On Oct 7, 2016, at 3:29 PM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> >> I figure it's best to ignore the implications of the simulation >> hypothesis. There's nothing to be done about it. > > If I'm understanding you correctly, I find I quite agree, but for perhaps > different reasons, because I don't find the implications to be all that > difficult. > > Whether reality is material and we're threatened by cosmic rays, meteors, > or the vagaries of war-mongering, hairless apes with nukes, or whether > reality is immaterial, and we're at the mercy of a simulation, or some > unknowable God, the result is fundamentally the same when you follow it > out: There is no safe place in the universe. There is nothing to grab hold > of. The more we look for safety, the more danger we will find. The more we > try to grab hold of things, the more they will slip away. Death will > overtake every living thing, eventually. > > And so, from this, it doesn't matter the slightest to me if reality is a > simulation, or not. For that matter, it doesn't matter in the slightest if > a meteor hits. Or if humanity blows itself up with nukes. I'd prefer my > other humans decided to play better games than Monopoly, Scrabble, or > Chess, > but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. > > We're HERE. NOW - attending a party with some 7 billion or so other > people. So, party, and try to make it a FUN party. Yes you've stated the case pretty well :) I guess I could restate my original case a little bit: it's best to ignore the implications of the sim theory, because there really are NO implications, assuming a true high fidelity sim. And we haven't observed anything to argue for flaws in the sim.. (oh Christ, I was just reminded of the matrix movies.. *shudder*) So, yeah, party on Garth ;) John