until you actually invent one, or consider the "meaning" an observable outcome of physical laws that govern motion.

At 12/5/08 04:27 PM, Elfer wrote: In this case, Dr. Desert has produced a system of representation using rocks to represent numbers. In the case of throwing a bunch of rocks and seeing where they fall, the pattern doesn't have meaning until you actually invent one, or consider the "meaning" an observable outcome of physical laws that govern motion.

Not to him no, but, the simulation he runs is a supposed to be a perfect copy. The people "inside" the simulation are real to themselves, if not to him, so to speak.

At 12/5/08 06:22 PM, Drakim wrote: Not to him no, but, the simulation he runs is a supposed to be a perfect copy.

So a simulation in a simulation is a fractal...

The people "inside" the simulation are real to themselves, if not to him, so to speak.

... either way, the simulation doesn't run off with a mind of its own. It's defined and controlled by the simulation that is most inclusive, the bottom of the hierarchy, the furthest view of the fractal.

Still, the simulation doesn't will into existence another dimension. There is no alternate world following his code independent of his perception of the code. If he places a rock in the wrong place, no other plane of existence trips over it.

At 12/5/08 06:22 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/5/08 04:27 PM, Elfer wrote: In this case, Dr. Desert has produced a system of representation using rocks to represent numbers. In the case of throwing a bunch of rocks and seeing where they fall, the pattern doesn't have meaning until you actually invent one, or consider the "meaning" an observable outcome of physical laws that govern motion.

Not to him no, but, the simulation he runs is a supposed to be a perfect copy. The people "inside" the simulation are real to themselves, if not to him, so to speak.

Which brings about a question; does the simulation exist because of the rocks, or does it exist in the mind of the one who interprets the rocks?

At 12/5/08 08:32 PM, Elfer wrote: Which brings about a question; does the simulation exist because of the rocks, or does it exist in the mind of the one who interprets the rocks?

That's the essential question. Obviously, such a simulation can be seen as data, or information, that is updated frequently. Can information exist without a mind? Does the falling tree in the forest make a sound if nobody hears it?

At 12/6/08 10:20 AM, Drakim wrote: That's the essential question. Obviously, such a simulation can be seen as data, or information, that is updated frequently.

Damnit. I've been addressing this "essential" question since my first post in your thread.

If the simulation is defined by the rocks, regardless of perception, then any arrangement of information can be a simulation, and people live inside my computer speakers.

If the simulation is defined by the person perceiving the rocks, then what use are the rocks except as a visual aid?

Can information exist without a mind?

You've got to discriminate between different kinds of information before you go throwing the word around like that. You're dealing with more than one kind of information here.

Does the falling tree in the forest make a sound if nobody hears it?

Please don't ever ask this again.

At 12/6/08 11:13 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/6/08 10:20 AM, Drakim wrote: That's the essential question. Obviously, such a simulation can be seen as data, or information, that is updated frequently.

Damnit. I've been addressing this "essential" question since my first post in your thread.

Sorry, I got so many replies D:

If the simulation is defined by the rocks, regardless of perception, then any arrangement of information can be a simulation, and people live inside my computer speakers.

If the simulation is defined by the person perceiving the rocks, then what use are the rocks except as a visual aid?

A very good point. But what does that mean for the realness of simulations? Are they simply a visual aid, and not equal to the real thing? It's temping to say simply yes, but, we think of all

You've got to discriminate between different kinds of information before you go throwing the word around like that. You're dealing with more than one kind of information here.

Please explain what you mean by different kinds of information. What else but pure data is there?

Please don't ever ask this again.

D:
What's grinding your gears?

At 12/6/08 01:30 PM, Drakim wrote: A very good point. But what does that mean for the realness of simulations? Are they simply a visual aid, and not equal to the real thing?

If the rocks are a visual aid, the simulation takes place in the creator's mind. The rocks are not the simulation.

If the rocks are the simulation, then you've got a whole lot more to explain before you can shatter reality - cause if the rocks are the simulation, you're saying the rocks in the creator's specific formation intrinsically create another level of existence.

It's temping to say simply yes, but, we think of all

... I assume there's more to that?

Please explain what you mean by different kinds of information. What else but pure data is there?

Not really sure what you mean by pure data. Anyway...

We're dealing with tangible and abstract information. I take one apple, then another, to now have 2 apples [tangible] and I understand that 1 + 1 = 2 [abstract].

We're dealing with literal and representational information. We have rocks arranged [literal] and we have rocks arranged in a meaningful way [representational].

Please don't ever ask this again.

D:
What's grinding your gears?

It's my least favorite philosophical question.

Please don't ever ask this again.

D:
What's grinding your gears?

It's my least favorite philosophical question.

Why? Couldn't you just play semantics and point out that making a sound doesn't mean it'll be heard? Then it would shatter reality and stuff.

At 12/6/08 10:20 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/5/08 08:32 PM, Elfer wrote: Which brings about a question; does the simulation exist because of the rocks, or does it exist in the mind of the one who interprets the rocks?

That's the essential question. Obviously, such a simulation can be seen as data, or information, that is updated frequently. Can information exist without a mind? Does the falling tree in the forest make a sound if nobody hears it?

The information does exist, but I'd argue that there is no interpretation without an interpreter, no beauty without the eye of the beholder.

At 12/7/08 03:24 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/6/08 10:20 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 12/5/08 08:32 PM, Elfer wrote: Which brings about a question; does the simulation exist because of the rocks, or does it exist in the mind of the one who interprets the rocks?

That's the essential question. Obviously, such a simulation can be seen as data, or information, that is updated frequently. Can information exist without a mind? Does the falling tree in the forest make a sound if nobody hears it?

The information does exist, but I'd argue that there is no interpretation without an interpreter, no beauty without the eye of the beholder.

Correct. Input means nothing without something to make it output.

Here's a slightly different example, but I think you'll follow the logic:

The statement "What if the universe didn't exist" is illogical. If the universe didn't exist, what would it look like? No one could see it. What would it sound like? No one could see it. Something does not exist if by definition it is un-senseable. An invisible untouchable un-senseable being does not exist, nor would it even matter.

A system cannot process itself. That's a basic law of logic. Input - Process - Output.

P.S.- there are infinite solutions to 20X + 2Y = 2000. You'd need to two equations to solve that. Hooray basic maths.

Basic math is definitely earth shattering alright.

Pre-historic earth that is.

I think you need a few more lsd tabs to make your theories more interesting.

At 12/7/08 04:08 PM, RWT wrote: Correct. Input means nothing without something to make it output.

Not true at all. Input means everything regardless of the ability to interpret it. Before humans existed the world was created (however you believe it happened), and regardless of whether anyone was there to interpret it, that original action, that tree in the forest still mattered.

Trees that fall make noise and move particles and have an influence on you regardless of whether you can hear them or not.

Necromancy go!

Relevant to the thread

I find this very interesting. Apparently, our percived universe might just be the result of a natural simulation elsewhere. woot.

At 1/19/09 06:01 AM, Drakim wrote: I find this very interesting. Apparently, our percived universe might just be the result of a natural simulation elsewhere. woot.

Um... exactly how do 3d projections perceive?

At 1/19/09 10:35 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/19/09 06:01 AM, Drakim wrote: I find this very interesting. Apparently, our percived universe might just be the result of a natural simulation elsewhere. woot.

Um... exactly how do 3d projections perceive?

Well, I guess they wouldn't actually perceive. It's a simulation of perceiving.

Kinda how like a bot in a virtual world perceives objects, but not really (it's just a computer telling it that it perceives something).

What I found interesting is that the article explained that the simulation "computer" might actually be in two dimensions rather than three, which reminds so much of the comic in the op post (where rocks are put in two dimensions to store information). It might just be a silly short sighted connection, but I found it interesting still.

I saw that comic a few days ago. A good one. :)

Have you read the book Creation: Life and How to Make It, by Steve Grand? It's probably the best and most readable intro to the field of artificial life that I've come across, and it's all about this sort of simulation stuff and the metaphysics of it. I think you'd enjoy it.

Another book you ought to check out is Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. Cellular automata, computational equivalence, all that good stuff. :p

At 1/20/09 09:31 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 1/19/09 10:35 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/19/09 06:01 AM, Drakim wrote: I find this very interesting. Apparently, our percived universe might just be the result of a natural simulation elsewhere. woot.

Um... exactly how do 3d projections perceive?

Well, I guess they wouldn't actually perceive. It's a simulation of perceiving.

Kinda how like a bot in a virtual world perceives objects, but not really (it's just a computer telling it that it perceives something).

Oh god, I am going to kill you. Computers don't perceive anything at all ever. Computers are a finite arrangement of on and off switches that we have applied our own interpretation on. A computer changes information based algorithms we humans create. A computer has no power to do anything other than what it has been programmed to do, or what it has been damaged to do. Computers are incapable of thought, feeling or perception. Bots in virtual worlds don't perceive either. Again, a bot is a collection of algorithms. It's "visual representation" generated by algorithms onto your screen is not tied to its processes. If you remove bounds checking, the bot "walks" through walls because a bot doesn't know what a wall is, it's position is simply prohibited to be less than a certain number, because we said it shouldn't be less than that number.

What I found interesting is that the article explained that the simulation "computer" might actually be in two dimensions rather than three, which reminds so much of the comic in the op post (where rocks are put in two dimensions to store information). It might just be a silly short sighted connection, but I found it interesting still.

It isn't a connection or causation, it's a correlation that only exists in your mind which does not understand anything you think you are talking about.

I don't say these things to insult you, but you honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I'm speaking just from the computer science position, I'm sure a physicist would tell you you were wrong on everything else as well.

As far as your latest article with the hologram theory, there are no conclusions made in that paper, there are no citations, it doesn't even appear to be peer-reviewed. It seems to be science fictional interpretation based on a possibly, and admitted by the paper, faulty experiment which isn't doing the job it was intended to do. I've worked with lasers and rangefinders before, the noise is likely (at that level) due to faulty mechanics, parts, materials, and workmanship.

At 1/20/09 09:31 AM, Drakim wrote: Well, I guess they wouldn't actually perceive. It's a simulation of perceiving.

How exactly does one... simulate perception?

Kinda how like a bot in a virtual world perceives objects, but not really (it's just a computer telling it that it perceives something).

The bot has a relationship to the computer that goes beyond perception. The bot has a relationship that enables perception. Also, the bot is unaware that it perceives anything. You could make the argument that the bot is merely interacting.

What system enables us to see and react to a 3d projection of ourselves from a "distant 2d surface"? Or does the author of the article not understand the theory himself?

What I found interesting is that the article explained that the simulation "computer" might actually be in two dimensions rather than three,

Except the "computer" is solely the collective forces that translate a 2d reality into a 3d projection. There's nothing more to the computer aside from what it implies for studies of the universe.

which reminds so much of the comic in the op post (where rocks are put in two dimensions to store information)

Except that the hologram is formed and perceived through an autonomic system in which the result is intrinsic to the source, without sentient attributions.

At 1/20/09 01:38 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 1/20/09 09:31 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 1/19/09 10:35 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/19/09 06:01 AM, Drakim wrote: I find this very interesting. Apparently, our percived universe might just be the result of a natural simulation elsewhere. woot.

Um... exactly how do 3d projections perceive?

Well, I guess they wouldn't actually perceive. It's a simulation of perceiving.

Kinda how like a bot in a virtual world perceives objects, but not really (it's just a computer telling it that it perceives something).

Oh god, I am going to kill you. Computers don't perceive anything at all ever. Computers are a finite arrangement of on and off switches that we have applied our own interpretation on. A computer changes information based algorithms we humans create. A computer has no power to do anything other than what it has been programmed to do, or what it has been damaged to do. Computers are incapable of thought, feeling or perception.

Meh, if you are going to take that route, then I'm equally claiming that humans have none of these things either. Humans are merely machines of carbon, too advanced and built after the blind watchmaker principle for us to figure out exactly how it produces the result it produces.

Bots in virtual worlds don't perceive either. Again, a bot is a collection of algorithms.

And humans a collection of physics and matter placed into a pattern that causes movement. Have at you!

It's "visual representation" generated by algorithms onto your screen is not tied to its processes. If you remove bounds checking, the bot "walks" through walls because a bot doesn't know what a wall is, it's position is simply prohibited to be less than a certain number, because we said it shouldn't be less than that number.

Aw, come on, don't treat me as a newbie. I'm a programmer and I work with AI a lot (I find it quite enjoyable). Just because I make a simple argument doesn't mean that I don't understand the sitaution. It might just be because I don't want an argument lost in schematics, but that seems a lost cause now.

I'm curious over your view on how humans are so special thuogh. What do you suppose would happen if we build an robot by the exact same buildup as a human, but out of metal instead of carbon? We are talking brain, nerve system, spine, everything. (and ignore that we can't do that yet or that metal behaves differently :o). Do you think that the very fact that one being is made out of carbon and one being is made out of metal is going to make the world's difference? If intelligence can exist in the physical universe (our brain) then it should not be impossible to replicate.

Unless you take the easy route and start talking about souls. Then it's my time to kill you :o

What I found interesting is that the article explained that the simulation "computer" might actually be in two dimensions rather than three, which reminds so much of the comic in the op post (where rocks are put in two dimensions to store information). It might just be a silly short sighted connection, but I found it interesting still.

It isn't a connection or causation, it's a correlation that only exists in your mind which does not understand anything you think you are talking about.

Come on, I just wanted to start up the talk again. I've already stated my position in this thread. I cannot argue both sides without looking like a lonely fool here. Give me a break and be a little nice >:

The relation is actually there though. I was reflecting earlier in this thread that if simulations are real enough to the simulated, then I wouldn't see an issue with this sort of thing happening (as described in the link)

I don't say these things to insult you, but you honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I'm speaking just from the computer science position, I'm sure a physicist would tell you you were wrong on everything else as well.

I see

As far as your latest article with the hologram theory, there are no conclusions made in that paper, there are no citations, it doesn't even appear to be peer-reviewed. It seems to be science fictional interpretation based on a possibly, and admitted by the paper, faulty experiment which isn't doing the job it was intended to do. I've worked with lasers and rangefinders before, the noise is likely (at that level) due to faulty mechanics, parts, materials, and workmanship.

Whoa, holy shit, in a thread about possibilities and philosophy, you are talking about things like that? Come on boy, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything here, I got nothing to sell. When I bring out an article talking about various possibilities, don't give me crap like "it's unlikely and the instruments were probably badly tuned". It's just dumb and unrelated.

At 1/20/09 01:50 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/20/09 09:31 AM, Drakim wrote: Well, I guess they wouldn't actually perceive. It's a simulation of perceiving.

How exactly does one... simulate perception?

Well, if one thinks of "real" as a relative term to your existence, meaning that reality for a simulated being is actually his simulation, then I don't see the issue at all! The concept of perception would be diffrent in such a world, right?

Then again, you could argue that perception is a false concept even on our level, but let's not get into that.

Kinda how like a bot in a virtual world perceives objects, but not really (it's just a computer telling it that it perceives something).

The bot has a relationship to the computer that goes beyond perception. The bot has a relationship that enables perception. Also, the bot is unaware that it perceives anything. You could make the argument that the bot is merely interacting.

Ah, but the bot doesn't act like it's in direct contact with the world computer. It's like...hmm..

to use a slightly dumb but useful example. Seen the matrix? I always wondered, in such a scenario, how much of the world is fake? I mean, is a gun an entity that the world computer sends bullets out of to fake shooting, or does the gun rely on the physics in the world to actually simulate a gun like it's supposed to work?

If the latter is true, then I don't see a problem with a bot having "perception" in the world. inside the simulation, it wouldn't be a bot, but a creature, which depends on it's perception to interact with everything. The computer wouldn't constantly tell the creature what's in front if it, instead, there would be a system of physics and light and eyeballs which actually ends up producing an image for the creature that it can interpretate and act upon.

What system enables us to see and react to a 3d projection of ourselves from a "distant 2d surface"? Or does the author of the article not understand the theory himself?

What I found interesting is that the article explained that the simulation "computer" might actually be in two dimensions rather than three,

Except the "computer" is solely the collective forces that translate a 2d reality into a 3d projection. There's nothing more to the computer aside from what it implies for studies of the universe.

which reminds so much of the comic in the op post (where rocks are put in two dimensions to store information)

Except that the hologram is formed and perceived through an autonomic system in which the result is intrinsic to the source, without sentient attributions.

Yes, but I don't see how the source of such a system is relevant. do you think it is?

How many limbs, cells and particles do you have to add/remove before you quit being "you"?

If there isn't an amount, then the programmed bounds set by the blind watchmaker aren't supposed to be understood any more than dividing by zero.

At 1/20/09 03:55 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: How many limbs, cells and particles do you have to add/remove before you quit being "you"?

Depends on the usage of the word "you".

Personally, I think the regular usage of "you" is silly. People don't think identical clones that acts and thinks like the original being is really the same, but they think that the person that is same human as the baby that was born long ago, despite that every atom and shred of personality has been replaced.

If you want to ask me such a question, you would have to define "you" first, or tell me to use my own strange definition.

If there isn't an amount, then the programmed bounds set by the blind watchmaker aren't supposed to be understood any more than dividing by zero.

Hah, even our understanding of it would be an illusion.

At 1/20/09 04:23 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 1/20/09 03:55 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: How many limbs, cells and particles do you have to add/remove before you quit being "you"?

Depends on the usage of the word "you".

You, drakim, the man behind the keyboard.

Personally, I think the regular usage of "you" is silly. People don't think identical clones that acts and thinks like the original being is really the same,

Sorry for chopping your post, but I gotta respond to this directly.

How do you measure the sameness of two seperate entities who are receiving (assumedly) non-identical stimuli? The blind spots in your vision offer the minimal differences needed to discard the notion of sameness, whereas intellectual insight destroys this "identical clone" abject. What you think and what you say are both appendages of "being the same", are they not?

Can you prove thoughts in a way to scientifically (and thus legitiamtely) call them "the same"?

but they think that the person that is same human as the baby that was born long ago, despite that every atom and shred of personality has been replaced.

Who are they?

You mean everybody? A certain amount of people? Theoretical people?

If it's everybody (we all have our own genes to pass and recombine), then you've got a severe problem with linking people to their genes and calling them the same. They aren't.

If you want to ask me such a question, you would have to define "you" first, or tell me to use my own strange definition.

Don't pull the Bill Clinton and ask what "is" is, then, when I tell you you are what you are.

If there isn't an amount, then the programmed bounds set by the blind watchmaker aren't supposed to be understood any more than dividing by zero.

Hah, even our understanding of it would be an illusion.

No, we understand the functional uses of dividing by zero, but not the mechinations driving the impossible to recreate.

Can you recreate reality on the scale you've been pondering?

At 1/20/09 04:49 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/20/09 04:23 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 1/20/09 03:55 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: How many limbs, cells and particles do you have to add/remove before you quit being "you"?

Depends on the usage of the word "you".

You, drakim, the man behind the keyboard.

This physical body? I guess the head is the most essential part. The question is when you start splitting that into two and so on.

I guess it would be better to define my physical body as an collection of objects rather than one object. Makes things easier. (but how much can you change a collection before it's a diffrent collection?)

Personally, I think the regular usage of "you" is silly. People don't think identical clones that acts and thinks like the original being is really the same,

Sorry for chopping your post, but I gotta respond to this directly.

How do you measure the sameness of two seperate entities who are receiving (assumedly) non-identical stimuli? The blind spots in your vision offer the minimal differences needed to discard the notion of sameness, whereas intellectual insight destroys this "identical clone" abject. What you think and what you say are both appendages of "being the same", are they not?

Sigh, well, I assumed that most people don't think that you become something diffrent after taking a step to a new position. If you want to argue that, we need a new thread.

Can you prove thoughts in a way to scientifically (and thus legitiamtely) call them "the same"?

I used "the same" too loosely and got called out for it. DX

I lose, I can't justify that claim at all.

but they think that the person that is same human as the baby that was born long ago, despite that every atom and shred of personality has been replaced.

Who are they?

Human society right now.

You mean everybody? A certain amount of people? Theoretical people?

Popular opinion I guess. Don't go over analyzing that now >:

If we have to do this, we will never actually get to talk about the real subject at hand. We can't talk about bananas because we can't agree what constitutes a planet, much less a fruit.

If it's everybody (we all have our own genes to pass and recombine), then you've got a severe problem with linking people to their genes and calling them the same. They aren't.

I think of people as a ever changing design. It might sound like a contraction, but it's the only thing that semi-makes sense to me. As you say, genes are crappy for identifying people as something.

If you want to ask me such a question, you would have to define "you" first, or tell me to use my own strange definition.

Don't pull the Bill Clinton and ask what "is" is, then, when I tell you you are what you are.

I have to. You ask questions and will bust my balls for answering it wrong. So I'm just as well going to bust your balls first and force you to tell me how to answer right.

If there isn't an amount, then the programmed bounds set by the blind watchmaker aren't supposed to be understood any more than dividing by zero.

Hah, even our understanding of it would be an illusion.

No, we understand the functional uses of dividing by zero, but not the mechinations driving the impossible to recreate.

Meh, sure.

Can you recreate reality on the scale you've been pondering?

Just try to stop me! They all say I'm insane, but they are wrong! I'm the only one that's not insane! :O

At 1/20/09 03:47 PM, Drakim wrote: Well, if one thinks of "real" as a relative term to your existence, meaning that reality for a simulated being is actually his simulation, then I don't see the issue at all!

Is this what you had in mind when you said it at 9:31 am?

Then again, you could argue that perception is a false concept even on our level, but let's not get into that.

You don't even have to. Whether a perception is false or not it's still perception. You seem to be stuck in a bit of a semantic mud pit here, abstracting the phrase "false perception" to mean that the perception itself is not itself, when "false perception" means really to percieve false characteristics.

Ah, but the bot doesn't act like it's in direct contact with the world computer

...yes it does...

or does the gun rely on the physics in the world to actually simulate a gun like it's supposed to work?

So everything is a simulation.

If the latter is true, then I don't see a problem with a bot having "perception" in the world. inside the simulation, it wouldn't be a bot, but a creature, which depends on it's perception to interact with everything. The computer wouldn't constantly tell the creature what's in front if it, instead, there would be a system of physics and light and eyeballs which actually ends up producing an image for the creature that it can interpretate and act upon.

Artificial intelligence is still that... it's not aware. We interpret the bots parsing of 1s and 0s as something meaninful, the bot does not.

Yes, but I don't see how the source of such a system is relevant. do you think it is?

Is the computer no longer dependant on electromagnetism?

Bacchanalian, sorry, but that's a lame post. Nothing interesting to respond to, just a bunch of pointless comments. D:

At 1/20/09 06:30 PM, Drakim wrote: Bacchanalian, sorry, but that's a lame post. Nothing interesting to respond to, just a bunch of pointless comments. D:

Dude... I asked a question too.

In every example other than the rock example, you provide systems that intrinsically manipulate a physical reality, in turn manipulating what we percieve.

You continually blur (maybe by design) the definition of simulation.

You introduce the concept that perception in and of itself can be simulated, and support it with a 'for instance' that well... doesn't support it.

And I, bringing these issues up... am being frivolous. When your entire "reality shattering" theory doesn't change anything to begin with.

Yeah ok. Fuck you too.

At 1/20/09 08:35 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/20/09 06:30 PM, Drakim wrote: Bacchanalian, sorry, but that's a lame post. Nothing interesting to respond to, just a bunch of pointless comments. D:

Dude... I asked a question too.

In every example other than the rock example, you provide systems that intrinsically manipulate a physical reality, in turn manipulating what we percieve.

But do you think simulations can be anything more than interactive pictures? Surely, what we perceive isn't relevant? Using electrons over small pieces of metal isn't any more meaningful than moving around rocks?

You continually blur (maybe by design) the definition of simulation.

Shhhh!

You introduce the concept that perception in and of itself can be simulated, and support it with a 'for instance' that well... doesn't support it.

Then argue against it! Do something!

And I, bringing these issues up... am being frivolous. When your entire "reality shattering" theory doesn't change anything to begin with.

I'll admit that the reality shattering title is just to draw attention. No realities were shattered in the making of my theory and/or post.

Yeah ok. Fuck you too.

Hey, you made a good post now, shut up D: