http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/?hpt=hp_t4
It's sort of like minecraft and the simulator was seeded with the random number 42. On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Blaze Spinnaker > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/is-the-universe-a-simulation.html?_r=0 > > > > This is a shallow rehash analysis in a way, at least for those of us who > want to see further developments and insight in the Sim field, and > considering the pedigree of Frenkel. He could have dug a bit deeper IMO. > > > > Forget a "Universal sim" and look at the more probable case. For instance, > one twist which came up recently is the possibility that some, or many, > individuals, can be living lives which are caught in their own personal > neural simulation, but within the framework of a "normal" reality. This > could be a natural thing - like karma, not requiring AI and so on. Or there > could be minimal supervision. Think about the Bruce Willis character in the > Shyamalan film "Sixth Sense"... you remember... the kick in the gut when the > kid sez "I see dead people" and you realize he's talking about you. > > > > Another twist in the "Sim vs Real" dichotomy is highlighted in the > neglected cult TV series "Doll house" (episode 10) where Echo, the "Active" > (which is a euphemism for occasional psychic-prostitute, and more), becomes > the vehicle for the potential immortality of a recently deceased, very > wealthy client. This happenstance is fiction for now but actually a > near-term technological reality - and it brings into focus the issue of > wealth and mortality-morality in a most unusual way. > > > > Can we buy immortality - even if it is a Sim? In fact, isn't the > sequential Sim preferable in many ways? Heck, we get tired of one beautiful > body and the next one costs only a few hundred million more, no problem. > Everyone is happy. Wealth is redistributed. What's wrong with this picture? > > >
