freeloop10
Does this or does this not apply to a simulation with very limited resources (compared to what it would take to model all the atoms of the universe) or not, then?
I've already mentioned 5 times in this thread that the theory I'm talking about is of a simulation with very limited resources, but you seem to be ignoring this point.
Show that a particular phenomenon can't be simulated using extremely limited hardware (compared to the size of the universe) and you can falsify this theory.
The point is not to prove one way or another whether the universe is a simulation, just like there is no point trying to prove the law of conservation of energy as universal for all forms of phenomena, discovered and undiscovered.
It's just if we can show that all known phenomena can be the result of a very limited simulation, then when analyzing new phenomena, we can also expect it to be runnable on a very limited simulation, too.
It's the same as assuming that the law of conservation of energy would apply to any new phenomena we discover. There is no proof, but it's a good starting point.
> Adding a simulation hypothesis does not simplify the model, and it is unfalsifiable.
I explain this. It's falsifiable if it can be shown there is some extremely large and complicated process that be observed to be different than any possible rough calculation that could be accomplished by a simulator with very constrained resources (constrained in comparison to all the supposed atomic particles in the universe)
The notion that all forms of energy must be conserved, even undiscovered ones, has been used as the basis for the theory of Hawking radiation, isn't it? Yet claiming that undiscovered forms of energy are conserved, just as known ones, is unfalsifiable, too.
The law of conservation of energy, including undiscovered ones, is in the same boat as the theory that the universe is a simulation.
Until we find a form of energy that isn't conserved, it is simpler to assume all types of energy are conserved.
Similarly, until we find a process that is of large enough scale that it couldn't be simulated on a computer with resources much more limited than the size of the universe, and be observable identical to a process taking much more resources, it is simpler to assume it all is being simulated in such a way.
The idea that quantum fields exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed become evidence for a simulation, since a simulator could be deferring calculations on things not observed.
Also, the very program this article is referring to could be considered as evidence for it, since if a rough simulation can be made where the observable result is indistinguishable from a result where every atomic element in the entire universe was simulated, then, again, a simulator with limited resources would make do.
The law of conservation of energy is built the same way. There is no way we can test ways that energy is transferred that we don't yet know about, but this law is still considered true, because we have so many examples of it working.
Also, the most anonymous.
That statement just killed my enthusiasm to ever try mushrooms. If using them results in this sort of thinking process, I think that I would be better off steering clear.
It's also quite inefficient and even if it was chosen with some rationale basis, the idea of burning energy for years in the hope of providing a high enough bar to prevent a single tsunami of effort over the a brief period of time, less than a few hours and only required to match it, is one of the dumbest security ideas I've ever heard.
I'm not against cryptocurrency, not do I think it will fail in concept, but I very much hope that PoS proves viable and will succeed this utter waste.
In fact, you could consider the current system of benefits only if you are not working a form of UBI, if you just treat the UBI not received by the working as a tax against the benefits they would have received.
All in all, UBI isn't much of a departure to what we already have, except that people are expecting the benefits given would be much moar.
Th3 partners will be careful to not make waves. This does not mean they'll report the truth.
I've met a lot of people who have done a lot of drugs, including, but not limited to psychedelics, including close family members who I knew well and could watch their descent. The ones I know are depressed, some have suicided, others are in huge amounts of debt.
If psychedelics are such a cure all, why have I never met anyone who took them who had their shit together?
Writing in a diary, talking to a therapist, and opening up to people can also be ways of dealing with your own problems in a direct manner, without so much risk.
Thanks for saying why you downvoted, anyway.
Enough is enough. I agree with the original poster. Our solutions to every problem shouldn't be to buy yet another thing.
The word has changed, but the cards that the common people hold remains about the same as before. Your "starving common people" may hold a full house and yesterday, that meant something, but nowadays, it doesn't compete with the straight flush of a modern military, psych-ops, and the entertainment distractions of today.
The technology we now have to quell an uprising far outstrips anything we had in the past.
Furthermore, the lifestyles of the "poor" today have luxuries that yesterday's rich could only dream about. This results in the poor of today being rather "soft in the belly" compared to the poor of the past.
Simply taking away electricity and internet from today's poor people may be enough to quell any uprising that started today.
This is not true. Maybe you could argue a few places are like this, but not many. For the most part, from personal experience, especially if you are a Westener, you will be welcome throughout the world.