We Live In Hell

[+Sherapy]

12 hours ago, Guyver said:

BTW, just a general forum question.  Is it ok to post something with vulgarity if you warn people that vulgarity is included?

At times, with forewarning I think it is okay. But this is just me.

[+Desertrat56]

12 hours ago, Guyver said:

BTW, just a general forum question.  Is it ok to post something with vulgarity if you warn people that vulgarity is included?

I think you need to check with the mods because there are children who read on this site, so a lot of stuff is filtered through a censor program, and some stuff is not allowed.

[+Sherapy]

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

Anyway, though I failed miserably at convincing anyone, including myself that we live in hell, and Third Eyes counter argument is a strong one, for anyone interested, the thing that makes what I’m saying possible is called the Simulation Hypothesis.

Which post of thirds are you referencing. Can you tell me which post #?
 

He tends to bring it on the wisdom, for ones consideration. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by Sherapy

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

The difference is that in Creationism you have God as the being who preexisted the universe and was its cause, and in the Simulation Hypothesis the “creator” is not known.  It may be that aliens don’t exist and the technology that created the simulation was created by us in the future.

 

No creator is claimed to actually be known. God is supposedly beyond comprehension. 

It's just a another take of religion. If this was a simulation, then the simulators would be pre universe too as they would have to create the simulation we would be living in. They would have to exist before this universe did.

It's replacing god with a computer is all. That it's just plagiarism of religion I honestly feel very much detracts from the idea. 

I'm not sure why people like the simulation hypothesis so much. I don't mean that personally, lots of posters have brought it up as if it's interesting or something. It strikes me as incredibly lazy and stupid. Just adding modern gods to religion. 

[Guyver]

23 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Which post of thirds are you referencing. Can you tell me which post #?
 

He tends to bring it on the wisdom, for ones consideration. 

I think he mentioned it in the very first reply.  But, he also restated it again, at least once or twice.  The argument (his counter) is that if we experience pain/sorrow/suffering in this life and that makes it hell, what if we experience pleasure and satisfaction, does that make it heaven?  The answer to me is no.  So, therefore it would seem that we are neither in hell or heaven as we understand those things.  

[+Sherapy]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

I think he mentioned it in the very first reply.  But, he also restated it again, at least once or twice.  The argument (his counter) is that if we experience pain/sorrow/suffering in this life and that makes it hell, what if we experience pleasure and satisfaction, does that make it heaven?  The answer to me is no.  So, therefore it would seem that we are neither in hell or heaven as we understand those things.  

Awww, gotcha, I think I read this. Thanks.

My two cents: I just think thru the course of ones life some go thru some tough times and some great times, it doesn’t matter who you are, for me, the key is to see as much of the big picture as possible even the worst of times there can be break throughs. Just enough of a moment to get one thru. Maybe just the hope of a hole in one, 
 

I think of you and golf, according to your stories you fail a lot,  yet, what comes across is a person who is resilient and goes back and tries again, it seems that you love the game. I appreciate your stories as they remind me to just be human. 

[Guyver]

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

No creator is claimed to actually be known. God is supposedly beyond comprehension. 

 

I agree with that, but not everyone does.  There are plenty of religious people who think they do know God, and some of those people believe in the God of the Bible and think that's how they know God.  

Quote

It's just a another take of religion. If this was a simulation, then the simulators would be pre universe too as they would have to create the simulation we would be living in. They would have to exist before this universe did.

That is true.  

Quote

It's replacing god with a computer is all. That it's just plagiarism of religion I honestly feel very much detracts from the idea. 

OK. 

Quote

I'm not sure why people like the simulation hypothesis so much. I don't mean that personally, lots of posters have brought it up as if it's interesting or something. It strikes me as incredibly lazy and stupid. Just adding modern gods to religion. 

For me, it has to do with observable facts.  I will be happy to provide some details at a later time, I've done the argument before and so have other posters here.  It's just that as a materialist/atheist, I would be able to convince you of nothing with my argument.  I will put together my argument for the simulation hypothesis at some point and post it in this thread.  Then, you can pick it apart if you like.  For now, I'm a little flagged for excessive celebration.  I had a very successful day yesterday and celebrated on a high level.  I was finally able to accomplish something I've been trying to do for at least two years, and couldn't do it.  I drove the green on a 300 yard par 4 hole that goes uphill and you can't see the green from the tee box.  Missed the eagle putt by an inch and had a tap in birdie.  I know that may not mean much to the average person, but to me that was a really big deal because not even the best golfers in the world could make that shot every time.  In fact, I bet if you took the top ten golfers in the world and asked them all to do that shot, maybe 3 or 4 of them would make it unless they each went after it a few times.  For me, I feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment because all the guys in my Monday group saw me do it.  

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I agree with that, but not everyone does.  There are plenty of religious people who think they do know God, and some of those people believe in the God of the Bible and think that's how they know God.  

That is true.  

OK. 

For me, it has to do with observable facts.  I will be happy to provide some details at a later time, I've done the argument before and so have other posters here.  It's just that as a materialist/atheist, I would be able to convince you of nothing with my argument.  I will put together my argument for the simulation hypothesis at some point and post it in this thread.  Then, you can pick it apart if you like.  For now, I'm a little flagged for excessive celebration.  I had a very successful day yesterday and celebrated on a high level.  I was finally able to accomplish something I've been trying to do for at least two years, and couldn't do it.  I drove the green on a 300 yard par 4 hole that goes uphill and you can't see the green from the tee box.  Missed the eagle putt by an inch and had a tap in birdie.  I know that may not mean much to the average person, but to me that was a really big deal because not even the best golfers in the world could make that shot every time.  In fact, I bet if you took the top ten golfers in the world and asked them all to do that shot, maybe 3 or 4 of them would make it unless they each went after it a few times.  For me, I feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment because all the guys in my Monday group saw me do it.  

Wow, congratulations Guyv., great job. 

[Guyver]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Wow, congratulations Guyv., great job. 

Thank you so much.  Now I have to host a party at my place as soon as this Covid thing blows overs.  I told myself and friends at least 2 years ago that if I ever make that shot - the parties on me lol.  Hopefully it will be a springtime "Drive the Green" party.  If not, maybe summer?  IDK....whenever it's safe to have gatherings again.  

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Thank you so much.  Now I have to host a party at my place as soon as this Covid thing blows overs.  I told myself and friends at least 2 years ago that if I ever make that shot - the parties on me lol.  Hopefully it will be a springtime "Drive the Green" party.  If not, maybe summer?  IDK....whenever it's safe to have gatherings again.  

Wonderful to hear, sometimes a bit of magic happens on the green after all.  You certainly have nurtured patience in yourself too, that is not easy either. 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Sherapy

[Guyver]

The Simulation Hypothesis

So, the idea is that certain "program" characteristics could be indicators that we are in fact in a simulation.  According to George Smoot, in his talk available on Youtube called, "You are a Simulation and Physics can prove it" what we would expect to see if we are a simulation is....

*Human brain limitations - lack of computing power, difficulty with complex decisions, optical illusions fool us....etc.

*Reality is quantized/discretized - fuzzy on a small scale or large one, Large Scale does not match small scale, ex. General Relativity vs. Quantum Mechanics, entangled states, etc.

So, this person I quoted above is not the best presenter because he doesn't have excellent communication skills, so watching his video may not be that helpful but to save time you could begin around the 17 minute mark.  Basically what he is saying that our current physics demonstrates what has been shown already in computational dynamics.  The world is fuzzy/difficult to observe or understand at a small scale (ie. atomic and subatomic) and similarly on a macro scale, and these two scales are contradictory or don't align well.  

Link 1 The Simulation Argument Resources

Link 2 Wiki Overview Simulation Hypothesis

Link3  The Holographic Principle

Link4 - The Simulation Argument FAQ - Nick Bostrom

Summation - that's about the best I can do for today.....but the idea is that due to Moore's Law and what humans can already do with creating simulations, we are already not far from what Rizwan Virk calls the Simulation Point.  That is the point at which a simulation can be so seemingly accurate, or real, that beings within the simulation don't know that they are in a simulation.  Since we are already creating simulations, we will continue to do so until we reach a point where given enough computational capability, virtual reality will closely match what we think is real and be almost indistinguishable from it.  That humans beings are creating high level simulations now, and will continue to do so in the future.  That the odds are that point has already been reached some time ago and we are in the simulation now.  That is for Psyche and any other interested reader.  

[Guyver]

For people interested, here is a video by a better and more interesting communicator, but it is longer.

Rizwan Virk - video game maker.  Link

[Mr Walker]

On 1/18/2021 at 2:53 PM, Guyver said:

Yes and he’s quite a character.  I was quite surprised to read a man who could play golf as well as Mr. Walker would have not  have considered it a game of skill.  But he never thought about it that way.  I remember well my struggle with golf.  In my first three years of playing I had tremendous highs and lows, and I had no problem realizing golf was a game of skill.  It is a tremendous game of skill and for anyone who’s never played, I challenge you to try it for yourself and see if you think it’s a game of skill.  It’s not my place to judge Mr. Walker, but it seems like everything he says boarders on the impossible.  But, whatever, if he’s faking, he’s a great actor.

 4 years playing 2 or 3 times every week while at uni  After casual play as a teenager and later as an adult    No club or competition other than some mates, and often playing by myself  Thus it was all about learning, growing, evolving; not competing.

  I certainly saw it as a game of skill, but not as a competitive game.

I love things which require using my mind and learning new skills, but usually i then get bored with them.

Golf kept me interested for longer than most, because of its challenge and the pleasure i got from  it,   being out, alone on the course, with nature all around me

I do have a skill or abilty to look at things,  analytically, and work out vectors, trajectories   etc.,  so i was quick to learn things like ball games, archery,  shooting etc  I could "see" where something would go, and how much force was needed  

It was sometimes a bit embarrassing, like the time i shot a mate with a home made bow and arrow when i was about 13.

  he was riding a pushbike about 25 meters away and i calculated  where to shoot to hit him   I didn't really think i could do it but the arrow went straight through his cheek.

   We were already good shots with sling shots, crossbows, rifles, spear guns, ninja stars,  etc by that age,  but because i had made both the bow and arrow, i was surprised by its accuracy  

Golf was like baseball The first time i tried it i couldn't even hit the ball, but within a  few months  i could do so, and maintain control over direction and distance of a drive  Then it was just a matter of practice, and improving my green skills. 

[jmccr8]

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Golf was like baseball The first time i tried it i couldn't even hit the ball, but within a  few months  i could do so, and maintain control over direction and distance of a drive  Then it was just a matter of practice, and improving my green skills. 

Hi Walker

So then it would seem that golf requires more skill than downhill skiing seeing as how you were a pro in a couple of days.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

I agree with that, but not everyone does.  There are plenty of religious people who think they do know God, and some of those people believe in the God of the Bible and think that's how they know God.  

That is true.  

OK. 

For me, it has to do with observable facts.  I will be happy to provide some details at a later time, I've done the argument before and so have other posters here.  It's just that as a materialist/atheist, I would be able to convince you of nothing with my argument.  I will put together my argument for the simulation hypothesis at some point and post it in this thread.  Then, you can pick it apart if you like.  For now, I'm a little flagged for excessive celebration.  I had a very successful day yesterday and celebrated on a high level.  I was finally able to accomplish something I've been trying to do for at least two years, and couldn't do it.  I drove the green on a 300 yard par 4 hole that goes uphill and you can't see the green from the tee box.  Missed the eagle putt by an inch and had a tap in birdie.  I know that may not mean much to the average person, but to me that was a really big deal because not even the best golfers in the world could make that shot every time.  In fact, I bet if you took the top ten golfers in the world and asked them all to do that shot, maybe 3 or 4 of them would make it unless they each went after it a few times.  For me, I feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment because all the guys in my Monday group saw me do it.  

Yes, congratulations.  

When you cant see the green it is very hard, unless you  are very familiar with the course, and the location of the cup.

Ps i just remembered 

 From memory, the public course i played on was known as a par 3 because all the holes were par 3.

it was in the Adelaide  parklands and I guess space was a bit limited  

With all holes Par 3's (only a short 56 to 140 metres in length), Par 3 is a cheap, convenient day out for the beginner golfer – as well as a great family experience.

 

https://northadelaidegolf.com.au/courses/par-3/

your mention  of the  length of a par 4 helped me recall this, so i looked it up 

Helps explain my scores, on that particular course, at least   

The Blackwood course, where  i also played as a guest  was a normal course  and much tougher, in part due to its hilly nature, 

https://www.blackwoodgolf.com.au/

[Mr Walker]

28 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

So then it would seem that golf requires more skill than downhill skiing seeing as how you were a pro in a couple of days.

jmccr8

Much more

it took 5 days, living on the slopes and skiing every day but by day5 i was skiing the intermediate slopes at Falls creek.

  That is from  never having put on a set of skis before, but being proficient a t ice skating, roller skating,  skate boarding (we made the first skate boards in our state as far as i can ascertain, around 1963)   surfing, wind surfing and water skiing, including barefoot,  before i tried snow skiing.

  it is like golf and other balls sports.

There is a learned abilty from doing other sports which makes it easier to learn a new one of the same type 

I specifically said NOT a pro. ( Ie proficient, but not professional) 

But i thought it was a good effort  The others in my group were already proficient skiers, apart from  two Neither of those two got off the beginner's slope   

Ps I did this without any coaching etc. but considerable fitness preparation before hand   

I got up and surfed and water skied on the first day i tried them  Likewise with the other things, although i had quite a few falls skateboarding, maybe because my board was 12 inches long and 3 inches wide, with one of  a pair of old metal wheeled  skates,    screwed on underneath  a piece of flooring board.   No brakes. No control over the wheels. 

At this time commercial skate boards had never been made in Australia  I got the idea from  watching American surf shows on tv. where some of the surfers were using them   

Edited January 20, 2021 by Mr Walker

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Guyver said:

The Simulation Hypothesis

So, the idea is that certain "program" characteristics could be indicators that we are in fact in a simulation.  According to George Smoot, in his talk available on Youtube called, "You are a Simulation and Physics can prove it" what we would expect to see if we are a simulation is....

*Human brain limitations - lack of computing power, difficulty with complex decisions, optical illusions fool us....etc.

*Reality is quantized/discretized - fuzzy on a small scale or large one, Large Scale does not match small scale, ex. General Relativity vs. Quantum Mechanics, entangled states, etc.

So, this person I quoted above is not the best presenter because he doesn't have excellent communication skills, so watching his video may not be that helpful but to save time you could begin around the 17 minute mark.  Basically what he is saying that our current physics demonstrates what has been shown already in computational dynamics.  The world is fuzzy/difficult to observe or understand at a small scale (ie. atomic and subatomic) and similarly on a macro scale, and these two scales are contradictory or don't align well.  

Link 1 The Simulation Argument Resources

Link 2 Wiki Overview Simulation Hypothesis

Link3  The Holographic Principle

Link4 - The Simulation Argument FAQ - Nick Bostrom

Summation - that's about the best I can do for today.....but the idea is that due to Moore's Law and what humans can already do with creating simulations, we are already not far from what Rizwan Virk calls the Simulation Point.  That is the point at which a simulation can be so seemingly accurate, or real, that beings within the simulation don't know that they are in a simulation.  Since we are already creating simulations, we will continue to do so until we reach a point where given enough computational capability, virtual reality will closely match what we think is real and be almost indistinguishable from it.  That humans beings are creating high level simulations now, and will continue to do so in the future.  That the odds are that point has already been reached some time ago and we are in the simulation now.  That is for Psyche and any other interested reader.  

It's still referring unknowns to a higher power. There are plenty of arguments against it as well, one being computational power and matrix size, which would be so large it is beyond imagination. Another is that all objects have an inherent wobble that illustrates and define a universal origin. Again simulation proponents answer with "that could be programmed to appear that way to us to fool us. 

I can't see how that's different to god did it. It's just a secular creation story.

I can't even see how it is a viable hypothesis. It's just lateral thinking isn't it? 

[+Sherapy]

36 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

So then it would seem that golf requires more skill than downhill skiing seeing as how you were a pro in a couple of days.

jmccr8

For me, this is guyv’s moment. I have so much respect for his authenticity and resilience. 
 

Golfin guyv.  Get’s the gold star. 

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

It's still referring unknowns to a higher power. There are plenty of arguments against it as well, one being computational power and matrix size, which would be so large it is beyond imagination. Another is that all objects have an inherent wobble that illustrates and define a universal origin. Again simulation proponents answer with "that could be programmed to appear that way to us to fool us. 

I can't see how that's different to god did it. It's just a secular creation story.

I can't even see how it is a viable hypothesis. It's just lateral thinking isn't it? 

Would you mind telling me, what your understanding of quantum computers is?

[Autochthon1990]

Hey man, don't be so depressive, we get out of hell...whatever time Biden takes over on the east coast! 

[Guyver]

5 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Hey man, don't be so depressive, we get out of hell...whatever time Biden takes over on the east coast! 

Right.  Evidence number #113 why we live in hell.

[SHaYap]

14 minutes ago, Guyver said:

...why we live in hell.

My personal experience with this line of thought was when a monk answered a pal of mine like so.... 

"when you learn to begin to think as 'I' live in hell instead of 'we' you'll find that you're neither in either hell or heaven but is everywhere else except where you truly are "

Takes a bit of logic wrangling but it always ends up at "that swing won't drive a club... "

~

Edited January 20, 2021 by third_eye
Stoopid predictive text

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Would you mind telling me, what your understanding of quantum computers is?

A computer that can basically read qubits - ones and zeroes at the same time. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Right.  Evidence number #113 why we live in hell.

Have you seen the show that I posted a clip from early in the thread? The Good Place? 

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, Guyver said:

The Simulation Hypothesis

So, the idea is that certain "program" characteristics could be indicators that we are in fact in a simulation.  According to George Smoot, in his talk available on Youtube called, "You are a Simulation and Physics can prove it" what we would expect to see if we are a simulation is....

*Human brain limitations - lack of computing power, difficulty with complex decisions, optical illusions fool us....etc.

*Reality is quantized/discretized - fuzzy on a small scale or large one, Large Scale does not match small scale, ex. General Relativity vs. Quantum Mechanics, entangled states, etc.

So, this person I quoted above is not the best presenter because he doesn't have excellent communication skills, so watching his video may not be that helpful but to save time you could begin around the 17 minute mark.  Basically what he is saying that our current physics demonstrates what has been shown already in computational dynamics.  The world is fuzzy/difficult to observe or understand at a small scale (ie. atomic and subatomic) and similarly on a macro scale, and these two scales are contradictory or don't align well.  

Link 1 The Simulation Argument Resources

Link 2 Wiki Overview Simulation Hypothesis

Link3  The Holographic Principle

Link4 - The Simulation Argument FAQ - Nick Bostrom

Summation - that's about the best I can do for today.....but the idea is that due to Moore's Law and what humans can already do with creating simulations, we are already not far from what Rizwan Virk calls the Simulation Point.  That is the point at which a simulation can be so seemingly accurate, or real, that beings within the simulation don't know that they are in a simulation.  Since we are already creating simulations, we will continue to do so until we reach a point where given enough computational capability, virtual reality will closely match what we think is real and be almost indistinguishable from it.  That humans beings are creating high level simulations now, and will continue to do so in the future.  That the odds are that point has already been reached some time ago and we are in the simulation now.  That is for Psyche and any other interested reader.  

evolution explains the same things, but better (more believably and simply )   

and of course, if we can create a deceptive  simulation  program, then "the people who created  us",  might also be living in a simulation, and so might their creators, etc ad infinitum.  Eventually the beings we create will create simulations of their own. 

Best not to go down that worm (i mean rabbit) hole      

Edited January 20, 2021 by Mr Walker