3 ms·

> The answer is yes, it's called the total value of all heat in the universe. Thank you for answering in this fashion; I suppose I could have amended that with

> The answer is yes, it's called the total value of all heat in the universe. Thank you for answering in this fashion; I suppose I could have amended that with, "in such a fashion so as to provide a measure of usefulness in determining the probability of the Simulation Theory being correct?" > Where did the "on" go from "Iron" Assuming you mean at the very beggining, the "O" = 15/1,5/"A,E" ... "E" turns into yet another "5/FIVE/Fe, IV/IRON IV", and the "A" and two resulting "Ns" are added to "RI" to get "RINNA", the "R" from "Iron" = "18/1,8/A,H" ... resulting in "Rihanna". > expecting novel or groundbreaking results Yeah, not for nothing, but I don't see stuff like this anywhere on the internet so I'd say it's "pretty novel"; I don't make claims to have a monopoly on this approach as I've met others who seem to be aware of this phenomenon and have demonstrated an aptitude for analyzing such. For example, that "Toyota" becomes "Supra" by substituting the atomic number of iron and some non-intuitive multiplication of what seems at first to be random superfluous numbers was shown to me recently by someone else. > You can't say I didn't give your theory a shot. True enough, and thanks for your time and consideration. > You're either wrong or you botched the presentation, I'll let you decide that for yourself. Where exactly do you feel as if I'm "wrong"; please specify. The logic holds up and the odds of ALL THAT falling into place "just so" by random coincidence, ESPECIALLY considering her being the main attraction at the Super Bowl this particular year and "NFL" turning into "2023 Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88" ... Not to mention another (albeit pop-culture-y) term for "simulation" is "Matrix", which turns into "Our Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 Ruins 57" (it's Super Bowl 57), which in turn morphs into "Our Robyn Rihanna Fenty 2/20/88 RULES! Ha!" ... > The provable reality is regarded to be more practically important Please let me know how figuring out the rate of entropy at the edge of the universe affects day-to-day life of the vast majority of people on planet Earth > than comforting or interesting lies What part of this is a "lie" ... considering a good part of what's discussed in the document is actually happening next Sunday? If you consider this method to result in just random, coincidental "comforting lies", then I would urge you to ponder the following conundrum: Using this method, the word "Axis" (W.W. II) turns into "Germany rids six million Jews." The underlying "code" for this can be demonstrated methodically as well. Now what do you have to say?

smoldesu 4y ago
> measure of usefulness in determining the probability of the Simulation Theory being correct Based on what? Patterns in language? You have not proven any correlation between your findings and simulation theory whatsoever. You can ignore the scientific method, sure, but without direct evidence of correlation nobody will care. The reason you can't think of a practical way to compute this is because your assumption has no calculable basis. > but I don't see stuff like this anywhere on the internet Such a shame the hard, provable sciences are the ones that get traction. > The logic holds up and the odds of ALL THAT falling into place "just so" by random coincidence It doesn't fall into place. You put it into place, and you have no deterministic theory of how it works besides "knowing it's right". That's the opposite of logic. > Please let me know how figuring out the rate of entropy at the edge of the universe affects day-to-day life of the vast majority of people on planet Earth Science isn't about coming up with the most revolutionary theory of how things work. It's about proving the most feasible answer as correct beyond a shadow of doubt. > Now what do you have to say? If I spell "dog" backwards it makes "god". Is it time for a new religion?
- GWBullshit 4y ago
  [dead]

smoldesu 4y ago

> measure of usefulness in determining the probability of the Simulation Theory being correct Based on what? Patterns in language? You have not proven any correlation between your findings and simulation theory whatsoever. You can ignore the scientific method, sure, but without direct evidence of correlation nobody will care. The reason you can't think of a practical way to compute this is because your assumption has no calculable basis. > but I don't see stuff like this anywhere on the internet Such a shame the hard, provable sciences are the ones that get traction. > The logic holds up and the odds of ALL THAT falling into place "just so" by random coincidence It doesn't fall into place. You put it into place, and you have no deterministic theory of how it works besides "knowing it's right". That's the opposite of logic. > Please let me know how figuring out the rate of entropy at the edge of the universe affects day-to-day life of the vast majority of people on planet Earth Science isn't about coming up with the most revolutionary theory of how things work. It's about proving the most feasible answer as correct beyond a shadow of doubt. > Now what do you have to say? If I spell "dog" backwards it makes "god". Is it time for a new religion?

GWBullshit 4y ago
[dead]