3 ms·

You are probably right, that it means nothing. And I am happy people think this because nothing is meaningless. I believe there is no grand secret to this num

You are probably right, that it means nothing. And I am happy people think this because nothing is meaningless. I believe there is no grand secret to this number or of life. In other words, things are the way they are because we wouldn't be able to fall in love, dance to the music and enjoy life, if things were otherwise. Thinking too much about why, distracts from the now. Mystery is what makes life worth living. And hiding ourselves from our self is what makes discovery possible. If reality is a computer simulation, then proving that is a bit redundant in my opinion. However, I think it can be proven but once it is, what will there be to know?

ncallaway 11y ago
> However, I think it can be proven but once it is, what will there be to know? If reality is a computer simulation I can think of a multitude of other questions about reality: - Can we communicate "outside" of the simulation? - Is the simulation a product of intelligence that is intentionally running the simulation? Or is it a mere by-product of a higher-order universe? - By studying the simulation in great enough detail, is there anything we can learn about the "outside" universe? - Is the "outside" simulation a turing machine? Can it compute a higher class of computational problems? - Are the simulations infinite? Is the "outside" also a simulation? Is it simulations all the way down — or all the way up? Is there a "real" reality? - If its simulations all the way down, how did the first simulation get started? - If there is a "real" reality we get to start all of science over at square one studying this new reality. This is a rough initial list, but I'm sure there's an endless number of questions to be asked and answered about reality even if we prove its a simulation.
- notthegov 11y ago
  You (and others) misinterpeted my comment and missed the point. I purposely wrote it a bit obtuse as a firewall of sorts. Consider the broader philosophical implications of what I wrote. And proving it was a simulation would explain all those questions you proposed. I have asked some of the smartest people I know about this topic, and no one seems to know. It would be awesome if someone reading this thread knew something unique about it and emailed me. That's my only motivation.
  - ncallaway 11y ago
    I'm not really sure how you come to the conclusion that others misinterpreted your comment or missed the point. There are no other replies! I may well have missed the point, though if I have done so because you purposely wrote obtusely then I have no real interest in attempting to decode your writing. I wish you luck in your ventures, and hope someone with more time and ability than I discovers your writings and sends you the e-mail you desire.

ncallaway 11y ago

> However, I think it can be proven but once it is, what will there be to know? If reality is a computer simulation I can think of a multitude of other questions about reality: - Can we communicate "outside" of the simulation? - Is the simulation a product of intelligence that is intentionally running the simulation? Or is it a mere by-product of a higher-order universe? - By studying the simulation in great enough detail, is there anything we can learn about the "outside" universe? - Is the "outside" simulation a turing machine? Can it compute a higher class of computational problems? - Are the simulations infinite? Is the "outside" also a simulation? Is it simulations all the way down — or all the way up? Is there a "real" reality? - If its simulations all the way down, how did the first simulation get started? - If there is a "real" reality we get to start all of science over at square one studying this new reality. This is a rough initial list, but I'm sure there's an endless number of questions to be asked and answered about reality even if we prove its a simulation.

notthegov 11y ago
You (and others) misinterpeted my comment and missed the point. I purposely wrote it a bit obtuse as a firewall of sorts. Consider the broader philosophical implications of what I wrote. And proving it was a simulation would explain all those questions you proposed. I have asked some of the smartest people I know about this topic, and no one seems to know. It would be awesome if someone reading this thread knew something unique about it and emailed me. That's my only motivation.
- ncallaway 11y ago
  I'm not really sure how you come to the conclusion that others misinterpreted your comment or missed the point. There are no other replies! I may well have missed the point, though if I have done so because you purposely wrote obtusely then I have no real interest in attempting to decode your writing. I wish you luck in your ventures, and hope someone with more time and ability than I discovers your writings and sends you the e-mail you desire.