These pseudo-"explanations" are a staple of religious (and some other) propaganda. It works by making you accept and "understand" the steps and then piling complexity on top of that, so many people do not notice that the steps are founded on nothing. Hence they have a complex explanation that they cannot debunk and that looks reasonable in all parts they can see, but that actually is a complete fabrication. Many then think they have seen enough and the fabrication must obviously be valid. It plays on human mental limitations and vanity that makes them overestimate their own level of understanding. And it works very well on many people so it gets used time and again.
Fail. If you believe in fantasies not based on observable facts, then you are equally stupid, whether it is some beaderd-man-in-the-sky nonsense or this techno-mysticism stupidity. That one group is mostly stupid does not imply the absence of stupid people in other groups.
Seems so. Of course, there is a fraction of the population that is immune. They tend to not go for other bullshit either. But the independent thinkers are not many, maybe 5-10% overall with another 5-10% than can learn. The rest will just follow the hype-du-jour, be it some religion or some religion-surrogate like consumerism or this techno-mysticism.
I fully agree. Also there is the problem that to date, we have seen exponential growth in other areas and it always runs into some limitation after a while. That is just how things are set-up int this universe, at some point you run into the limits and the potential of something has been realized. *poof* No more exponential growth and often no more growth at all. Missing that little fact makes Elon Musk pretty dumb.
Indeed. Talk about big ego and no clue about his own limitations. I call such people "morons" because they fundamentally misunderstand reality but do not notice that. Sure, they might be good at basically not very valuable things like accumulating a lot of money (and missing out on life in the process, more often than not), but an insular talent does not enable you to understand hard questions in other areas.
You cannot even prove to me in any meaningful way that you exist.
That is well-known and not a surprise at all. The underlying world-model is called "Solipsism" and it is one of the models known to be valid, i.e. consistent with observable facts. It is not a very useful model though besides use in sophistry. There is a nice variant, namely "Multiperson Solipsism", where basically everybody creates their share of the universe, but some communication is possible. Of course, that one makes even less sense;-)
Very much so. This is techno-mysticism and it is just as stupid as straight-up religion, but it is more hip and less about power and control, i.e. worse organized than religion. When you look at it closely, the claims made here are not one bit smarter then the mechanistic explanations for life in the Victorian age and about as baseless.
Indeed. And actually, Kirk should have never gotten that captain's rank, because he proved to be unable to face reality. In entertainment things are done differently, of course, and the hero always triumphs, even if it is a rather negative victory.
You can determine how smart and able to recognize facts somebody actually is that way. The "Jesus!"-freaks are not really doing well in that area in the first place.
One of the many ways this idea of "breaking out" fails miserably. Also, if the people running the simulation have experience doing this, they will have countermeasures in place. One may just be that "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable." That would actually be a pretty nice countermeasure, if it can be implemented. That it appears to be a property of this universe (no GUT so far, and it seems to be getting further away, not closer) can be taken as a hint, but this can also be something completely different.
Indeed. The question a sane person asks. Philosophy is mostly a mental exercise and for entertainment. There are not enough hard facts available to make it much more. Living your life in some way oriented on actual observable facts is the sane thing to do.
And one of that observable facts is that everybody gets old and dies. My guess is that these people are so afraid of that, that they are grasping at straws now, and that for some reason, the pseudo-answers Religion provides do not appeal to them, hence this techno-mysticism bullshit.
You cannot assign observable likelihoods to anything here. You can only determine whether a model matches the observable facts or not. So far, a model with, say, a total of 10 billion sentient entities that all are eternal beings and most are currently stuck here and the rest is in some "holding buffer" is perfectly valid.
The only thing you can assign is personal preferences. But labeling them with "probabilities" is unscientific to the extreme.
Indeed. There is also another important fact: Assume we are in a simulation. Then either a part of our existence is outside of that simulation and not created by it or not. In the first case, we will get that "break out" at death (presumably) anyways. In the second case, breaking out is impossible in a very hard sense.
Or in other words, these people have not understood the relevant questions at all, but they think they themselves are so incredibly important and great, that they can challenge observable reality itself. "Specialsnowflakeitis" is one word for it, but "megalomania" seems more appropriate.
Indeed. And that is exactly the thing: If (for lack of a better word) all you have is an API, all you have is what that API gives you. The idea that you can somehow "break out" is a literary device to keep the story interesting and leave the reader/viewer with a positive feeling in the end, but it has no basis in actual reality. These idiots have managed to fail utterly at recognizing what is actually observable and what is fairy-tales. Of course, fairy-tales have a place in the word as entertainment and for raising ideas and questions, but mistaking them as describing reality is the sign of an immature mind.
It is pseudo-mystical bullshit. The simulation-theory is a valid world model, but it is one of a number of equally valid ones and there is absolutely no valid way to assign probabilities.
Actually, no. This is observable reality, but there is no reason to believe the observation is complete or that the thing observed is what it appears to be. The simulation theory is a valid world model. Where these people fail utterly, though, is that there is no way to assign probabilities to the different valid world models. (There is a bunch that is known, maybe 10-20 or so and there will be unknown ones. No, the religious ones are not among them, these have been clearly identified as artifacts of psychological processes and means to exert power.) As soon as you start giving probabilities for such models not based on ration facts but fantasies, you are straight into bullshit Mysticism and Religion. The argument Elon Musk gave for his probability estimation is about as baseless and fabricated as the numerous "proofs" for the existence of "God" that have been constructed. Which, incidentally, makes Elon Musk an idiot.
First, there is no way to quantify the probability that we are in a simulation. Sure, it is a valid scenario, bit the "estimates' given are about as valid as the "proofs" used to "show" that God exists: They are utterly disconnected from observable facts. All base-date for the "estimates" is made up and/or presented as "obvious".
And second, if we live indeed in a simulation, why do they think there even is a possibility to "break out"? There is no factual basis for that assumption either. Sounds like some people have mistaken "The Matrix" or a documentary.
Oh, yes. And the young ones never understand that you really can spot it right away and keep arguing. The better ones come some time later and apologize because they have seen it as well, but it is still a pain how young people keep insisting on being stupid.
There was also a plane-ticket involved and the risk of a few years of prison-time. And seriously, the $5000 or so this will cost is peanuts compared to the damage done to Samsung. Have different people buy it, pay for it with cash, steal it, and who says a phone that gets destroyed need to be activated? Any smartphone I ever had got charged just fine before activation and that is all you need.
Not saying that if this was intentional sabotage, this person will not get caught, but unless it was done extremely incompetently, it will need more than a few database-queries to prove anything.
Hahahaha, no. They are assuming that only some (one) cell burns and then they can prevent the others from catching fire. And they induce by external heat, not by in-cell problems.
Well, if this guy set his phone off by intent, and they can prove that, he may go to prison for a few years. This whole thing is suspicious. Kind of like the Chinese person that claimed the phone also destroyed his MacBook.
No idea. Not that it is difficult to drill a small hole in the case over the battery and then jab a needle into it to set it off. With a few trial-runs you may even be able to make sure the evidence burns up completely.
The smoke is potentially pretty toxic, the device gets extremely hot (cannot be handled without high-temp gloves) and you cannot put out a lithium fire. You have to let it burn, maybe put sand on it. Hence removing it without making the problem worse is tricky. On the other hand, you can get the passengers out fast (airplanes are designed for that) and that will put everyone in a safe situation reliably. Hence the decision to evacuate is the only right choice here.
Slashdot Mirror
These pseudo-"explanations" are a staple of religious (and some other) propaganda. It works by making you accept and "understand" the steps and then piling complexity on top of that, so many people do not notice that the steps are founded on nothing. Hence they have a complex explanation that they cannot debunk and that looks reasonable in all parts they can see, but that actually is a complete fabrication. Many then think they have seen enough and the fabrication must obviously be valid. It plays on human mental limitations and vanity that makes them overestimate their own level of understanding. And it works very well on many people so it gets used time and again.
Fail. If you believe in fantasies not based on observable facts, then you are equally stupid, whether it is some beaderd-man-in-the-sky nonsense or this techno-mysticism stupidity. That one group is mostly stupid does not imply the absence of stupid people in other groups.
Seems so. Of course, there is a fraction of the population that is immune. They tend to not go for other bullshit either. But the independent thinkers are not many, maybe 5-10% overall with another 5-10% than can learn. The rest will just follow the hype-du-jour, be it some religion or some religion-surrogate like consumerism or this techno-mysticism.
I fully agree. Also there is the problem that to date, we have seen exponential growth in other areas and it always runs into some limitation after a while. That is just how things are set-up int this universe, at some point you run into the limits and the potential of something has been realized. *poof* No more exponential growth and often no more growth at all. Missing that little fact makes Elon Musk pretty dumb.
Indeed. Talk about big ego and no clue about his own limitations. I call such people "morons" because they fundamentally misunderstand reality but do not notice that. Sure, they might be good at basically not very valuable things like accumulating a lot of money (and missing out on life in the process, more often than not), but an insular talent does not enable you to understand hard questions in other areas.
You cannot even prove to me in any meaningful way that you exist.
That is well-known and not a surprise at all. The underlying world-model is called "Solipsism" and it is one of the models known to be valid, i.e. consistent with observable facts. It is not a very useful model though besides use in sophistry. There is a nice variant, namely "Multiperson Solipsism", where basically everybody creates their share of the universe, but some communication is possible. Of course, that one makes even less sense ;-)
Very much so. This is techno-mysticism and it is just as stupid as straight-up religion, but it is more hip and less about power and control, i.e. worse organized than religion. When you look at it closely, the claims made here are not one bit smarter then the mechanistic explanations for life in the Victorian age and about as baseless.
Indeed. And actually, Kirk should have never gotten that captain's rank, because he proved to be unable to face reality. In entertainment things are done differently, of course, and the hero always triumphs, even if it is a rather negative victory.
You can determine how smart and able to recognize facts somebody actually is that way. The "Jesus!"-freaks are not really doing well in that area in the first place.
So basically they have discovered some of their limitations and are unable to come to term with them? Sounds entirely plausible.
One of the many ways this idea of "breaking out" fails miserably. Also, if the people running the simulation have experience doing this, they will have countermeasures in place. One may just be that "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable." That would actually be a pretty nice countermeasure, if it can be implemented. That it appears to be a property of this universe (no GUT so far, and it seems to be getting further away, not closer) can be taken as a hint, but this can also be something completely different.
Indeed. The question a sane person asks. Philosophy is mostly a mental exercise and for entertainment. There are not enough hard facts available to make it much more. Living your life in some way oriented on actual observable facts is the sane thing to do.
And one of that observable facts is that everybody gets old and dies. My guess is that these people are so afraid of that, that they are grasping at straws now, and that for some reason, the pseudo-answers Religion provides do not appeal to them, hence this techno-mysticism bullshit.
You cannot assign observable likelihoods to anything here. You can only determine whether a model matches the observable facts or not. So far, a model with, say, a total of 10 billion sentient entities that all are eternal beings and most are currently stuck here and the rest is in some "holding buffer" is perfectly valid.
The only thing you can assign is personal preferences. But labeling them with "probabilities" is unscientific to the extreme.
Indeed. There is also another important fact: Assume we are in a simulation. Then either a part of our existence is outside of that simulation and not created by it or not. In the first case, we will get that "break out" at death (presumably) anyways. In the second case, breaking out is impossible in a very hard sense.
Or in other words, these people have not understood the relevant questions at all, but they think they themselves are so incredibly important and great, that they can challenge observable reality itself. "Specialsnowflakeitis" is one word for it, but "megalomania" seems more appropriate.
Indeed. And that is exactly the thing: If (for lack of a better word) all you have is an API, all you have is what that API gives you. The idea that you can somehow "break out" is a literary device to keep the story interesting and leave the reader/viewer with a positive feeling in the end, but it has no basis in actual reality. These idiots have managed to fail utterly at recognizing what is actually observable and what is fairy-tales. Of course, fairy-tales have a place in the word as entertainment and for raising ideas and questions, but mistaking them as describing reality is the sign of an immature mind.
It is pseudo-mystical bullshit. The simulation-theory is a valid world model, but it is one of a number of equally valid ones and there is absolutely no valid way to assign probabilities.
Actually, no. This is observable reality, but there is no reason to believe the observation is complete or that the thing observed is what it appears to be. The simulation theory is a valid world model. Where these people fail utterly, though, is that there is no way to assign probabilities to the different valid world models. (There is a bunch that is known, maybe 10-20 or so and there will be unknown ones. No, the religious ones are not among them, these have been clearly identified as artifacts of psychological processes and means to exert power.) As soon as you start giving probabilities for such models not based on ration facts but fantasies, you are straight into bullshit Mysticism and Religion. The argument Elon Musk gave for his probability estimation is about as baseless and fabricated as the numerous "proofs" for the existence of "God" that have been constructed. Which, incidentally, makes Elon Musk an idiot.
And stupid these people are.
First, there is no way to quantify the probability that we are in a simulation. Sure, it is a valid scenario, bit the "estimates' given are about as valid as the "proofs" used to "show" that God exists: They are utterly disconnected from observable facts. All base-date for the "estimates" is made up and/or presented as "obvious".
And second, if we live indeed in a simulation, why do they think there even is a possibility to "break out"? There is no factual basis for that assumption either. Sounds like some people have mistaken "The Matrix" or a documentary.
Oh, yes. And the young ones never understand that you really can spot it right away and keep arguing. The better ones come some time later and apologize because they have seen it as well, but it is still a pain how young people keep insisting on being stupid.
But then, most programmers (in fact all of them except for one) have not built the Linux kernel from scratch and are not not maintaining it.
And what is this whimpyness about a bit of clear language? PC does not get engineering done. Pretending mistakes are not serious kills engineering.
There was also a plane-ticket involved and the risk of a few years of prison-time. And seriously, the $5000 or so this will cost is peanuts compared to the damage done to Samsung. Have different people buy it, pay for it with cash, steal it, and who says a phone that gets destroyed need to be activated? Any smartphone I ever had got charged just fine before activation and that is all you need.
Not saying that if this was intentional sabotage, this person will not get caught, but unless it was done extremely incompetently, it will need more than a few database-queries to prove anything.
Hahahaha, no. They are assuming that only some (one) cell burns and then they can prevent the others from catching fire. And they induce by external heat, not by in-cell problems.
Well, if this guy set his phone off by intent, and they can prove that, he may go to prison for a few years. This whole thing is suspicious. Kind of like the Chinese person that claimed the phone also destroyed his MacBook.
No idea. Not that it is difficult to drill a small hole in the case over the battery and then jab a needle into it to set it off. With a few trial-runs you may even be able to make sure the evidence burns up completely.
The smoke is potentially pretty toxic, the device gets extremely hot (cannot be handled without high-temp gloves) and you cannot put out a lithium fire. You have to let it burn, maybe put sand on it. Hence removing it without making the problem worse is tricky. On the other hand, you can get the passengers out fast (airplanes are designed for that) and that will put everyone in a safe situation reliably. Hence the decision to evacuate is the only right choice here.