# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  Elon Musk: The chance we are not living in a computer simulation is 'one in billions'

## Ronin Truth

> *Elon Musk: The chance we are not living in a computer simulation is 'one in billions'*
> 
> Andrew Griffin
> 
> Elon Musk has said that there is only a one in billions chance that were not living in a computer simulation.
> 
> Our lives are almost certainly being conducted within an artificial world powered by AI and highly-powered computers, like in The Matrix, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO suggested at a tech conference in California.
> 
> Mr Musk, who has donated huge amounts of money to research into the dangers of artificial intelligence, said that he hopes his prediction is true because otherwise it means the world will end.
> ...


*www.independent.co.uk*/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/elon-musk-ai-artificial-intelligence-computer-simulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.html

----------


## Zippyjuan

Bit confused. We "are" in a video game.  "One day" video technology will be good enough.  "Hopes his prediction" comes true.

----------


## timosman

What's the chance the simulation is not simulated? Turtles all the way down - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

I've come to the same conclusion, but also realize it makes no difference.

The premise is simple, if we can create 1 simulation, then we will inevitably create "billions", and therefore, the assumption is that if there is a higher reality they will have done the same. So, then the question is "are we the first reality", the true true reality against all odds, or are we 10 layers deep or 1000's. Odd's are we are not the original. So, anyway, if you accept that we can make a reality that can fool a human into believing it is real, then odds are you are in one. 

Likely that is how God works. He can effect our reality, but not be part of it, as the the computer reality is purely synthetic in relation to the real god, and if he entered it'd be via an Avatar that represented God but wasn't actually "God". Sound similiar to something. Also how could God know your essence upon death, how could bring you to a heaven which doesn't exist in this universe. Etc.... All explained if you think of this like you'd think of a computer simulation. 

Anyway. Doesn't matter really, you still have to live.

----------


## timosman



----------


## Ronin Truth

> What's the chance the simulation is not simulated? Turtles all the way down - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


If it's not simulated how can it be a simulation?  Chance: ZERO!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I've come to the same conclusion, but also realize it makes no difference.
> 
> The premise is simple, if we can create 1 simulation, then we will inevitably create "billions", and therefore, the assumption is that if there is a higher reality they will have done the same. So, then the question is "are we the first reality", the true true reality against all odds, or are we 10 layers deep or 1000's. Odd's are we are not the original. So, anyway, if you accept that we can make a reality that can fool a human into believing it is real, then odds are you are in one. 
> 
> Likely that is how God works. He can effect our reality, but not be part of it, as the the computer reality is purely synthetic in relation to the real god, and if he entered it'd be via an Avatar that represented God but wasn't actually "God". Sound similiar to something. Also how could God know your essence upon death, how could bring you to a heaven which doesn't exist in this universe. Etc.... All explained if you think of this like you'd think of a computer simulation. 
> 
> Anyway. Doesn't matter really, you still have to live.


Are heaven and hell only simulations too, or just illusions (simulated)?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Elon Musk believes we are probably characters in some advanced civilization's video game
> *
> Updated by Ezra Klein on June 2, 2016, 2:03 a.m. ET @ezraklein
> 
> By far the best moment of Recode's annual Code Conference was when Elon Musk took the stage and explained that though we think we're flesh-and-blood participants in a physical world, we are almost certainly computer-generated entities living inside a more advanced civilization's video game.
> 
> Don't believe me? Here's Musk's argument in full:
> 
>     The strongest argument for us being in a simulation probably is the following. Forty years ago we had pong. Like, two rectangles and a dot. That was what games were.
> ...




http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11837608...ation-argument

----------


## timosman



----------


## Ronin Truth

Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream,
Merrily merrily, merrily, merrily
*Life is but a dream

*

----------


## Ronin Truth

*ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?*
BY NICK BOSTROM
[Published in _Philosophical Quarterly_ (2003) Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243 ‐255. (First version: 2001)]

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

----------


## libertyjam

So just like this thread, even Elon Musk is REALLY $#@!ING STUPID.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So just like this thread, even Elon Musk is REALLY $#@!ING STUPID.


Ah good, a simulated critic. 

It's only a simulation stupid.

----------


## Jim Casey

The most efficient way to build earth as a simulation would be to build it flat and enclose it with a dome.  That's how it is done.  There is a flat earth mass awakening in process.  The education system is going to have to overhaul many of its studies to conform to the new flat earth model.

----------


## Origanalist

If they ever figure out how to change the program let me know. Until then I'll just keep on keeping on.

----------


## timosman

> The most efficient way to build earth as a simulation would be to build it flat and enclose it with a dome.


Really? 

-rep

----------


## Jim Casey

> Really? 
> 
> -rep


Yes, earth is flat.  Understanding that it's a simulation is a more acceptable stepping stone to understanding that it's flat.

We already have flat earth simulations on a smaller scale.  They're called planetariums.

----------


## angelatc

L Ron Hubbard is sooooo 20th century.

----------


## angelatc

> Yes, earth is flat. .


No, it isn't.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat
> *
> Created on 19 August 2008 Moriel Schottlender 
> 
> A few months ago I released an experiment video explaining how Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth using the shadow of sticks. The method was performed almost two millenia ago, and produced quite accurate results (considering the equipment used). But it was far from being the only (or first) method to understand our planets shape.
> 
> Humanity has known the Earth to be round for a few millenia and Ive been meaning to refine that video and show more of these methods of how we figured out the world is not flat. Ive had a few ideas on how to do that, but recently got an interesting incentive, when Phil Plait (The Bad Astronomer) wrote about a recently published BBC article about The Flat Earth society. Phil claims its ridiculous to even bother rebutting the flat earth society  and I tend to agree. But the history of our species intellectual pursuit is important and interesting, and its very much well worth writing about. You dont need to denounce all science and knowledge and believe in a kooky conspiracy theory to enjoy some historical factoids about humanitys quest for space.
> _
> Though I have researched this subject, I am quite certain there will be much more to be said about it  feel free to add more in the comments. If all goes well, this might actually be a good post to refer to whenever anyone wants to discuss a bit of ancient science and the source of cosmological thought._
> ...


*www.smarterthanthat.com*/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

----------


## Jim Casey

> *www.smarterthanthat.com*/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/


There's no point in fighting it.  The flat earth mass awakening is here.  Science departments are going to have to be overhauled to conform with it.  The globe has got to go.

----------


## Suzanimal

1. The earth is an Oblate Spheroid. - I would say round but, thanks to AF in another thread, I learned the correct term.
2. Pluto is a planet.
3. If we are in a video game, I have to wonder about the sanity of the alien overlord who created the people of Walmart.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> 1. The earth is an Oblate Spheroid. - I would say round but, thanks to AF in another thread, I learned the correct term.
> 2. Pluto is a planet.
> 3. If we are in a video game, I have to wonder about the sanity of the alien overlord who created the people of Walmart.


*RADICAL!*

----------


## Jim Casey

I don't think it's necessary for there to be alien creatures living outside of the enclosed dome with celestial simulations.  There could just be other people who built the flat planed earth we know and live on, keeping some of us inside here for a long time.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I don't think it's necessary for there to be alien creatures living outside of the enclosed dome with celestial simulations.  There could just be other people who built the* flat planed earth we know and live on*, keeping some of us inside here for a long time.


"We?" I live on a roundish earth with no dome, people of Walmart, where the reptilians are in charge.


Every time flat earth comes up, I can't help but think about Discworld.

----------


## Origanalist

> 1. The earth is an Oblate Spheroid. - I would say round but, thanks to AF in another thread, I learned the correct term.
> 2. Pluto is a planet.
> 3. If we are in a video game, I have to wonder about the sanity of the alien overlord who created the people of Walmart.


They were hatched.

----------


## Jim Casey

> "We?" I live on a roundish earth with no dome, people of Walmart, where the reptilians are in charge.
> 
> 
> Every time flat earth comes up, I can't help but think about Discworld.


The simulation is designed to fool the inhabitants of earth into believing in a globe shaped earth.  The designers knew that eventually we would develop sophisticated travel methods that would cross the oceans and ice to eventually reach the dome wall in Antarctica.

When Admiral Byrd finally made it in the 1950's, the only thing left was for the governments to collaborate with the designers to keep people from finding out the truth of earth's flatness by agreeing to the United Nations Antarctic Treaty, the only treaty that has ever been adhered to for over half a century.

Think of a planetarium, or the movie Truman Show.  If you lived inside the simulation your entire life, would you ever know that it was just a simulation?  You would only know if you found the border.

It is an Intelligent Design, and now we are smart enough to make our own designs replicating the one we inhabit adding our own unique experiences and understanding to the environment.

----------


## Origanalist

> The simulation is designed to fool the inhabitants of earth into believing in a globe shaped earth.  The designers knew that eventually we would develop sophisticated travel methods that would cross the oceans and ice to eventually reach the dome wall in Antarctica.
> 
> When Admiral Byrd finally made it in the 1950's, the only thing left was for the governments to collaborate with the designers to keep people from finding out the truth of earth's flatness by agreeing to the United Nations Antarctic Treaty, the only treaty that has ever been adhered to for over half a century.
> 
> Think of a planetarium, or the movie Truman Show.  If you lived inside the simulation your entire life, would you ever know that it was just a simulation?  You would only know if you found the border.
> 
> It is an Intelligent Design, and now we are smart enough to make our own designs replicating the one we inhabit adding our own unique experiences and understanding to the environment.


We're on the Markovian well of souls, everyone knows that.

----------


## timosman

_What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet._ Woody Allen

----------


## danda

This is nothing new. 

"I think therefore I am."

Rene Descarte said this hundreds of years ago, and as far as I know it is the only provable thing with regards to "reality".

Everything else, including and especially religion, is just conjecture because humans "want to believe" in something.

That said, given that we exist in some reality and do not seem able to change the nature of the reality that our senses perceive, we may as well consider it "real" and get on with our lives.

Even Elon Musk.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

So, basically Elon Musk is an idiot, and no doubt he will find a way to get some government money from this. The most relevant part of this story is that it illustrates the fact that Americans are having more and more difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. Hollywood fantasy and propaganda are willingly swallowed without question.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Elon Musk?  What is that?  Some kind of cologne?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So, basically Elon Musk is an idiot, and no doubt he will find a way to get some government money from this. The most relevant part of this story is that it illustrates the fact that Americans are having more and more difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. Hollywood fantasy and propaganda are willingly swallowed without question.


Where are all of these self-made 'idiot' multi billionaires coming from?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Elon Musk? What is that? Some kind of cologne?


https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?...&hsimp=yhs-004

----------


## Brian4Liberty

I read that Musk is a big fan of Isaac Azimov. Great sci-fi author, but the essence of his writing is about centrally controlling and manipulating the masses by a small group of self-appointed elite.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I read that Musk is a big fan of Isaac Azimov. Great sci-fi author, but the essence of his writing is about centrally controlling and manipulating the masses by a small group of self-appointed elite.


Which robots meant well, but ultimately made things worse in their ignorance; and that plot line contrives about oh 0.04% of the Foundation series, were retconned in at the very end of Foundation, and served mostly as support for a "zeroeth law" which itself is questionable, but certainly not under the implication provided above.

----------


## timosman

At least nobody talks about Tesla problems.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Which robots meant well, but ultimately made things worse in their ignorance; and that plot line contrives about oh 0.04% of the Foundation series, were retconned in at the very end of Foundation, and served mostly as support for a "zeroeth law" which itself is questionable, but certainly not under the implication provided above.


Excluding the later merger of the Foundation and Robot universes, it could be seen in the first Foundation trilogy.

The Foundation was in essence a small group intent upon controlling the future, with an objective of a new central empire under their control. It was a sci-fi reflection of real, contemporary events witnessed by Azimov in his youth.

The Second Foundation is the smaller, secret group of manipulators. One could only ponder if Azimov based that on reality or not.

----------


## TheTexan

> That said, given that we exist in some reality and do not seem able to change the nature of the reality that our senses perceive, we may as well consider it "real" and get on with our lives.


America is real.

I can't speak for the other countries.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Excluding the later merger of the Foundation and Robot universes, it could be seen in the first Foundation trilogy.
> 
> The Foundation was in essence a small group intent upon controlling the future, with an objective of a new central empire under their control. It was a sci-fi reflection of real, contemporary events witnessed by Azimov in his youth.
> 
> The Second Foundation is the smaller, secret group of manipulators. One could only ponder if Azimov based that on reality or not.


Still not buying the tie in.  Asimov certainly did not _advocate_ for elitism, and Hari Seldon's psychohistory was more predictive (like Austrian Economics) than determinative (like Keynesian Economics).  IIRC There was some pretty significant discussion within the text that Hari Seldon would not have approved of what later generations had done with psychohistory.

I do not agree that the Foundation series is in any way, shape, or form "pro-elitist."  As I read them they seem a lot more pro-meritocracy and *anti*-elitist.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> At least nobody talks about Tesla problems.



Not everything is guaranteed to go well and problem free from the initial get go. <shrug>

----------


## osan

Did his mother drop him on his head as an infant and not tell anyone?

This speculation is pure noise until such time as a plausible theory and convincing supporting evidence say otherwise.

I could as easily assert that we are living in a giant sperm cell, swimming merrily on our ways toward some wayward egg and once we arrive the universe will wink out of existence.

Oy.

ETA and PS: the one thing he says that is dead-nuts on is the bit about the dangers of AI.  That was my specialty in grad school and I have worked on a project that would scare the pants off any of you.  Overall and on the net, nothing good stands to come of advancing AI technologies.

----------


## osan

> Excluding the later merger of the Foundation and Robot universes, it could be seen in the first Foundation trilogy.
> 
> The Foundation was in essence a small group intent upon controlling the future, with an objective of a new central empire under their control. It was a sci-fi reflection of real, contemporary events witnessed by Azimov in his youth.
> 
> The Second Foundation is the smaller, secret group of manipulators. One could only ponder if Azimov based that on reality or not.


The picture he painted of Trantor alone was as depressing as it gets.

----------


## osan

> The most relevant part of this story is that it illustrates the fact that Americans are having more and more difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality.


Not to worry because once the rioting and insurrection begin, those people will discover with great suddenness their latent abilities... or die quickly.  No doubt there will be those who choose the latter. C'est la guerre... literally.




> Hollywood fantasy and propaganda are willingly swallowed without question.


In a sense, I cannot blame them.  The prospect of the typical 21st century American life is the love-whelp that resulted with "1984" had a one-nighter with "Brazil" and got her all kinds of knocked up.  I know we are "safe" and don't worry about whether we will be able to eat this week, but there is a lot more to proper life than just this.  For me, the American life has become a grey and largely lackluster affair once one realizes how quaint and ultimately boring so many things are.  Couple that with the ever narrowing menu of meaningful options, vis--vis the ever expanding menu of vapid, mawkishly insipid list of those that someone else decided were "OK", and in some ways it becomes a wonder to me that the suicide rate is not far and away higher.

Perception has been carefully guided such that the average man has come to a set of far lower expectations insofar as his standards are concerned, all the while having launched his expectations and desires for the vapors all around him into a ballistic tracectory.  Given the ways in which perception and habit have been altered in the great wad, it is really no wonder that the up and coming generations shrink away from reality and into fantasy.  It's really no mystery to me at all.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Not to worry because once the rioting and insurrection begin, those people will discover with great suddenness their latent abilities... or die quickly. No doubt there will be those who choose the latter. C'est la guerre... literally.
> 
> 
> 
> In a sense, I cannot blame them. The prospect of the typical 21st century American life is the love-whelp that resulted with "1984" had a one-nighter with "Brazil" and got her all kinds of knocked up. I know we are "safe" and don't worry about whether we will be able to eat this week, but there is a lot more to proper life than just this. For me, the American life has become a grey and largely lackluster affair once one realizes how quaint and ultimately boring so many things are. Couple that with the ever narrowing menu of meaningful options, vis--vis the ever expanding menu of vapid, mawkishly insipid list of those that someone else decided were "OK", and in some ways it becomes a wonder to me that the suicide rate is not far and away higher.
> 
> Perception has been carefully guided such that the average man has come to a set of far lower expectations insofar as his standards are concerned, all the while having launched his expectations and desires for the vapors all around him into a ballistic tracectory. Given the ways in which perception and habit have been altered in the great wad, it is really no wonder that the up and coming generations shrink away from reality and into fantasy. It's really no mystery to me at all.


Would you be much more comfortable with one chance in millions?

----------


## Origanalist

> Did his mother drop him on his head as an infant and not tell anyone?
> 
> This speculation is pure noise until such time as a plausible theory and convincing supporting evidence say otherwise.
> 
> I could as easily assert that we are living in a giant sperm cell, swimming merrily on our ways toward some wayward egg and once we arrive the universe will wink out of existence.
> 
> Oy.
> 
> .


I think I like that theory better.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The picture he painted of Trantor alone was as depressing as it gets.


and I believe, intentionally so.  We don't blame Orwell because the UK is saturated in nannycams.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 1. The earth is an Oblate Spheroid. - I would say round but, thanks to AF in another thread, I learned the correct term.
> 2. Pluto is a planet.
> 3. If we are in a video game, I have to wonder about the sanity of the alien overlord who created the people of Walmart.


Wow, I'll be damned, people actually listen.

I owe you a rep.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The picture he painted of Trantor alone was as depressing as it gets.


My take was that Trantor was the height of Empire, and was a good thing, as his main concern was rebuilding it after it fell.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Did his mother drop him on his head as an infant and not tell anyone?
> 
> This speculation is pure noise until such time as a plausible theory and convincing supporting evidence say otherwise.
> 
> I could as easily assert that we are living in a giant sperm cell, swimming merrily on our ways toward some wayward egg and once we arrive the universe will wink out of existence.
> 
> Oy.
> 
> ETA and PS: the one thing he says that is dead-nuts on is the bit about the dangers of AI. That was my specialty in grad school and I have worked on a project that would scare the pants off any of you. Overall and on the net, *nothing good stands to come of advancing AI technologies*.


http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-singul...ected-chapters

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 1. The earth is an Oblate Spheroid. - I would say round but, thanks to AF in another thread, I learned the correct term.
> 2. Pluto is a planet.
> 3. If we are in a video game,* I have to wonder about the sanity of the alien overlord who created the people of Walmart*.


No, it's genius. They exist so that even the lowliest of us can be made to feel better when looking at the POW website.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> My take was that Trantor was the height of Empire, and was a good thing, as his main concern was rebuilding it after it fell.


His *protagonists* were mainly concerned with rebuilding it.  That does not mean that the Foundation universe portrayed such central authority as a good thing.  Foundation was a mosaic of so many things, part of which is dystopic.  I don't blame the author of a full blown dystopia for advocating the system he is writing about, neither to I attribute such desire when central authority was presented as (mildly) dystopic.  The debate at the end, wasn't it? If they should ever have done any of it? It's been a very long time, I devoured them in the 80's.

I read it as Hari Seldon was the Asimov analog, he develops this science that can predict the future to an astonishing degree.  A cabal of elites hijack his science and try to use it to control the galaxy.  They ultimately fail, and in the end debate whether they made everything worse by trying.

So...

I would think an Asimov fan would at the very least have a mild distrust of centralized authority?  Certainly not as flagrant as say Heinlein but I sure picked up on that thread and latched onto it pretty hard as a fourteen year old.

I didn't see the message of Foundation as to trust central authority, I saw it as a gentle warning that such attempts inevitably fail, and probably make things worse.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Asimov was a very early "global warming" activist. And his solution to problems facing humanity is a world government. This speech to the American Humanist Association was in 1989, and I'd dare say that this opinion had not changed since his youth, witnessing discussions and lectures on the subject of world governance. There was an actual Foundation of some kind that influenced his writing of Foundation, but I can't remember the name.




> I had written an article on the greenhouse effect. It was a year end article, they wanted me to pick out the most important scientific event of 1988, and I really thought the most important scientific event of 1988 would only be recognized some time in the future when you get a little perspective. But I thought the most interesting scientific event of 1988 was the way everyone started speaking about the greenhouse effect just because there was a hot summer and a drought, when I had been talking about the greenhouse effect for twenty years, at least. And there are other people who talked about it before I did, I didn't invent it. So, I explained what was meant by the greenhouse effect, and I explained that not only were we constantly pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because we're burning fossil fuels, coal and oil and gas, so that the content of the atmosphere as far as carbon dioxide is concerned has been going up steadily, not very rapidly, but steadily ever since 1900, and is continuing to do so. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now is 50% higher than it was in 1900. It's still only a little over three hundredth- 0.035%, which is not enough to bother us as far as breathing is concerned, but it's enough to trap the infrared waves that Earth reflects into space and to raise the temperature of the Earth slightly, and the temperature will keep on going up. And not only are we piling in more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but we're chopping down the forests of the Earth at a great rate, and the forests themselves are the most efficient consumers of carbon dioxide that there are on Earth. Anything that substitutes for the forests, like let us say grain fields, or grasslands, are not going to consume carbon dioxide as efficiently. And if we replace them with desert, which is most likely, it won't absorb the carbon dioxide at all. So that in a sense we are contributing to the greenhouse effect in two ways: by pushing the output of carbon dioxide and inhibiting the input so to speak.
> 
> 
> I said therefore, when Brazil begins to cut down the rainforest of the Amazon, not only is it destroying a habitat for vast numbers of plant and animal life which could be of great use to us, there are perhaps pharmacological products we know nothing about that are produced by these forms of life that if we knew about could advance the art of pharmacology and the practice of medicine, enormously. And we'll never find out, we're going to drive them to extinction. We're going to destroy the ground, because the soil of a rainforest isn't very good, and when you chop it down it doesn't make for good farming, what it makes is for good deserts. And finally, we're going to cut down on absorbing the carbon dioxide and on producing oxygen, so that we are actually tampering with the climate of the Earth and with the very atmosphere that we breathe, so that under those circumstances it is useless for Brazil to say that she can do what she wants with her own, that the rainforest belongs to her and if she wants to cut them down, she can. The rainforest doesn't belong to her, it belongs to humanity, she is merely the custodian of the rainforests.
> ...
> Well, what we need is some sort of federal *world government* and the only problem is how we manage to do that. 
> ...
> http://www.ubcome.com/AsimovSaveCivilization.html

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> and I believe, intentionally so.  We don't blame Orwell because the UK is saturated in nannycams.


Yet Asimov would say that Orwell's concerns were overblown.

Here's Asimov reviewing 1984 in 1983:
http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It's been a very long time, I devoured them in the 80's.


As did I. I recently re-read the original Foundation trilogy. You might give them another re-read with today's perspective.

----------


## timosman

> Not everything is guaranteed to go well and problem free from the initial get go. <shrug>


You are right!

----------


## osan

> http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-singul...ected-chapters



Tee hee hee hee... I know all about this brand of writing.  Wildly speculative at best, based on assumptions that are almost assured not to hold.

Remember Toffler's "Future Shock"?  Turned out to mainly nonsense, though I suppose one could twist meanings in some tortuous manner to make it seem he was some great visionary.

One of the few such books that turned out to predict well the future was Chris Anderson's "The Long Tail" - a fairly worthwhile read.  The author extrapolated based on sound principles, rather than questionable assumptions.

----------


## osan

> Wow, I'll be damned, people actually listen.
> 
> I owe you a rep.


I'd give it to her, but M...

No... NO MR. ANIMAL... I didn't mean it like THAT... NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

NO CARRIER

----------


## osan

> Yet Asimov would say that Orwell's concerns were overblown.
> 
> Here's Asimov reviewing 1984 in 1983:
> http://www.newworker.org/ncptrory/1984.htm


I have some measure of respect for Asimov as a writer, but I have to say that this "review" is pure fail.  I could not imagine anyone missing the mark this widely.  It is, in a word, astonishing.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I have some measure of respect for Asimov as a writer, but I have to say that this "review" is pure fail.  I could not imagine anyone missing the mark this widely.  It is, in a word, astonishing.


Indeed. If you would like to have further insight into the mindset of Asimov, and probably Musk, be sure to read the transcript at the link I posted earlier:

http://www.ubcome.com/AsimovSaveCivilization.html

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I have some measure of respect for Asimov as a writer, but I have to say that this "review" is pure fail.  I could not imagine anyone missing the mark this widely.  It is, in a word, astonishing.


Perhaps this quote represents the entire review best:




> Orwell's*1984*is a picture of all-powerful government, and it has helped
> make the notion of 'big government' a very frightening one. ...*If anything, in fact, governments of the 1980s seem dangerously weak.*

----------


## Suzanimal

> Wow, I'll be damned, people actually listen.
> 
> I owe you a rep.


I have good listening skills.




> No, it's genius. They exist so that even the lowliest of us can be made to feel better when looking at the POW website.


You have a point there. POW definitely makes me feel like I have my $#@! together but I try to stay humble and remember that I'm just one bad box of Franzia away from being featured on their website.




> I'd give it to her, but M...
> 
> No... NO MR. ANIMAL... I didn't mean it like THAT... NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
> 
> NO CARRIER


You can give it to me, Mr Animal won't mind.

----------


## osan

> Indeed. If you would like to have further insight into the mindset of Asimov, and probably Musk, be sure to read the transcript at the link I posted earlier:
> 
> http://www.ubcome.com/AsimovSaveCivilization.html


Yeah I saw it.  He makes valid individual points and then pulls them together in a grossly fallacious framework.  Typical of his ilk.

----------


## acptulsa

> Remember Toffler's "Future Shock"?  Turned out to mainly nonsense, though I suppose one could twist meanings in some tortuous manner to make it seem he was some great visionary.


Did you even read the book?

_Future Shock_ did not even once pretend--or try--to predict the future.  It simply explored the overwhelming rate of change that we are experiencing in all aspects of our lives, and tried to delve into what our reaction to all of that constant change might be.

Seems to me the closest he came to predicting the future was to say we might come to find ourselves somewhat divorced from reality...

----------


## Ronin Truth

*The Law of Accelerating Returns*http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of...rating-returns

----------


## osan

> Did you even read the book?
> 
> _Future Shock_ did not even once pretend--or try--to predict the future.  It simply explored the overwhelming rate of change that we are experiencing in all aspects of our lives, and tried to delve into what our reaction to all of that constant change might be.
> 
> Seems to me the closest he came to predicting the future was to say we might come to find ourselves somewhat divorced from reality...


I read it something like 25-30 years ago.  Perhaps it was me, but it seemed like he was making predictions in terms of trends.  Left me thinking, "meh..."

OTOH, I COULD be confusing it with "Mega Trends"... but that was John Naisbitt.

Crap... now you got me wondering.  You may have me there... I may be thinking of Naisbitt's work as the nonsense.  $#@! I hate this getting old crap.

My apologies to Toffler if indeed I have mis-remembered.  I will now probably have to get another copy of Future Shock and re-read it.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I've come to the same conclusion, but also realize it makes no difference.
> 
> The premise is simple, if we can create 1 simulation, then we will inevitably create "billions", and therefore, the assumption is that if there is a higher reality they will have done the same. So, then the question is "are we the first reality", the true true reality against all odds, or are we 10 layers deep or 1000's. Odd's are we are not the original. So, anyway, if you accept that we can make a reality that can fool a human into believing it is real, then odds are you are in one. 
> 
> Likely that is how God works. He can effect our reality, but not be part of it, as the the computer reality is purely synthetic in relation to the real god, and if he entered it'd be via an Avatar that represented God but wasn't actually "God". Sound similiar to something. Also how could God know your essence upon death, how could bring you to a heaven which doesn't exist in this universe. Etc.... All explained if you think of this like you'd think of a computer simulation. 
> 
> Anyway. Doesn't matter really, you still have to live.


I think that we get carried away with the concept of some sort of "edge" between, well, anything in this universe really.  But there is a lot of talk all the time about "parallel universes", "other dimensions", "alternate realities", etc.  

If there is any sound theory about possible "evidence" of another universe or "plane" then in my opinion, it's still part of this universe.  Even the closest theory I've read regarding "other universes" was really part of a hyper-inflationary model, wherein, our "big bang" inclusive universe was forever separated and accelerating away from other "pockets".  But even this I would say is still one "universe" or "reality" as the paper described mechanisms whereby we may not necessarily be able to physically reach but still perhaps communicate with them through some type of quantum computing.

But certainly a computer simulation in no way classifies as another "reality".  It's simply a perceived context.  There's nothing "other worldly" about a computer simulation.  This was all well-defined in the movie The Matrix.  Your brain is the simulator.  Your mind is the reality, and it's always only one.  The "other realities" are simply mapped onto your mind to change the context by modifying your perceived input.  And naturally you could go as deep as your mind was powerful enough to take you.  Just like inception (or an even weirder movie The Congress), I'm sure you could be in a dream within a dream within a dream...until you really lost track of what was real or perhaps even who you are.

Augmented (virtual) reality doesn't change "reality" it just changes your perception of what is real.

As far as the God stuff, I tend to think God is much more pragmatic and mundane when it comes to metaphysical worldviews.  Not entirely convinced that what's called heaven isn't simply another planet, or perhaps one of those other pockets described above.  People look different in that place no doubt, as environment is different.  This is perhaps what was shone to the few disciples who witnessed Jesus' transfiguration.  Perhaps they saw him in his "home-state" so to speak.    

Fun fact:  There used to be a separation between "heaven and earth".  Heaven was for God, earth for man.  But when God came to Mt. Sinai after Exodus he rescinded that decree (according to Midrash), so currently, there is not real separation even spiritually/metaphysically, *much less physically* between what is called heaven/earth.

EDIT:  by bolded part, I mean, there's no physical laws that separate heaven/earth.  Obviously they are separated spatially and there are rules and what have you about who can go there, and they follow a different "order of things", etc.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I think that we get carried away with the concept of some sort of "edge" between, well, anything in this universe really. But there is a lot of talk all the time about "parallel universes", "other dimensions", "alternate realities", etc. 
> 
> If there is any sound theory about possible "evidence" of another universe or "plane" then in my opinion, it's still part of this universe. Even the closest theory I've read regarding "other universes" was really part of a hyper-inflationary model, wherein, our "big bang" inclusive universe was forever separated and accelerating away from other "pockets". But even this I would say is still one "universe" or "reality" as the paper described mechanisms whereby we may not necessarily be able to physically reach but still perhaps communicate with them through some type of quantum computing.
> 
> But certainly a computer simulation in no way classifies as another "reality". It's simply a perceived context. There's nothing "other worldly" about a computer simulation. This was all well-defined in the movie The Matrix. Your brain is the simulator. Your mind is the reality, and it's always only one. The "other realities" are simply mapped onto your mind to change the context by modifying your perceived input. And naturally you could go as deep as your mind was powerful enough to take you. Just like inception (or an even weirder movie The Congress), I'm sure you could be in a dream within a dream within a dream...until you really lost track of what was real or perhaps even who you are.
> 
> Augmented (virtual) reality doesn't change "reality" it just changes your perception of what is real.
> 
> As far as the God stuff, I tend to think God is much more pragmatic and mundane when it comes to metaphysical worldviews. Not entirely convinced that what's called heaven isn't simply another planet, or perhaps one of those other pockets described above. People look different in that place no doubt, as environment is different. This is perhaps what was shone to the few disciples who witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. Perhaps they saw him in his "home-state" so to speak. 
> ...


How about the holographic universe theory, my dear wizard?

----------


## timosman

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...sits-96-hours/




> 5 Apr 2016
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla Motors Inc. caused a sensation by picking up $300 million in Model 3 customer deposit cash in just 96 hours this week. The hidden story: that money may have rescued Tesla from a precarious negative working capital crisis. Tesla now has the opportunity to become a profitable car company for the first time.
> Most people do not realize that the average vehicle sold in the U.S. has been sitting on a dealers lot for about 60 days. That explains why Ford has $126 billion and GM has $6.5 billion in positive working capital (current assets minus current liabilities), to fund their operations.
> 
> Teslas hype allowed the company to raise $5 billion of equity and debt to fund its car company, and to support the process of raising another $5 billion for its Gigafactory, which will build lithium ion batteries for its vehicles and Powerwall energy storage systems.
> ...

----------


## puppetmaster

On a side note....Elon musk is 100% stealing from the US taxpayers.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Maybe the whole universe is just the dream of a turtle flying in space?



Anyway, I guess Elon is trying to bolster his cred as some kind of futurist visionary with this pseudo-intellectual mouth noise.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> On a side note....Elon musk is 100% stealing from the US taxpayers.


The 'systems' exist to be abused.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The 'systems' exist to be abused.


As a contractor recently told me, every fat HOA savings account is just waiting to be looted by crooked management companies and contractors. Tony Montana probably said it best...

----------


## timosman

bump

----------

