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.. 

So, yeah, party on Garth ;)


Reply via email to