Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Not really to answer your questions. But a book came out a year ago and it covers the philosophy of simulation theory.
That is it explains the theory that our reality may be a simulation inside of a computer, and then re-establishes all major philosophical ideas from this premise. Ironically enough, a lot of philosophical ideas it arrives at are very similar to those proposed by religious philosophers.
The book is called Reality +. Good read if you like philosophy and think simulation theory is interesting.
I have to say that I really dislike simulation theory but I appreciate that people out there are pondering this stuff.
If you are a fan of simulation theory, the most compelling evidence I've found was something I stumbled across after considering the hypothesis that if we are in a simulation and clearly can talk about it without the world ending, that maybe there's something in our lore that breaks the 4th wall like we see in games explaining more about the nature of the simulation.
It took only weeks to find something I've been researching over the past few years since that exceeded my expectations wildly.
For example, it was lost for over 1,500 years. The only complete copy was rediscovered in Dec 1945.
At that same time this happened, the world's first Turing complete computer (capable of simulating another computer) was first put to use at Los Alamos on figuring out the starting reaction for a fusion bomb, also in Dec 1945.
Fusion bombs, where two atoms are made into one, are much more powerful than fission bombs. Recently a fusion test in North Korea made news for literally moving mountains.
Here's one of the lines from the text (saying 106):
I recommend saying it out loud and noting the potential pun around Adam/atom. The people following this text also legit were talking about atomism and indivisible points making up all things (they seem influenced by Lucretius's specific phrasing for discussing atomism from 50 BCE).
This barely scratches the surface of what I found with this text and tradition.