The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Is there anything novel at all in "Simulation Theory"?
| The Dismal Tide | 08/03/26 |
| Jared Baumeister | 08/03/26 |
| Book1.xlsx | 08/03/26 |
| Shema Yisrael | 08/03/26 |
| Richard Ames | 08/03/26 |
| The Penis | 08/03/26 |
| situational online awareness | 08/03/26 |
| The Penis | 08/03/26 |
| Richard Ames | 08/03/26 |
| The Dismal Tide | 08/03/26 |
| ,..,,,,,,....,,,..., | 08/03/26 |
| The Penis | 08/03/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 3rd, 2026 2:14 PM Author: The Dismal Tide Philosophically and theologically, it doesnt seem nearly as clever as Bay Area Fags make it out to be.
Lemme consider its deeper underpinnings:
- This reality is not the Final Reality. There's something off, something at least once-removed about this reality
- This reality begs for some sense-making. It doesn't sit well as chaos, and something written into our code compels us to order and rationalize, suggesting that reality itself is an ordered, purposeful narrative or code. What we call reality is, in fact, written / created
- Some being or beings engage in something akin to authorship, or coding, which creates our world and our selves. Their designs for us are mysterious and shrouded, but possibly discoverable
- Our desire for predictability and deeper understanding is best served by aligning ourselves with the invisible codes and laws which underwrite our experiences
All of this seems pretty much religion 101, or even Platonism 101. The metaphor of the Divine Word is expressed in binary rather than hebrew or arabic or whatever, but same shit.
A simulation dude might advocate for the novelty of his theory thus: "As we progress in tech, we obtain better metaphors for the Creator(s)/Creation act." Okay, instead of a quill and scroll its a screen, big whoop.
Am I missing some important thing? |
Date: August 3rd, 2026 2:15 PM Author: Jared Baumeister the monomyth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5889096&forum_id=2E#50042848) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2026 2:23 PM Author: Book1.xlsx there is nothing new under the sun (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5889096&forum_id=2E#50042855) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2026 2:28 PM Author: Shema Yisrael it permits the viewer to be just some fag rather than a Godfag
given how shitty this existence in (fucking pajeets literally exist) im pretty sure it's just some fag |
 |
Date: August 3rd, 2026 3:18 PM Author: Richard Ames LMAO tyft (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5889096&forum_id=2E#50042933) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2026 3:22 PM Author: The Penis I believe there is a Godfag because Jews told my ancestors to believe it 2000 years ago (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5889096&forum_id=2E#50042947) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2026 2:33 PM Author: situational online awareness it's just metaphysics, Champ. as gay as the rest of it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5889096&forum_id=2E#50042871) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2026 3:14 PM Author: The Penis IMO the lineage goes Plato's Cave to Descarte's Demon to Harman's technologically updated brain-in-vat (along with Putnam's semantic treatment) to Bostrom's computational and probabilistic modeling. Bostrom supplied the modern formulation. Parts of it are novel like using probability and the idea of ancestry simulations and future compute capacity to calculate what the chances are under certain assumptions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5889096&forum_id=2E#50042929) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2026 3:20 PM Author: Richard Ames God reveals Himself to us using whatever language and understanding we have at our current place and time.
Silicon Valley fags simply have their heads too far up their asses to appreciate this. "We made a computer, therefore god must also be a programmer." Oh wow how convenient they are just like god, guess we should listen to whatever they have to say! Fucking lol. |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2026 3:28 PM Author: The Dismal Tide !!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5889096&forum_id=2E#50042954) |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2026 3:43 PM Author: ,..,,,,,,....,,,..., The Bostrom work is not at all Rigorous. It follow the pattern of lots of other modern bullshit: “watch me invent probabilities and multiply them together!” When challenged: “I’m just saying that if these assumptions I pulled out of my ass are true, then certain conclusions follow!” Wow, thanks champ that helps a lot with my understanding of reality.
It appeals to the same audience that wishes charity were more like poker and “proving” theological and ethical arguments by multiplying things by infinity. (Gay, autistic, and retarded). |
|
Date: August 3rd, 2026 4:03 PM Author: The Penis The empirical force of his argument is limited, yeah, because all of the important input is uncertain, but it's not mathematical nonsense. The formal implications are legitimate. You can't make an argument like that without assumptions obviously so the force is limited to the arguments for the assumptions and whether you are willing to accept them. I guess I just don't know what you are expecting from something about "simulation theory" where we obviously don't have direct empirical evidence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5889096&forum_id=2E#50042993) |