life as a simulation

a reply to: andy06shake

dont think I have, will have to look for it on netflix and amazon


ETA just seen its on Iplayer

a reply to: daskakik

Well if you are simulating something technically you are projecting it from someplace else in some form or manner.

The thing is daskakik, whatever exists outside of spacetime, if anything tangible, does not "matter", because if we can't measure or observe a thing, it's kind of above our paygrade to address.

That being said what may be unobservable today could become observable in the future with advancements in technology and methodology aka the other 96% of the universe for instance.

Which still would not address anything outside of spacetime, if such a thing is possible.

originally posted by: quintessentone
You just insulted those with essences that may go through only one time as being denser than others - this is your belief.

You need to read that again.

For starters I said those that only go through one time are less dense than those of us who have to rinse and repeat.

What would you call kids that have to repeat a grade over and over? And I said I would be in that group "if" what Monroe says is true.

That is why I posted this disclaimer in my original reply to you:

Of course I'm not saying Monroe's words are sacred or anything like that, just that this is his POV.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Devs is a great watch.

Only one season but for a reason, i highly recommend it, as its up there with the likes of "Black Mirror".

a reply to: andy06shake

Thanks for the tip, will dive right into it!

a reply to: andy06shake
I can't disagree with you but the concept, at least in some circles, is that when you exit the simulation you get to see and understand what it is.

a reply to: daskakik

Well, best to hedge one's bets with respect as to when the simulation ends would be my thinking on the matter.

But nothing lasts forever daskakik not even the universe.

As to understanding, that's what science is for, and the only real tool humanity has in her bag that will allow us to understand but a fraction of the grand scheme of it all.

Also, have you seen the size of the place, comparatively speaking true understanding is probably impossible, and above humanities paygrade to ever comprehend or formulate any sort of meaningful answer.

a reply to: andy06shake
Hate it when a reply sends you to the next page and you miss something cool at the bottom of the last one.

Thanks for the recommendation.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: quintessentone
You just insulted those with essences that may go through only one time as being denser than others - this is your belief.

You need to read that again.

For starters I said those that only go through one time are less dense than those of us who have to rinse and repeat.

What would you call kids that have to repeat a grade over and over? And I said I would be in that group "if" what Monroe says is true.

That is why I posted this disclaimer in my original reply to you:

Of course I'm not saying Monroe's words are sacred or anything like that, just that this is his POV.

If we want to tread down that past lives path then what I've read is that there is freewill and one gets to choose whether to return or not so they are the captain of that ship whether it sails or not, so it's all different beliefs and all I'm saying is that if you choose to rinse and repeat (should not be repeating though) then that's your choice.

As for kids that repeat a grade over and over, it's not always obvious what the reason is, other factors attached to a child's failure spread far and wide.

a reply to: andy06shake
That is why I said on page 2 that this is in the realm of religious woo woo but if it is going to be discussed, even just as a theory, we have to set aside the limits of the simulation as the limiting factors, given that the basic premise is that something even larger exists.

It's like those religious threads trying to use science to prove god/creator or other religious ideas. It's two different lanes and you can switch back and forth as many times as you like but at least know which lane you are in.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: andy06shake
That is why I said on page 2 that this is in the realm of religious woo woo but if it is going to be discussed, even just as a theory, we have to set aside the limits of the simulation as the limiting factors, given that the basic premise is that something even larger exists.

It's like those religious threads trying to use science to prove god/creator or other religious ideas. It's two different lanes and you can switch back and forth as many times as you like but at least know which lane you are in.

Some scientists have merged both lanes into a new lane, why limit oneself?

originally posted by: quintessentone
If we want to tread down that past lives path then what I've read is that there is freewill and one gets to choose whether to return or not so they are the captain of that ship whether it sails or not, so it's all different beliefs and all I'm saying is that if you choose to rinse and repeat (should not be repeating though) then that's your choice.

I never said it wasn't a personal choice, I said the reason, which none of us actually knows, could be because you have not leveled up to the point that "you" wanted to.

As for kids that repeat a grade over and over, it's not always obvious what the reason is, other factors attached to a child's failure spread far and wide.

That was just a reference to how the term "dense" is used colloquially, trying to clarify that the one timers would not be considered dense.

a reply to: quintessentone
Who and how?

a reply to: daskakik

given that the basic premise is that something even larger exists.

That's multiverse theory through, then the question begs, what do the infinite amount of other universes exist within?

It's a chicken and egg ouroboros type thingamabob bordering on gnostic expression or conundrum by my guess.

Philosophical by nature as opposed to truly scientific to ponder.

But when science cannot frame a question, philosophy tends to be the other side of the coin.

I need to go feed my weans now but im enjoying spitballing the little idiosyncracies of the universe with you lot this fine evening.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
Who and how?

It was a video I posted on Cooperton's religion vs. science creation threads with members of the Royal Society.

But, here's an interesting example.

a reply to: quintessentone
I never said scientists can't be religious. I said science and religion are separate ideas and while a person can believe in both, which is shown by those that say; maybe god created everything but then let evolution fine tune things.

They are two lanes and you can chose to have a foot in each lane but when in discussion with others, you can never argue that science has proven god exists or that other religious ideas are true because it has not happened yet, might even be impossible.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
I never said scientists can't be religious. I said science and religion are separate ideas and while a person can believe in both, which is shown by those that say; maybe god created everything but then let evolution fine tune things.

They are two lanes and you can chose to have a foot in each lane but when in discussion with others, you can never argue that science has proven god exists or that other religious ideas are true because it has not happened yet, might even be impossible.

I never said either can prove anything because they can't, isn't that the whole point here. Nobody has ever been able to prove what is reality.

a reply to: quintessentone
The video you posted had one guy ask (paraphrased), "how can you be a biologist and believe in god?"

I was replying to andy who posted:

As to understanding, that's what science is for, and the only real tool humanity has in her bag that will allow us to understand but a fraction of the grand scheme of it all.

Also, have you seen the size of the place, comparatively speaking true understanding is probably impossible, and above humanities paygrade to ever comprehend or formulate any sort of meaningful answer.

And I said, they are separate lanes, as in separate fields, and when being discussed they should be discussed accordingly. I'm sure the scientist in that video doesn't attend a meeting of the progress of a project and get all televangelist with his fellow scientists.

a reply to: daskakik

The belief that they are separate fields is a belief and they may not be separate at all, but that is another topic.

originally posted by: quintessentone
The belief that they are separate fields is a belief and they may not be separate at all, but that is another topic.

May not be?

Pretty sure you can prove that so, other topic or not why bring it up?