4 ms·

Thank you for taking the time to read it and give it your consideration. >It's hard to correlate your findings with real-world evidence of a simulated universe

Thank you for taking the time to read it and give it your consideration. >It's hard to correlate your findings with real-world evidence of a simulated universe >I'm not sure if there is such a program that could prove you right or wrong here That's why I think it would be useful if someone were to be able to write a program calculating all the possible outcomes as the "denominator", the findings in the document being the numerator; way beyond my ability as my experience with such things is limited to having messed around a little bit with MATLAB back in school. >Your mind is fabricating these correlations because that's what it wants to do. Is it tough? Because it's quite the working set of correlations. And to be truthful, it's not that "my mind is fabricating" these things as much as "this is where these things wind up going" ... provided you have a condition set of "I'd like to derive (1) a clear message (2) of relevance (3) in such a fashion that there are no superfluous remainders as numbers/letters/words." Obviously this is not a civil court case but if it were, do you think what was presented would meet the criteria for "a preponderance of circumstantial evidence", which would be acceptable in such a setting? Add to that the probability of all this happening to fall into place "just so" ... > but their correctness is not enforced by any logic or laws of the known universe I'm aware of. Well, if the past is any indication of the future, such things are always in the process of being discovered. Having said that, this is just a suggestion for "a way" of gathering "something" as evidence for Simulation Theory using probabilities. Is it something that is commonly accepted? No, of course not. But as I read/watched videos on the subject, one of the things that was noticeably missing was any discussion along the lines of "and here's how we're going about the process of figuring out if this is true". So what was presented, while not perfect, is just "something" along that line to get the discussion going. And "something" is better than "nothing", which as far as I can tell is where the current discussion rests. I could be wrong and for all I know computer scientists/physicists who subscribe to the theory, or at least it's realistic probability, may very well have some method of going about calculating the odds of such a thing that they as yet have not disclosed to the public. In the absence of knowledge of such things, this is a start, however "weird", in that direction. Anyway, thank again for taking the time to read it and reply.

smoldesu 4y ago
> Add to that the probability of all this happening to fall into place "just so" ... Let's be real, though: your answers are not deterministic. Someone else could do the same process you have (a-la "I'd like to derive...") and end up with entirely different answers. In that sense, these answers are being "made up", even if you have a general train-of-thought for each derivative. If you want to study simulation theory in earnest, I'd abandon the numerology and start investigating the physics of entropy and other calculable indications of complexity. It's much easier to prove, and a lot friendlier to the scientific method.
- GWBullshit 4y ago
  > Let's be real, though: your answers are not deterministic. Deterministic would be "100% causal". That's not what's being said at all with this. What's being said is, "In the absence of anyone being able to come up with something 100% deterministic to further investigate this theory, how about we first start with "highly-probable", derived by the improbability of everything you just read falling into place "just so" ... by sheer accident. Of course, you're suggesting personal bias: >> "Someone else could do the same process you have (a-la "I'd like to derive...") and end up with entirely different answers." It may seem so and people I've shown other, less involved, far less complex versions of this sort of thing are always quick to suggest that (Dunning Kruger Effect), and yet when challenged to do so, I've yet to see someone prove this assertion by following the following criteria (all of them need to be met to make any decrypted messages worthwhile): (1) Must be relevant to original starting point (2) Must be relevant to actual happenings, either current, historical, or future (3) Must have no superfluous numbers, letters or words left as remainders The third part is particularly stringent and as I've developed familiarity with this practice over YEARS, the reality is simply that "only certain avenues of decryption are open" that even meet THAT criteria ... and the ones that do, tend to automatically meet criteria (1) and (2). So, basically, if people can't prove this assertion with much, much simpler versions of such puzzles, how much less likely then is it that they can do so with versions that require multiple pages worth of this sort of thing? "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few" – Shunryu Suzuki. > In that sense, these answers are being "made up", even if you have a general train-of-thought for each derivative. Again, not at all how this works. It's not AT ALL "let me see if I can get this from that" but rather a process of picking things apart and playing with them and seeing where they lead. Again, the possible outcomes that meet those three stated criteria are usually relatively few in number and tend to relate to themselves and the subject. > It's much easier to prove And what has this proven definitively so far in terms of the simulation theory? Has anyone come out and said they can use that to prove 100% beyond any doubt that "yes, we do live in a simulation"? If so, can you provide a source I can read?

smoldesu 4y ago

> Add to that the probability of all this happening to fall into place "just so" ... Let's be real, though: your answers are not deterministic. Someone else could do the same process you have (a-la "I'd like to derive...") and end up with entirely different answers. In that sense, these answers are being "made up", even if you have a general train-of-thought for each derivative. If you want to study simulation theory in earnest, I'd abandon the numerology and start investigating the physics of entropy and other calculable indications of complexity. It's much easier to prove, and a lot friendlier to the scientific method.

GWBullshit 4y ago
> Let's be real, though: your answers are not deterministic. Deterministic would be "100% causal". That's not what's being said at all with this. What's being said is, "In the absence of anyone being able to come up with something 100% deterministic to further investigate this theory, how about we first start with "highly-probable", derived by the improbability of everything you just read falling into place "just so" ... by sheer accident. Of course, you're suggesting personal bias: >> "Someone else could do the same process you have (a-la "I'd like to derive...") and end up with entirely different answers." It may seem so and people I've shown other, less involved, far less complex versions of this sort of thing are always quick to suggest that (Dunning Kruger Effect), and yet when challenged to do so, I've yet to see someone prove this assertion by following the following criteria (all of them need to be met to make any decrypted messages worthwhile): (1) Must be relevant to original starting point (2) Must be relevant to actual happenings, either current, historical, or future (3) Must have no superfluous numbers, letters or words left as remainders The third part is particularly stringent and as I've developed familiarity with this practice over YEARS, the reality is simply that "only certain avenues of decryption are open" that even meet THAT criteria ... and the ones that do, tend to automatically meet criteria (1) and (2). So, basically, if people can't prove this assertion with much, much simpler versions of such puzzles, how much less likely then is it that they can do so with versions that require multiple pages worth of this sort of thing? "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few" – Shunryu Suzuki. > In that sense, these answers are being "made up", even if you have a general train-of-thought for each derivative. Again, not at all how this works. It's not AT ALL "let me see if I can get this from that" but rather a process of picking things apart and playing with them and seeing where they lead. Again, the possible outcomes that meet those three stated criteria are usually relatively few in number and tend to relate to themselves and the subject. > It's much easier to prove And what has this proven definitively so far in terms of the simulation theory? Has anyone come out and said they can use that to prove 100% beyond any doubt that "yes, we do live in a simulation"? If so, can you provide a source I can read?