Sayonara

Well it's better than Alannis Morrisette.

What's that you say? God is a Slinky?

Yes, it has. That was the underlying significance of my "matrix 'philosophy' is hardly original" tirades in other threads, and also why it appeals so strongly to the -- not to put too fine a point on it -- illiteratti I think the question Alt is really after an answer for here though is "can we achieve time travel through simulation rather than actual travel?"

lol Drive faf, drive!

Doesn't that question effectively negate the need for "NO" options? I predict a cataclysmic series of (mainly military) events in about 50 years which will cause the ruination of what we currently term "civilisation", although vestiges of humanity may well survive. This is likely to be preceded by large scale (but comparatively less destructive) conflicts in 10-15 years.

Assuming of course that the listener has figured out that primes exist, and what qualifies them as such. If not, they will simply not recognise the sequence. That does not mean that the underlying meaning of the maths changes or disappears.

I would have moved this thread earlier but (i) I couldn't decide on Philosophy or Pseudoscience, and (ii) I didn't care because all the "Matrix-inspired" threads and articles and posts and discussions all over the web are blending into one giant, drab crucible of banality that is easy to ignore.

Assuming that the simulation was artificially devised, it follows that all effects we witness "within" the simulation are the result of functions that are normal procedural events. Therefore answering that question requires knowledge of the final objective of the simulation.

Also - bear in mind that an ability to accurately measure and predict the reality around it would be a prerequisite for any species that was attempting to develop a technology (travel, communications) that might result in this thread's replies being tested. The universe consistently proves its indifference when it comes to human opinion

You are getting confused between reality and perception. If I look at a sheet of paper that rests in axis XY, but I look at it so that I am seeing plane YZ, I won't see any of the fifteen dots that are drawn on it. That doesn't meant that they aren't there, it just means I don't perceive them. Does that mean that zero in three dimensions is the same as fifteen in 2 dimensions? No. Clumsy example but you get the idea

What Alt means to say is that the universe is only what's in that ball. Outside that ball there is only nullity. The surface of the ball is the edge of the universe.

There's no proof that we aren't all being dreamed about by the omniuniversal super banana, Geoffrey. SO WE PROBABLY ARE! Reality sucks, the real world is boring and dull, you will never be a spectacular superhero. Get over it. Anyway, bitterness at seeing the same lame arguments and raped logic aside: In order to answer where the future and past might be stored we need a common frame of reference as to what processes and machinations create this simulation you are talking about. Two things to consider in the meantime: (i) If a civilisation like ours is more likely to be a simulation than a real species living out day-to-day life, doesn't that make a species that could create such a simulcrative reality somewhat unlikely? (ii) If our minds are purely simulated, does that mean they obey wide-ranging but fixed rules? The answer to this question will have important implications for this scenario.

Quoted for effect

Indeed so, in fact in "physics breaking news" terms the STM technique is fairly old hat.

The fact that it is eventually outweighed by gravitational attractive forces caused by other bodies does not mean that it is not there. In physics, one tends to get an answer to the question one asked. Precision of language is therefore paramount.

Depending on what you define as "human", the dead outnumber the living about 30 to 1. So do we get extra dense souls, or does it just mean uber-scary zombie situation?

There's plenty of uber-expensive hardware one can buy if one has the cash. Surprisingly () the domestic market is not the only one driving the progress of computer technology.

Google image search?

I'm prepared to leave this in the Evolution/Morphology forum if you can get a proper debate out of it, but it is teetering on the very edge of the Pseudoscience precipice.

AWOOGA Credibility alert!

Wolfson's humour detector is broken.

I want to know how you discovered that little fact. No, wait Actually I don't.

In this respect "movement" and "sensitivity" ought to be considered together.

There is nothing "outside the box" about this question at all. It makes no difference if we come from earth or not - you are just changing the question from "did we evolve" to "where did we evolve". Even if you argue that we must have been "seeded" here by a superior force because evolution could not produce us, you are left with the more complex problem of "how did the superior force come about?" So, instead of thinking "outside the box" and being all revolutionary and special and amazing (yes I am being sarcastic - none of this is new in any way and the merest scraping of research on your part would have established this), you actually come off as being pretty limited in imagination. Congratulations

Santa didn't even get me a sack of coal this year.