A big problem with this theory is that it makes no testable predictions about the universe.
That is to say, it's garbage.
If there is absolutely no way to tell any difference between living in a simulated universe and living in a "real" universe, then there is no difference between the two, other than this:
A simulated universe requires all the complexity of a physically real universe, but with the extra requirement of a framework universe that is running the simulation.
The article states that the conditions for us living in a simulated universe are:
1) Civilization will not collapse before the technology is possible.
2) Members of that civilization will be interested in running such a simulation.
The inhabitants of that future world, unlike us, know that both 1 and 2 are true because they are there, and they are doing it. Which by the argument makes it even more likely that they themselves are living in a simulation,
which is run by people have the technology, and are interested...
The Lives of a Cell by Lewis Thomas and The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris are also similarly excellent, although some they aren't exactly on the cutting edge anymore.
Greater *desire* for food and shelter? Or greater ability to obtain food and shelter?
Because I think there's nothing like famine and homelessness to increase desire for food and shelter.
Right. That's what I meant.
'Something else entirely' than not stealing = theft.
But making copies of music you own, as long as you don't distribute them, is not theft. As a matter of fact, it's part of copyright law.
a little thing called thermodynamics.
More specifically, the second law.
You can't get more energy out than you put in. As a matter of fact, you can't even get back the same amount.
But these are talking about using electricity FROM THE MOTOR to split the water on board the car. So the fact that this is only 30% efficient means that you are just throwing away 70% of the power used in the production of the hydrogen.
Because copying music isn't stealing. I have the right to make copies of music that I own, which is great if I want to listen to something on an MP3 player, make a mix CD for my car, etc.
Now sharing those copies is stealing... except that it's not, always. Music in the public domain, or which the copyright holder has made available for free distribution, like this, or this, etc.
Trying to gain access to pay-per-view without actually paying per view is something else entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
A big problem with this theory is that it makes no testable predictions about the universe. That is to say, it's garbage.
If there is absolutely no way to tell any difference between living in a simulated universe and living in a "real" universe, then there is no difference between the two, other than this:
A simulated universe requires all the complexity of a physically real universe, but with the extra requirement of a framework universe that is running the simulation.
In other words: *pfft*
The article states that the conditions for us living in a simulated universe are:
1) Civilization will not collapse before the technology is possible.
2) Members of that civilization will be interested in running such a simulation.
The inhabitants of that future world, unlike us, know that both 1 and 2 are true because they are there, and they are doing it. Which by the argument makes it even more likely that they themselves are living in a simulation, which is run by people have the technology, and are interested...
The Lives of a Cell by Lewis Thomas and The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris are also similarly excellent, although some they aren't exactly on the cutting edge anymore.
Greater *desire* for food and shelter? Or greater ability to obtain food and shelter? Because I think there's nothing like famine and homelessness to increase desire for food and shelter.
"natural vibration" "frequency" "crystal" Maybe it can heal my chakras, too.
Perhaps this or this may clear things up for you.
Can they perform "military grade" encryption?
I like the Thong song as much as the next guy, but how on earth did Sisqo ever make enough to buy a consumer electronics company?
Right. That's what I meant. 'Something else entirely' than not stealing = theft. But making copies of music you own, as long as you don't distribute them, is not theft. As a matter of fact, it's part of copyright law.
a little thing called thermodynamics. More specifically, the second law. You can't get more energy out than you put in. As a matter of fact, you can't even get back the same amount.
Why would you electrolyse water in the car?
You wouldn't. But that's exactly what the 'Hydrogen Boost' website is proposing. And what else do they sell on their website?
Fuel line magnets.
Yep. Scam artists.
The homebuilt guy is proposing the same thing, but he honestly just doesn't seem to understand the second law of thermodynamics.
But these are talking about using electricity FROM THE MOTOR to split the water on board the car. So the fact that this is only 30% efficient means that you are just throwing away 70% of the power used in the production of the hydrogen.
Because copying music isn't stealing. I have the right to make copies of music that I own, which is great if I want to listen to something on an MP3 player, make a mix CD for my car, etc. Now sharing those copies is stealing... except that it's not, always. Music in the public domain, or which the copyright holder has made available for free distribution, like this, or this, etc. Trying to gain access to pay-per-view without actually paying per view is something else entirely.