Is Reality a Simulation?

[Deej 76811]

What would really be the difference between an all-knowing creator (god) and all all-knowing creator (guy running a simulation on his super computer)?

They seem pretty similar. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

it just all seems so arbitrary to me.  Posited: the future can have infinite computing powers.  Conclusion: within infinite possibilities is the ability to simulate reality a near infinite number of times.

 

how did we latch on to that *one* idea within infinity?  why not "in the future, there are infinite medical abilities.  within that infinite is the ability to live forever.

 

the reason why we are latching onto the simulation theory?  because it allows us to think about *us.*  that's the only version of the exciting future that involves us.

[Deej 76811]

I once read a quote from somebody regarding this being a simulation. Something along the lines of "be as interesting as possible so whoever is running the simulation brings you back for the next version."

[YGIFS 19450]

10 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

it just all seems so arbitrary to me.  Posited: the future can have infinite computing powers.  Conclusion: within infinite possibilities is the ability to simulate reality a near infinite number of times.

 

how did we latch on to that *one* idea within infinity?  why not "in the future, there are infinite medical abilities.  within that infinite is the ability to live forever.

 

the reason why we are latching onto the simulation theory?  because it allows us to think about *us.*  that's the only version of the exciting future that involves us.

Fair point.  I never thought about it through the lens of, "If this is possible, we can do it one day too."  Babysitting 7 billion toddlers.  If that's possible, then there's gonna be great drugs and AI blowjob dolls.  I'd rather do that.  

No, the main reason it's slightly possible that the simulation is the case, to me anyway, is because we are at a point in technology where we can kinda sorta can see how such a thing might be possible.  Not that we'd understand their technology, but we can at least see from games, smart machines, AI, chatGPT, supercomputing simulations, etc.  We know such a thing is just as theoretically possible as the man in the chariot driving the sun across the sky.  One pushback besides laughter is "this is just a new cult thinking, our main religions have been around for thousands of years."  But up until 50 years ago, nobody thought anything remotely close to a simulation like this could be possible.  Organized religion in modern civilization had a 5000 year head start.  Never mind the tribal/band mythologies and rituals for the 95,000 years before that when we appear and attempt to explain our existence.   

FWIW, I don't really believe we are in one.  But I like that we're asking the questions, because one thing we really failed to as a species for millennia was hear about who created us, wonder what we're supposed to do while we're here, and what happens to us when we die.  And they asked us if we agreed with their explanation.  And if we asked any questions, they'd kill us.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ultimaton said:

I'm mocking other's beliefs because they are completely ridiculous when compared to my own sincerely held belief that an omnipotent god got mad and threw us out of paradise because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat an apple that one time.

 

32 minutes ago, Deej said:

What would really be the difference between an all-knowing creator (god) and all all-knowing creator (guy running a simulation on his super computer)?

They seem pretty similar. 

One is religion because it is based on unfalsifiable claims and the other is science because it is based on unfalsifiable claims + statistics and has computers. 

[Brisketexan 105152]

One is religion because it is based on unfalsifiable claims and the other is science because it is based on unfalsifiable claims + statistics and has computers. 

[Surly Bevo 24971]

1 hour ago, Deej said:

What would really be the difference between an all-knowing creator (god) and all all-knowing creator (guy running a simulation on his super computer)?

They seem pretty similar. 

It isn't.  It all comes down to humans having a really hard time accepting the randomness of it all and humans also generally not always wanting to own their shit so we create religions, scenarios, theories, etc to cope and to absolve ourselves of some of the responsibility ("it was god's plan, it's the simulation, blah blah blah").  

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

It isn't.  It all comes down to humans having a really hard time accepting the randomness of it all and humans also generally not always wanting to own their shit so we create religions, scenarios, theories, etc to cope and to absolve ourselves of some of the responsibility ("it was god's plan, it's the simulation, blah blah blah").  

Humans who have a hard time accepting purpose cope by creating nihilistic theories to absolve themselves from responsibility (“there is only atoms and the void, the universe simply is, the universe popped up randomly out of the quantum vacuum,” etc). 

[Surly Bevo 24971]

Humans who have a hard time accepting purpose cope by creating nihilistic theories to absolve themselves from responsibility (“there is only atoms and the void, the universe simply is, the universe popped up randomly out of the quantum vacuum,” etc). 

I have to assume then that you have never heard somebody say something like “lord take the wheel” putting their complete lack of hope, direction, purpose orwhatever in the hands of who they believe is running the show.

Though I suppose “Simulation Master A2K9 take the wheel” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

[Pato del Muerto 52507]

Lord, I seen what you programmed for others and I want that for myself 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

I have to assume then that you have never heard somebody say something like “lord take the wheel” putting their complete lack of hope, direction, purpose orwhatever in the hands of who they believe is running the show.

Though I suppose “Simulation Master A2K9 take the wheel” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

I have not personally witnessed people break out into Carrie Underwood songs when going through a rough time, but I'm sure it does happen.  The simulation master would need a shorter name to have a chance in pop country lyrics.     

Nonbelievers will sometimes talk about humans as if they have some privileged perspective outside of humanity, like they are a narrator in nature documentary.  "Between periods of foraging for food, people look for meaning in their world and perform certain rituals in an attempt to control their natural habitat, because that is that nature of these curious animals."  Whatever nonbelievers think, do, and believe is also what humans think, do, and believe.  You do not escape the bounds of humanity by talking about human in a certain way. 

[YGIFS 19450]

I just grew out a perm and launched a website/house of understanding called “the Simulation Gospel”.  By sending me just $100, I will share with you all the good things the simulation wants for you.  It’s all here in my $30 book, “Do not Taunt Happy Fun Simulation”. 

[TexArcher 37869]

9 hours ago, YGIFS said:

I just grew out a perm and launched a website/house of understanding called “the Simulation Gospel”.  By sending me just $100, I will share with you all the good things the simulation wants for you.  It’s all here in my $30 book, “Do not Taunt Happy Fun Simulation”. 

Throw in a bowl of Colon Blow, and I'm in.

[Guest]

On 6/26/2023 at 9:34 AM, Biff Tannen said:

I would say that social media/internet PLUS covid, election results, and a million other ridiculous instances of asshattery has shown that humans, by and large, are fucking idiots.  We should never have been connected this way.  Before social media and the internet, these dumb fucks would walk around in their bubbles and not hurt the world at large.  Now it is a whole new ballgame.

I would argue the "simulation folks" are just disgusted at what we've seen and, again, it's more comforting to think that we are in a simulation and someone is just fucking with us.  

I don't understand how one can read history and live in the world and suddenly become shocked one day about how stupid and evil people can be because of what they see on social media.  Stupid and evil people have been doing terrible things since the dawn of mankind.  It has always been a pretty big problem.  Also, what type of sheltered world does one have to come from to be surprised by this element of human nature?  In part I am envious because I wish I came from an environment were I would be genuinely shocked by the existence of stupid, angry, and violent people.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

I don't understand how one can read history and live in the world and suddenly become shocked one day about how stupid and evil people can be because of what they see on social media.  Stupid and evil people have been doing terrible things since the dawn of mankind.  It has always been a pretty big problem.  Also, what type of sheltered world does one have to come from to be surprised by this element of human nature?  In part I am envious because I wish I came from an environment were I would be genuinely shocked by the existence of stupid, angry, and violent people.

 

 

You're blowing past the point.  Yes, humans do stupid shit and always have.  We have made it so it is easier to do en masse and, frankly, more dangerous.  

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You're blowing past the point.  Yes, humans do stupid shit and always have.  We have made it so it is easier to do en masse and, frankly, more dangerous.  

These arguments are based on anecdote and emotion, not evidence.  Do you think we are more likely to be harmed by war or violence today than we were in previous eras?  

Look at the crazy spike of violence caused by social media:

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

These arguments are based on anecdote and emotion, not evidence.  Do you think we are more likely to be harmed by war or violence today than we were in previous eras?  

Look at the crazy spike of violence caused by social media:

 

 

I don't want to go down a rabbit hole of mass shootings and stochastic terrorism caused in part, or in whole, by online radicalization, but you know it's a thing.  Anyway, simulation.

[HonkeyVape 107]

12 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

I have not personally witnessed people break out into Carrie Underwood songs when going through a rough time  

You obviously don't know me, because this is my go to banger that tears me up everytime: 

 

[HonkeyVape 107]

38 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

I don't understand how one can read history and live in the world and suddenly become shocked one day about how stupid and evil people can be because of what they see on social media.  Stupid and evil people have been doing terrible things since the dawn of mankind.  It has always been a pretty big problem.  Also, what type of sheltered world does one have to come from to be surprised by this element of human nature?  In part I am envious because I wish I came from an environment were I would be genuinely shocked by the existence of stupid, angry, and violent people.

 

 

Since Genesis 3, the world has been "going to hell in a handbasket". Every generation gets to be tragically unique and think it's worse in their day and age, because of...reasons.

There is nothing new under the sun; it's all derivative. This is actually an argument for a possible simulation if you want to infer a closed loop system, by the way.

But why can't it be both? A double helix of an infinite God creating a simulation East of Eden for his creation?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Anyway, simulation.

Fair enough.

Here are the reasons I don't think the simulation hypothesis is compelling, some of which have already been stated by others:

1. As mentioned, it is not falsifiable:  "...the simulation theory is not a scientific theory. By this I mean that it cannot be falsified by experiment."  
2. It is useless metaphysically as it doesn't even propose answers to any of the primary metaphysical questions; it just pushes them back one level:  why is there something rather than nothing, what is ultimate reality (i.e. what is behind all appearances), what is mind and what creates consciousnesses/qualia, is there any purpose to existence, etc.  The simulation hypothesis gives no answer to these things for the world behind our world.
3. It takes as a given things that we do not know are possible.  Can consciousness even be simulated by a computer?  We really have no idea. We currently don't know how or why consciousness is produced. 
4. Just because some physicist known in pop culture likes an idea does not mean it is embraced by most physicists.  "Among physicists, the simulation hypothesis is not popular and that’s for a good reason... A stricter way to speak of the computational universe is to make more precise what is meant by ‘computing.’ You could say, for example, that the universe is made of bits and an algorithm encodes an ordered time-series which is executed on these bits.  If you try to build the universe from classical bits, you won’t get quantum effects, so forget about this – it doesn’t work. This might be somebody’s universe, maybe, but not ours."  Sabine Hossenfelder

[Dahobbs 17572]

28 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Fair enough.

Here are the reasons I don't think the simulation hypothesis is compelling, some of which have already been stated by others:

1. As mentioned, it is not falsifiable:  "...the simulation theory is not a scientific theory. By this I mean that it cannot be falsified by experiment."  
2. It is useless metaphysically as it doesn't even propose answers to any of the primary metaphysical questions; it just pushes them back one level:  why is there something rather than nothing, what is ultimate reality (i.e. what is behind all appearances), what is mind and what creates consciousnesses/qualia, is there any purpose to existence, etc.  The simulation hypothesis gives no answer to these things for the world behind our world.
3. It takes as a given things that we do not know are possible.  Can consciousness even be simulated by a computer?  We really have no idea. We currently don't know how or why consciousness is produced. 
4. Just because some physicist known in pop culture likes an idea does not mean it is embraced by most physicists.  "Among physicists, the simulation hypothesis is not popular and that’s for a good reason... A stricter way to speak of the computational universe is to make more precise what is meant by ‘computing.’ You could say, for example, that the universe is made of bits and an algorithm encodes an ordered time-series which is executed on these bits.  If you try to build the universe from classical bits, you won’t get quantum effects, so forget about this – it doesn’t work. This might be somebody’s universe, maybe, but not ours."  Sabine Hossenfelder

These aren't really arguments as to why the simulation hypothesis must be false, but rather reasons why you don't think it is important. Didn't you have an argument, even if quasi circular, as to why a computer could not by conscious? That would be a better argument for your position here.  

Edited June 27, 2023 by Dahobbs

['stache 21817]

I've never seen an internet meme taken so seriously, lol. There are surely some people who literally believe it, and a larger group who simply think it's possible (especially after a strong edible), but most people just use it as a silly reference when describing the absurdity of our current state of affairs. Nevertheless, and since we all know the purpose of why this thread was started, the existence of the "simulation theory" has had no real negative effects on society at large as opposed to organized religion. 

Edited June 27, 2023 by 'stache

[ryskey 447]

3 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

These arguments are based on anecdote and emotion, not evidence.  Do you think we are more likely to be harmed by war or violence today than we were in previous eras?  

Look at the crazy spike of violence caused by social media:

 

 

It's because we all started arguing on the internet instead

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

These aren't really arguments as to why the simulation hypothesis must be false, but rather reasons why you don't think it is important. Didn't you have an argument, even if quasi circular, as to why a computer could not by conscious? That would be a better argument for your position here.  

Agreed, points 1-3 are not arguments for why it is false; in fact, the first points states that it is not even falsifiable - at at least not by the empirical method.  As stated, they are reasons why I don't find it compelling.  Point 4 does give a reason why a version of the simulation hypothesis doesn't work (algorithms and bits can't produce a universe like ours with quantum effects).  There are other arguments for why simulating our world would be virtually impossible, if one would like to explore the topic.  

 

39 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I've never seen an internet meme taken so seriously, lol. There are surely some people who literally believe it, and a larger group who simply think it's possible (especially after a 50 mg edible), but most people just use it as a silly reference when describing the absurdity of our current state of affairs. Nevertheless, and since we all know the purpose of why this thread was started, the existence of the "simulation theory" has had no real negative effects on society at large as opposed to organized religion. 

On the previous thread where this discussion first came up, I mentioned that I thought the simulation hypothesis was just a joke/meme. A few posters insisted that they genuinely believe in it.  Over 25% of the participants on the current poll voted that it is true.  Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's 'very likely' the universe is a simulation.  Seems more than a silly reference.   

On the impact of the simulation hypothesis:  do you think a large percentage of younger generations genuinely believing the world is not real, or just an elaborate video game, might have some negative consequences?  Maybe rise in apathy, nihilistic outlooks, and increased detachment from reality is not great for the mental health of a generation.  

Edited June 27, 2023 by axiom of foundation

[Brisketexan 105152]

33 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I've never seen an internet meme taken so seriously, lol.

Of course not.  Your meme game is not strong.  This discussion is only for those of us whose meme game is strong.

[Dahobbs 17572]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

There are other arguments for why simulating our world would be virtually impossible, if one would like to explore the topic.  

I thought that was the purpose of this thread? I'm curious as to your take on why the article you linked suggests simulation is virtually impossible. I don't read it that way. 

[Brisketexan 105152]

2 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

do you think a large percentage of younger generations genuinely believing the world is not real, or just an elaborate video game, might have some negative consequences? 

And....THERE you go.  Now, do what modern American fundagelicals are doing with the concept of this world not mattering -- only the afterlife and heaven matter -- as an excuse to not actually give a shit about how things are right here on earth.  That's real-world rubber-meets-the-road actual nihilism being practiced, right here in river city.

It think the bigger problem for younger generations is that they are a non-factor in this world, and are told that repeatedly.  When the world tells you consistently to shut up and fuck off, when you suggest that MAYBE we ought to do some things so they don't inherit a boiling shithole....and the powers that be tell you to fuck off, you eventually take that message to heart.  Don't look for a complex answer when the simple truth will do.

[YGIFS 19450]

I'm guessing 3000 years ago, somebody in literate civilization starting positing the idea that our entire existence was inside the thought processes of another being on some other plane of existence?  Or the dreams of a giant?  Or something to that effect.  And they decided that was all wrong, it was a bunch of people on top of a mountain with very specific jobs (earth, sea, hearth, hunting, messages, biscuits, etc.).  And they rolled with that for awhile.  Momentum.  And what was once a predominant religion of the Western World became "mythology."  I've oft wondered when does a faith become a mythos?  Momentum.  

I laugh at the idea of a simulation.  We only entertain it as a possibility now because we kinda know what that means.  Something else is coming in 50 years that completely usurp that and my children will scoff at the notion we ever though a supercomputer run by hyper-intelligent sentient beings ran us.  It's something else altogether.  It's a question of timing.  And it's just like Moore's law, the compression of time between prevailing creation theories will get shorter and shorter.  Until every other hour, we have a new religion or belief system or explanation for the three big questions.  This is just the beginning, everybody dig in.  I don't think this is the thing, but this is the thing that gets us to the thing.  

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I thought that was the purpose of this thread? I'm curious as to your take on why the article you linked suggests simulation is virtually impossible. I don't read it that way. 

Purpose of the thread was to poll the views of the forum on the topic and for general discussion.  I was not setting out to demonstrate that the hypothesis is false. Again, it makes unfalsifiable claims.  Any hypothesis or viewpoint that has unfalsifiable claims should provide some answers or insights into deeper questions in life.  For example, though I do not agree with it, the idea that the universe simply exists without need for a reason, life springs up randomly given enough physical reactions over time, and consciousnesses merely is a chance product/offshoot of biochemical reactions is a viewpoint that at least provides answers to the metaphysical questions I listed above.  There are some compelling reason to consider it, even though it is not falsifiable at present.  However, the simulation hypothesis is both unfalsifiable and addresses no meaningful questions.  

Regarding the paper, it states: "it is believed that not all quantum systems can be simulated efficiently using classical computational resources.  This notion is supported by the fact that it is not known how to express the partition function in a sign-free manner in quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations for a large number of important problems."  The rest of the paper goes on to demonstrate "that quantized gravitational responses appear as obstructions to local sign-free QMC."

 

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And....THERE you go.  Now, do what modern American fundagelicals are doing with the concept of this world not mattering -- only the afterlife and heaven matter -- as an excuse to not actually give a shit about how things are right here on earth.  That's real-world rubber-meets-the-road actual nihilism being practiced, right here in river city.

It think the bigger problem for younger generations is that they are a non-factor in this world, and are told that repeatedly.  When the world tells you consistently to shut up and fuck off, when you suggest that MAYBE we ought to do some things so they don't inherit a boiling shithole....and the powers that be tell you to fuck off, you eventually take that message to heart.  Don't look for a complex answer when the simple truth will do.

Whatever axe you have to grind with fundagelicals, chistocommunists, and baptofascists, you will have to take it up with them.  Classical theistic perspective is that every person has a soul and is made in the image of God (the origin of the idea that all are created equal), that every person is loved by God, that every person was created with a purpose, and that what you do on this earth is of fundamental importance even in the eternal/heavenly realms.  So this doesn't tend to lead to nihilism.  On the other hand, believing our entire existence is just a video game doesn't really drive home the significance of our lives.    

[Brisketexan 105152]

Just now, axiom of foundation said:

On the other hand, believing our entire existence is just a video game doesn't really drive home the significance of our lives. 

Treating people as insignificant is pretty instrumental in driving home the insignificance of our lives.  More so than beliefs, actual treatment....that yields real results.

Young people aren't nihilists because they don't believe in God.  They are nihilists largely because the people who DO (supposedly) believe in God tell them to fuck off and treat them as insignificant.  Reality tells them that they are insignificant.  Might as well just be a video game.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Treating people as insignificant is pretty instrumental in driving home the insignificance of our lives.  

Alright.  This is a great example of how even a pantheist and a theist can find common ground here.  We both agree that people should not be treated as insignificant, and neither one of us advocate for that. I think that because I believe all are made in the image of God and you think that because you believe all are made from star dust, but we arrive at the same conclusion.

[Dahobbs 17572]

47 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Regarding the paper, it states: "it is believed that not all quantum systems can be simulated efficiently using classical computational resources.  This notion is supported by the fact that it is not known how to express the partition function in a sign-free manner in quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations for a large number of important problems."  The rest of the paper goes on to demonstrate "that quantized gravitational responses appear as obstructions to local sign-free QMC."

Isn't the paper specifically discussing a limitation of classical computing, which it differentiates from quantum computing? It isn't saying simulation is impossible. It is saying simulation using classical computing is functionally impossible (due to the resource requirements of simulating our universe). It really doesn't and couldn't say anything about the resources available to any external universe simulating ours and doesn't even say (near as I understand it) that such simulations are impossible in our universe, just that they aren't possible using traditional computers. 

[Mole 4333]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

When the world tells you consistently to shut up and fuck off, when you suggest that MAYBE we ought to do some things so they don't inherit a boiling shithole....and the powers that be tell you to fuck off, you eventually take that message to heart. 

These alternate lyrics to We Didn’t Start the Fire suck. They don’t even rhyme and the rhythm of the lyrics really don’t fit the tune.

[Nicole44 22060]

I don’t know…maybe this guy is trying to warn us we are in a simulation? Not sure but his signs are pretty cool? 
 

 

[Nicole44 22060]

18 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

I don’t know…maybe this guy is trying to warn us we are in a simulation? Not sure but his signs are pretty cool? 
 

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

 

are we in a simulation?

 

 

 

also, I refuse to vote in any poll that doesn't have "FUPM" as an option.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by High Plains Drifter
glitch in the sim

[Treefidy 1468]

I don’t know shit, but somebody please tell the simulation programmer their CPU fan is broken and it’s hot as shit in here. 

[Brisketexan 105152]

I don’t know shit, but somebody please tell the simulation programmer their CPU fan is broken and it’s hot as shit in here. 

Have you tried unplugging Texas and then plugging it back in?

[RDCanecutter 26446]

Where's my damn Tron suit.

[YGIFS 19450]

Uh, a couple of programmers took it to get it washed, sir! 

[Wally Fairway 5550]

If Fitlump getting elected to Austin city council isn't proof of living in a simulation, then I don't know what is

[Sawbonz 27565]

On 6/26/2023 at 9:00 AM, crash_davis said:

people were civil and moral to each other long before shitheads created religion to control people

What evidence leads you to this conclusion?

[atomheartbevo 89686]

 

14 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

If Fitlump getting elected to Austin city council isn't proof of living in a simulation, then I don't know what is

It's when she's elected Governor that we'll have our definitive proof.  We won't have to wait that long.

Edited June 28, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[General Specific 3262]

Is the discussion about a simulation vs. religion? Those that prefer simulation are yet sill defining their world in their terms. It is its own religion. Just like those they worship earth, or nothing at all. Whatever, it’s man’s attempt to force a rules based control mechanism over others. A way to put one’s self above another. My way or the highway! Faith, on the other hand… that’s another topic altogether.

[Wade 464]

Damn.  A long time poster says she has a connection to, and is trying to get Sela Ward to attend a tailgate sometime, and it's followed by two pages of simulation debate.

[Neonmoon 38129]

13 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

On the other hand, believing our entire existence is just a video game doesn't really drive home the significance of our lives.    

You clearly underestimate how many people enjoy playing video games 

[Guest]

If you masturbate or have sex, did you not still come*?

 

*man's POV, of course.

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

This thread is an embarrassment to the website and I’m pretty sure a thread on tubgirl is posted somewhere 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Isn't the paper specifically discussing a limitation of classical computing, which it differentiates from quantum computing? It isn't saying simulation is impossible. It is saying simulation using classical computing is functionally impossible (due to the resource requirements of simulating our universe). It really doesn't and couldn't say anything about the resources available to any external universe simulating ours and doesn't even say (near as I understand it) that such simulations are impossible in our universe, just that they aren't possible using traditional computers. 

Correct, you can’t say that it is impossible, only improbable/impossible under certain conditions, i.e starting with what we know about computing and what we know about physics.  But a simulation theorists could always just say it’s based on some future computing process, new understanding in laws of physics, etc.  Also, since they think this world is just a simulation it really doesn’t matter what we know about how this world works, or really about how anything works.  They can argue that the simulation is possible with the physics and computing solutions in the real world.  

['stache 21817]

9 hours ago, Wade said:

Damn.  A long time poster says she has a connection to, and is trying to get Sela Ward to attend a tailgate sometime, and it's followed by two pages of simulation debate.

The simulation works in mysterious ways.