You're vastly underestimating the amount of processing power available to the creatures who are simulating our universe. Why did they simulat a universe that gives us so little processing power and so little ability to move around due to the distance between clumps of matter? I don't know.
The difference is that the argument in the comic book has more information than simply the fact that it is an argument. If I were put together a random argument, place it in a black box, and hand it to you then you would be correct to assume based on statistics that the argument is most likely wrong. But once I tell you what the argument is then you can evaluate the merits of the arguments and the statistics are no longer useful.
Since we don't know of anyway to distinguish whether our universe is a simulation simply by looking at it, the best we have is statistics and the statistics tell us we're probably a simulation.
But as I said before, if you keep your smoke in your own house or place of business then you should have the freedom to smoke all you want. Or burn rubber tires, or fart, or whatever.
I didn't say we should ban cigarette smoke. I said when we decide what to do with a shared resource like the air around us, we need to give more weight to majority preferences. If asbestos smelled like grilled steak I think most people would still prefer to not allow burning it due to health concerns.
"It's okay to curtail someone ELSE's freedom/rights/privileges as long as the majority agrees -and my freedoms are not hindered."
The old saying is that my freedom to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. In the case of the air around us, when I'm outside every bit of smoke, every fart, every spoiled piece of food, every burp, every failure to use deodorant, every use of deodorant, every use of perfume or cologne, ends up in your nose. Would you ban all of that simply because there is at least one person who objects to each of them? Would you put no limitations on the use of the air - people can burn rubber tires, release asbestos into the air from factories, drive cars that don't have inspections for pollution, and piss and poop anywhere they want?
Somewhere between those two extremes is a balance that tries to please more people than it displeases, that makes people generally happier than unhappy. This isn't an issue where a simple rule or simple philosophy can make every decision.
My guy reaction was that he was joking. But thinking about it, it makes sense. We live in a universe where it is possible, at least in theory, to simulate a smaller universe. Given the vastness of time and space, if you assume that life has a high enough probability of arising that there are a lot of aliens out there, there are going to be a lot of simulations that are sophisticated enough to contain AIs that don't know they are simulations.
If only 10 alien races create 10 simulations each, that's 101 environments that can contain intelligence (100 simulations plus the one non-simulated universe). The odds then less than 1% that we're in the original non-simulated universe.
It still doesn't sit right with me - my skeptical gut tells me it is silly - but where is the flaw in the logic?
If you were barbecuing steak, go for it. Nearly everyone loves that smell.....
Most people agree that BBQ smells good and that tobacco smoke stinks and/or hurts people's health.
But feel free to light up your disgusting BBQ and stinking up the neighborhood.
I am a vegetarian. FTFY. See how this works?
FACT: BBQ Smoke, especially aerosolized burnt fat IS a carcinogen.
Let me say it again. "The air outside is a publicly held common. You can't choose regulations strictly on the principle of freedom because it is naturally a resource where one person's usage impacts every other person's usage. Instead you have to balance the needs and wants of various people." It is true that you can't please everyone because different people have different desires. When we have to balance competing desires because we can't just let everyone choose for themselves, then the preferences of the majority are of course more heavily weighted than the preferences of the minority.
Bans on people smoking inside their own homes and places of business are a clear attack on basic freedom.
Ask a random selection of women whether they would mind starring in a porno. What do you think the responses would be?
Instead of pornos make it soft porn like love scenes in rated R movies, The number of women who would be ok with it would still be very small.
Now ask a random selection of women whether they would be ok with them starring in a movie where all the characters are killed. What do you think?
Now let's try the men (after all many young women want to get married eventually and might care what their future husbands will think).
Ask a random selection of men who want their wives or girlfriends to remain faithful whether they would mind their wives starring in a porno. What do you think the response rates would be?
Instead of pornos make it soft porn like love scenes in rated R movies, The number of men who would be ok with it would still be very small.
Now ask a random selection of men who want their wives or girlfriends to remain alive whether they would be ok with them starring in movie where all the characters are killed. What do you think?
One of the best reasons for banning porn is the effect it has on the actresses who make it. We have minimum wage laws, OSHA, child labor laws, etc. to protect workers, especially young workers, from making poor choices. The porn industry tries to hire the youngest women they can get their hands on and it rarely ends up being a good move for the women.
It makes sense that rape would decrease where porn is prevalent. One of the problems with porn is that it lowers the ability to get turned on in real life. So not only can't you get it up for your girlfriend or wife, you can't get it up for your rape victim. Places with a lot of porn also tend to have very low fertility rates.
If you were barbecuing steak, go for it. Nearly everyone loves that smell. But if you were barbecuing old tires then we have a problem. The air outside is a publicly held common. You can't choose regulations strictly on the principle of freedom because it is naturally a resource where one person's usage impacts every other person's usuage. Instead you have to balance the needs and wants of various people.
Most people agree that BBQ smells good and that tobacco smoke stinks and/or hurts people's health.
But feel free to light up your disgusting cigarettes inside so long as you have some sort of filter to prevent too much from leaking out and stinking up the neighborhood. Bans on people smoking inside their own homes and places of business are a clear attack on basic freedom.
If you think outdoor smoking ban is ridiculous then you don't realize how much air one cigarette can contaminate.
Personally I'd like to see a total ban on all smoking tobacco.
I would rather see a ban on outdoor smoking and make indoor smoking subject to the owner's discretion (provided perhaps that there are air filters. I can't avoid going outside but I don't have to go into any particular person's home, office, retail store or restaurant. Why should my aversion to smoking prevent them from doing what they want on their own property? So long as their behavior isn't attacking me, and it isn't if I don't have to smell the smoke (and I can always choose differents, restaurants, offices and stores to visit), keeping them from their happiness is an infringement on their freedom.
But when they smoke outside they are damaging a publicly shared good - the air.
Maybe it's not quite as bad as Russia Today, but American Journalism is pretty bad. For example, if you're not living in America consider what you and most of your friends think of American conservatives based on what they hear from American media. And I understand. If I didn't pay careful attention to the news and get multiple sources because I'm an American, and if didn't live among many American conservatives, I too would think American conservatives are a bunch of hateful racist redneck dogmatic intolerant violence loving hillbillies based on what I see and hear on CNN, NPR, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Conservatives are as likely to be nice people as liberals. They donate more to charities than liberals. Believe it or not they love their children and care about their communities. And just like liberals some are very stupid and some are very intelligent. But you wouldn't know it from watching American journalism.
It's sad that as much as I can't stand Trump I'm finding I dislike many of his opponents even more.
However when it comes to the rules - an organization has a right to protect itself from outsiders who would come in and take over in order to use the organization for a completely different purpose. That's why the Republican party has rules that provide some protection for the establishment even while allowing for nominees to be elected. Many people have for years donated to, supported, and built the Republican party to promote freedom, prosperity, tolerance, racial equality, the right to life, and national defense. Now Trump steps in and wants to use the party's organization to promote mostly the opposite. Shouldn't there be some protection for the party? If he wants a party that does something different shouldn't he start his own?
The rules were written well in advance. When he got into the race he should have known the rules. Of course he was right to expect hostility from the party when his positions are so contrary to the party. He should have run as a Democrat which would have been a better fit.
He is the first to state that "the federal government can't own land beyond military bases and Washington, D.C. (sorry, but it's not true, federal land ownership went up for Supreme Court review three times, the first in the 1800's and has been upheld as Constitutional each time).
I'm not saying i agree with your friend, but your argument that "The Supreme Court says it therefor it is true" is a clear indication that you're not an independent thinker. Your friend has likely read the American Constitution and sees it as giving the federal government only those powers that are enumerated therein and doesn't see anything that allows the federal government to purchase land outside of D.C. and military bases. If the Supreme Court disagrees maybe the Supreme Court is wrong, and maybe it's because of the corrupting power of absolute power.
The difference is the mainstream press doesn't make a big deal about Hillary's corporate donors because they want her to win. if Anonymous exposes Trump as taking a lot of money from corporations it will be on the front page and at the start of every news program for months with every political talk show asking guests about it until they puke.
His supporters don't support him because he's a high-and-mighty politician of impeccable ideology. They support him because that's precisely what he isn't
and the scary thing is that there is no reason Democrats won't find that same personality appealing. Trump isn't conservative so once he gets into the general election he's likely to win by pulling in large numbers of Democrats and independents. He's already demonstrated he does much better in open primaries where non-Republicans can vote for him than he does in Republican-only primaries.
I'm curious about this ruling that it is ok to discriminate against atheists. What case was that?
Obamacare was about the compulsion to buy something. The marijuana case was about the restriction from using something. Yes they are also about expansion of the commerce clause but in one case the clause had already been expanded while in the other it had not (even the tie-breaking vote didn't decide based on commerce but instead on the power to tax). You are right that there are other issues involved.
I wish I had time to go over all these issues in detail with you. You seem to have more knowledge of the details of these so perhaps you are right. In that case I still want a Justice who will make decisions the way I thought Scalia did. My ideal court would have 4 originalists who generally defer to precedent, 4 orginalists who prefer to fix precedents, and one swing voter who's good at balancing the two and maybe even has some compassion. I used to describe it as 4 Scalias, 4 Thomases and someone else.
Don't forget Miguel Estrada who was blocked because liberals were afraid if he were elevated his next step could be the Supreme Court and then Republicans would have put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.
Liberals blocked a highly qualified judicial candidate because he was Hispanic.
I like the fact that he would finally add some diversity to the court. All the current justices and Scalia were either from California or from northeast of Pennsylvania. Garland is from Illinois. I'm sick of all the crap I hear on the news about "racial diversity". I don't care what race the person is. I do care about their background and it is nice to have some representation from the rest of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
You think? He is essentially opening the possibility of there being a creator who designed the universe to appear naturally occurring.
Again, this is one of his more reasonable philosophical statements.
You're vastly underestimating the amount of processing power available to the creatures who are simulating our universe. Why did they simulat a universe that gives us so little processing power and so little ability to move around due to the distance between clumps of matter? I don't know.
The difference is that the argument in the comic book has more information than simply the fact that it is an argument. If I were put together a random argument, place it in a black box, and hand it to you then you would be correct to assume based on statistics that the argument is most likely wrong. But once I tell you what the argument is then you can evaluate the merits of the arguments and the statistics are no longer useful. Since we don't know of anyway to distinguish whether our universe is a simulation simply by looking at it, the best we have is statistics and the statistics tell us we're probably a simulation.
But as I said before, if you keep your smoke in your own house or place of business then you should have the freedom to smoke all you want. Or burn rubber tires, or fart, or whatever.
I didn't say we should ban cigarette smoke. I said when we decide what to do with a shared resource like the air around us, we need to give more weight to majority preferences. If asbestos smelled like grilled steak I think most people would still prefer to not allow burning it due to health concerns.
"It's okay to curtail someone ELSE's freedom/rights/privileges as long as the majority agrees -and my freedoms are not hindered."
The old saying is that my freedom to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. In the case of the air around us, when I'm outside every bit of smoke, every fart, every spoiled piece of food, every burp, every failure to use deodorant, every use of deodorant, every use of perfume or cologne, ends up in your nose. Would you ban all of that simply because there is at least one person who objects to each of them? Would you put no limitations on the use of the air - people can burn rubber tires, release asbestos into the air from factories, drive cars that don't have inspections for pollution, and piss and poop anywhere they want?
Somewhere between those two extremes is a balance that tries to please more people than it displeases, that makes people generally happier than unhappy. This isn't an issue where a simple rule or simple philosophy can make every decision.
My guy reaction was that he was joking. But thinking about it, it makes sense. We live in a universe where it is possible, at least in theory, to simulate a smaller universe. Given the vastness of time and space, if you assume that life has a high enough probability of arising that there are a lot of aliens out there, there are going to be a lot of simulations that are sophisticated enough to contain AIs that don't know they are simulations.
If only 10 alien races create 10 simulations each, that's 101 environments that can contain intelligence (100 simulations plus the one non-simulated universe). The odds then less than 1% that we're in the original non-simulated universe.
It still doesn't sit right with me - my skeptical gut tells me it is silly - but where is the flaw in the logic?
Scientists are allowed to dabble in philosophy.
And in the realm of philosophy this is actually one of the more reasonable things he has said.
If you were barbecuing steak, go for it. Nearly everyone loves that smell. ....
Most people agree that BBQ smells good and that tobacco smoke stinks and/or hurts people's health.
But feel free to light up your disgusting BBQ and stinking up the neighborhood.
I am a vegetarian. FTFY. See how this works?
FACT: BBQ Smoke, especially aerosolized burnt fat IS a carcinogen.
Let me say it again. "The air outside is a publicly held common. You can't choose regulations strictly on the principle of freedom because it is naturally a resource where one person's usage impacts every other person's usage. Instead you have to balance the needs and wants of various people." It is true that you can't please everyone because different people have different desires. When we have to balance competing desires because we can't just let everyone choose for themselves, then the preferences of the majority are of course more heavily weighted than the preferences of the minority.
Bans on people smoking inside their own homes and places of business are a clear attack on basic freedom.
Agree 100%
Yes, the workers have a choice.
I have a choice between quitting my job or continuing to suffer the health consequences of sitting at a desk all day. We all have choices.
Ask a random selection of women whether they would mind starring in a porno. What do you think the responses would be?
Instead of pornos make it soft porn like love scenes in rated R movies, The number of women who would be ok with it would still be very small.
Now ask a random selection of women whether they would be ok with them starring in a movie where all the characters are killed. What do you think?
Now let's try the men (after all many young women want to get married eventually and might care what their future husbands will think).
Ask a random selection of men who want their wives or girlfriends to remain faithful whether they would mind their wives starring in a porno. What do you think the response rates would be?
Instead of pornos make it soft porn like love scenes in rated R movies, The number of men who would be ok with it would still be very small.
Now ask a random selection of men who want their wives or girlfriends to remain alive whether they would be ok with them starring in movie where all the characters are killed. What do you think?
One of the best reasons for banning porn is the effect it has on the actresses who make it. We have minimum wage laws, OSHA, child labor laws, etc. to protect workers, especially young workers, from making poor choices. The porn industry tries to hire the youngest women they can get their hands on and it rarely ends up being a good move for the women.
It makes sense that rape would decrease where porn is prevalent. One of the problems with porn is that it lowers the ability to get turned on in real life. So not only can't you get it up for your girlfriend or wife, you can't get it up for your rape victim. Places with a lot of porn also tend to have very low fertility rates.
If you were barbecuing steak, go for it. Nearly everyone loves that smell. But if you were barbecuing old tires then we have a problem. The air outside is a publicly held common. You can't choose regulations strictly on the principle of freedom because it is naturally a resource where one person's usage impacts every other person's usuage. Instead you have to balance the needs and wants of various people.
Most people agree that BBQ smells good and that tobacco smoke stinks and/or hurts people's health.
But feel free to light up your disgusting cigarettes inside so long as you have some sort of filter to prevent too much from leaking out and stinking up the neighborhood. Bans on people smoking inside their own homes and places of business are a clear attack on basic freedom.
If you think outdoor smoking ban is ridiculous then you don't realize how much air one cigarette can contaminate.
Personally I'd like to see a total ban on all smoking tobacco.
I would rather see a ban on outdoor smoking and make indoor smoking subject to the owner's discretion (provided perhaps that there are air filters. I can't avoid going outside but I don't have to go into any particular person's home, office, retail store or restaurant. Why should my aversion to smoking prevent them from doing what they want on their own property? So long as their behavior isn't attacking me, and it isn't if I don't have to smell the smoke (and I can always choose differents, restaurants, offices and stores to visit), keeping them from their happiness is an infringement on their freedom.
But when they smoke outside they are damaging a publicly shared good - the air.
With all the porn around of course it is becoming more difficult to find decent partners. Too much sugar is also a way to relieve frustration.
Maybe it's not quite as bad as Russia Today, but American Journalism is pretty bad. For example, if you're not living in America consider what you and most of your friends think of American conservatives based on what they hear from American media. And I understand. If I didn't pay careful attention to the news and get multiple sources because I'm an American, and if didn't live among many American conservatives, I too would think American conservatives are a bunch of hateful racist redneck dogmatic intolerant violence loving hillbillies based on what I see and hear on CNN, NPR, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Conservatives are as likely to be nice people as liberals. They donate more to charities than liberals. Believe it or not they love their children and care about their communities. And just like liberals some are very stupid and some are very intelligent. But you wouldn't know it from watching American journalism.
No, they'll get a VIP backstage access card.
[citation needed]
It's sad that as much as I can't stand Trump I'm finding I dislike many of his opponents even more.
However when it comes to the rules - an organization has a right to protect itself from outsiders who would come in and take over in order to use the organization for a completely different purpose. That's why the Republican party has rules that provide some protection for the establishment even while allowing for nominees to be elected. Many people have for years donated to, supported, and built the Republican party to promote freedom, prosperity, tolerance, racial equality, the right to life, and national defense. Now Trump steps in and wants to use the party's organization to promote mostly the opposite. Shouldn't there be some protection for the party? If he wants a party that does something different shouldn't he start his own?
The rules were written well in advance. When he got into the race he should have known the rules. Of course he was right to expect hostility from the party when his positions are so contrary to the party. He should have run as a Democrat which would have been a better fit.
To be fair, the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have used some protection from some people in the desert on the other side of the planet.
He is the first to state that "the federal government can't own land beyond military bases and Washington, D.C. (sorry, but it's not true, federal land ownership went up for Supreme Court review three times, the first in the 1800's and has been upheld as Constitutional each time).
I'm not saying i agree with your friend, but your argument that "The Supreme Court says it therefor it is true" is a clear indication that you're not an independent thinker. Your friend has likely read the American Constitution and sees it as giving the federal government only those powers that are enumerated therein and doesn't see anything that allows the federal government to purchase land outside of D.C. and military bases. If the Supreme Court disagrees maybe the Supreme Court is wrong, and maybe it's because of the corrupting power of absolute power.
The difference is the mainstream press doesn't make a big deal about Hillary's corporate donors because they want her to win. if Anonymous exposes Trump as taking a lot of money from corporations it will be on the front page and at the start of every news program for months with every political talk show asking guests about it until they puke.
His supporters don't support him because he's a high-and-mighty politician of impeccable ideology. They support him because that's precisely what he isn't
and the scary thing is that there is no reason Democrats won't find that same personality appealing. Trump isn't conservative so once he gets into the general election he's likely to win by pulling in large numbers of Democrats and independents. He's already demonstrated he does much better in open primaries where non-Republicans can vote for him than he does in Republican-only primaries.
Plenty of people like to call Ted Cruz names, but I never hear any substance to back up their name-calling. Ted Cruz is a good guy.
I'm curious about this ruling that it is ok to discriminate against atheists. What case was that?
Obamacare was about the compulsion to buy something. The marijuana case was about the restriction from using something. Yes they are also about expansion of the commerce clause but in one case the clause had already been expanded while in the other it had not (even the tie-breaking vote didn't decide based on commerce but instead on the power to tax). You are right that there are other issues involved.
I wish I had time to go over all these issues in detail with you. You seem to have more knowledge of the details of these so perhaps you are right. In that case I still want a Justice who will make decisions the way I thought Scalia did. My ideal court would have 4 originalists who generally defer to precedent, 4 orginalists who prefer to fix precedents, and one swing voter who's good at balancing the two and maybe even has some compassion. I used to describe it as 4 Scalias, 4 Thomases and someone else.
Don't forget Miguel Estrada who was blocked because liberals were afraid if he were elevated his next step could be the Supreme Court and then Republicans would have put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.
Liberals blocked a highly qualified judicial candidate because he was Hispanic.
I like the fact that he would finally add some diversity to the court. All the current justices and Scalia were either from California or from northeast of Pennsylvania. Garland is from Illinois. I'm sick of all the crap I hear on the news about "racial diversity". I don't care what race the person is. I do care about their background and it is nice to have some representation from the rest of the country.