3____344340095e33-2

Hey... great.. intelligent life! Someone who is not a jackass and knows how to tell people what they didn't know nor see on any other website! I learned how to quote! Can you now teach me how to date women? I am near the end of my life, almost a grandpa and still never dated "certainly" used the way you are using it is probably a remnant of you having seen it elsewhere and is often a means of insult and passive-aggresiveness. A less aggressive phrase would have been "have you read what was linked?". Simple and succinct. I haven't clicked on any links as I was hoping that the rest of you have had decades of time to peruse all of this stuff and be so well versed in it that you'd have an answer on the ready. Kinda how after a few years in the Interent's core I can on a napkin describe to you where the oceanic underwater cables are and what boats laid them and what satelites delivered this post to North Korea. So please do not tell me words like "inordinate" for you are being rude and a bullying person. If you have read all of this and can explain simply, then do so. Otherwise you are nowhere close to a scientist and are merely wasting everyone's time with your style of writing and responding. If you ask a Calculus expert what a derivative is, they can explain in 5 minutes, instead of giving you 500 textbooks to peruse, right? What's the answer? I am not a scientist. Hence me asking you the experts. If you don't know, it's fine. So far all I've seen is a bunch of pretentious people saying "it's impossible to prove", or "there is no answer". But nobody has explained properly why. So I conclude nobody has investigated properly. At the best I didn't see any scientific peer reviewed journal links yet. If this issue was seriously considered there should have been a thousand papers by now. So either nobody is smart enough, or you all are either scared or really frakking oppressed.

it is obvious that using the phrase "it is obvious that the reader is supposed to correct poorly written, poorly spelled, poorly thought out and poorly planned written work" is a passive-aggressive method of covering for people who do not even bother to proof read their work, let alone think things through in a logically consistent fashion. I know people who do not complete sentences and say things like "I would like.... " and it is obvious you're supposed to read minds bro. Is it really obvious, or shouldn't you say "the author made a mistake perhaps, but I'm not sure". Because obviously if an entire word made of five characters was absent then perhaps so was this possible: "we don't stop looking when we think we've arrived at an answer" as opposed to found the answer. See the slight difference in choice of word but a galaxy apart from the actual answer that is needed? One is answers, the other is an answer. What is obvious man?

"'it sounds like you aren't going to listen anyway.".... "we stop looking when we think we've found answers, ".... and... "that keeps science from being hidebound and dictatorial" In other words, here's what you wrote: "I know you inside and out, and I've stopped reading as I know everything about everyone even you but I am not a dictator I am just smarter than your average bear". next... these are your words, bro..

The coin analogy is brilliant man!!!! Thank you very much for that one!!!! Brilliant!!! I don't know.... further more, what if it's a country on an alien homeworld that you claim as an alien to have brought to Earth. And we don't even know of the planet nor of your species. How would I test? Check metal components? But they could be the same because your people might believe in traditional metalurgy..etc. That is a great question!!! As for Earth-only sim, well if a physical being exists, in both scenarios, than the sim would either use more or less resources than the real world, but never the same. If I play soccer in the real world it uses x resources. But in a sim it may use far less because it's all mental, or if it's an augmented sim thing it may use more or less, depending on who coded the sim and for what purpose. I think the key is some sort of resource allocation of the physical beings utilization of food and heat and so forth. But I'm not a scientist. Just a concept I'm playing with for a story. You obviously, for example, couldn't test the physics as they would be identical in an identical-sim. So yeah you are right. If we can not test it, then it doesn't matter. I think that's the gist we both agree on? So you're right, it is a "stupid" idea in that it's irrelevant as it can not be tested. Obviously the dude in Minecraft can not test what I as the player am doing or thinking, right? So it is dumb. But, if the admins of the sim and if it is a sim have an agenda against the player(s) then it is worth knowing if it is a sim by whatever method is available to the player. I guess in essence it's a question of if you're an agent is the system against you? Hahahaha

Once again you are saying I did a thing without backing it up. You say I should quote but then quoted me out of context entierly. You say along with that that I insulted someone but you did not quote even though in the same breath you said I should quote yet you failed to do it yourself. Interesting...any explanation? Was my insult my words of "you are not scientists if..."? Because that's not an insult. Because I explained what I thought and why it didn't remind me of scientists. However, your response of "You don't know how to hold discussion".. without a single shred of backup nor quoting is way worse than what I did. So please stop and think a little. I merely asked a question and expressed what I thought without direct insults like you did.

" I am a naive realist. We are obviously not in a sim. That is a stupid idea. " That perspective and the conclusion of it being a "stupid idea" along with the word "obviously" is what dictator-mindsets are made of. If you wrote what you wrote above that we can not test one way or another, you can not afterwards conclude with "obviously ... because other thinking is stupid". That's contradictory. As in "My wife loves me... I can't check if she cheated on me.. but obviously she didn't... thinking otherwise is a stupid idea". And if it is a stupid idea, why are there a million books on the contrary and detectives and accusations and divorce proceedings? The suggestion that we can not test if we are in a sim amuses me. But I prefer the scientific method. All those who claim we can not test are too scared to attempt. And many nations are so oppresive that they abuse those who claim reality, this one, is not real, or that it is, or that it is perhaps even augmented reality with sim. There are many possibilities. To imply it is stupid to wonder is an insult and a form of oppression. If we have the freedom of speech, implying a thought is stupid is way worse than oppressing speech. But let me posit this for you: if it is a sim, there would have to be a physical being. If it is reality, there would have to be a physical being, too, right? See the difference that can be tested yet? It's very obvious..... It's like detecting real Versaci and Chinese knock-offs.... there is a difference.

Yes... I couldn't agree more. Especially with a one phrase accusation which has no validation nor explanation you have definintely proven that you are right and that I am wrong. So i will delete my whole thread. Thanks for letting me know I was wasting my time here.

None of you people sound like scientists in the vaguest of senses. I sure hope "real scientists" don't think in their minds this way or else we're all screwed. You've all responded thus far with "I think this so it won't matter" or "if we prove this it won't matter" without so much as a paragraph of text to explain and rationalize it. Are you all Gods whose mere opinion makes a thing true or not true? That's not scientific, nor even human. That's oppresive almost dictatorial opinionatings. "We can never know what this is..." is bullshit. People used to say "man can never fly over the ocean" with the same certainty. Or "I can't see a difference so it's easiest to assume".. that's dictatorial.. "I can't see whether you are guilty or innocent, and I need a salary as a cop, so off you go to prison".. yeah.. good luck with that one, bro. There is a difference, and it does matter, if you're a scientist. If it's a sim, whether we can know depends on the admins (Gods). If it's real and no sim component involved, then we can know the difference. In a sim we can only know if the admins let us, or if the admins did not block that knowledge. For example, if in Halo the coders allowed you to change your helmet colour, then you can. if they didn't, then you can not. Same rules apply for all sims. So if the sim is a full reality sim without a Chinese firewall, then we can figure out reality vs. sim. But if it's crippled-sim then we can't get that data. If it's reality, we can know the difference by building a sim or figuring it out. This is a part of the scientific mind. I hope you all learned something

hahaha ... that's really funny bro!! If we are in a sim than the work is sim work proving it is a sim.. so it is still real work for we are using our real conscience within the sim to test if it is a sim. However, we can only do so within the envelope permitted by the admins (Gods). If it is real life than it is real work and we can actually figure it out. Either way, if we have freedom to fully think logically and do safe experiments in the sim as we obviously would in the real world (maybe maybe not) then we can do real work in either one and test the envelope as much as permissable by safety limits or control limits of some sort. real work as opposed to "I believe magic spells work because the beans fall in a voodoo pattern #5 on the floor"... y'know? Something with real results without foolery. Don't ask what is foolery. For example I can prove that sex with Britney Spears is incredible... but no sex with Britney Spears is not really quite easily, whether it is a sim or not... Similarly I can prove is BigMacs taste good. Similar proofs should be possible to satisfy Elon Musk's beliefs about this very concept. I want to see papers and journal articles on the nature of reality. Otherwise all this research into space and time travel is merely research into how the sim works.

Your whole answer fails one simple truth. You are assuming you did not just write all of this on a forum on a web server loaded in your web browser on a computer that is on your desk that you are using as a human avatar in a simulation of life. If it is a simulation, then anything you can imagine is truly possible but only if we the admins (God) allow your imagination to be true. Think of the prison in Minority Break. Maybe you are a convict and I'm the guard controlling your "punishment" aka Life.. and thus I can grant you a fantasy or ruin it by adding painful aspects to it. But if it is real life, then no what you imagine isn't possible. So all of your work is useless and irrelevant as it is based on an assumption that "Life(TM)" is real and not a simulation or an augmeneted reality experience. If I stuck a chip in your brain with Augmented Reality aspects, when you walk down the street and see a space ship the ship part is a 3D illusion but you believe it because you don't know the chip is in your skull. Far fetched, until you realize whether Life is real or a sim... Go see Dr. Strange from that perspective.. the doc wakes up in a hospital right? And goes on a quest.. but he never really woke up.. The neurosurgeon crashed his car and was crippled.. then they fixed his body.. stuck a chip on him like VR/AR stuff.. and he opened his eyes in a simulated reality... and all of those dimension things are just his "game" experience. His real body was being handled in some cripples-hospital place by nurses, drones, nanites..etc. So in reality Dr. Strange is a paralyzed crippled man.. whose conscience is playing a simulation of life... so no sir.. Dr. Strange didn't go through many dimensions.. just different levels of "Life v35.694.3.504beta9". See how the movie now has a different meaning? So if you can imagine it, it may be possible. Peace out.

I can prove that water removes dirt from my skin scientifically. I can prove that music vibrates a glass in my hand by touching it. I can prove that this forum exists by writing in it scientifically. I can scientifically prove that Larry The Cable Guy is funny to me by laughing when I don't want to laugh at it as it's funny. But has anyone proven scientifically that this life we are all living is not a perfect computer simulation or an augmented reality experience and that we are truly in reality? Is there any project that tries to prove this fact? How do you all know we aren't on a Ferengi-stolen holodeck after the Enterprise crashed and they are extracting all humanity's knowledge from all of us??? Just askin'... because you say you can prove how the brain works for many conditions but well, that would depend entirely on the proof that life is real and that all your tools of proof aren't virtual tools, right? In minecraft, I can prove that giant blocks can be moved by a little pick axe but in real life they can not be. So if life is artificial then many proofs about time travel and so forth are all actually proof of the internal logic of the sim and not of reality. In reality time travel is obviously impossible. But if it is proven possible then I believe this is proof that we are in a simulation. Just one of the theorem's major points. But has anyone done any real work on this?

Many papers are published claiming if one sense is weaker due to a disability than the other senses of the brain compensate. If a person is blind they have better hearing. This is what every mother tells her disabled child and so I was told it, too, as I was born blind. You scientists have even published it in peer-reviewed journal and it's so simple to test that you are all lying or insanely manipulating the truth. Test: throw a ball into a park with trees, a soccer ball, close your eyes, and try to find it after it's settled. Not a single other sense other than visual will ever help you with this kind of problem. No matter if you were born blind or became blind or had an eye disease. I have tried this test at the age of 39, figuring I have better hearing than others and I couldn't find the ball. But my friend with good eyes found it within 5 seconds. I could have spent a full 24 hours searching with some logic the park and would have found it. If you scientists have lied successfully about something this basic, and even mothers repeat it to us blind sons, then what else are you all lying about? Can someone explain this to me? If you don't believe me... try this. Close your eyes for a week and train your ears. Guess what? You'll have the same hearing as a blind man except he can't train his eyes. The brain absolutely does not compensate with any senses for a missing or damaged sense. This is a folklore that people pass around to comfort those whom are disabled and it is quite an abusive strategy of comforting. Please cease and dissist this manipulation and start publishing the truth already. I can't even see any letters that I have just typed nor this vrey sentence.