Re: computer simulation


kerravon wrote:
stew dean wrote:

Because you're not the one who devoted your life to
ending the institutionalized rape of Iraqi women. Only
I had the genetic drive to protect them.

Why Iraqi women - why not women all over the world? Why not the
suffering of children - or the suffering of future generations?

I want to solve ALL those problems. But we had an opportunity
to solve one particularly nasty problem - the rape of Iraqi women
by their own government. The state-slavery of 27 million Iraqis,
who didn't even have the right to not be raped. It is something
that EVERYONE should have supported, but a majority didn't.

And why was this? Doesnt it strike you as odd?

It was VITAL to understand how anyone could ignore the screams
of the Iraqi women as they were being raped by their own
government.

How do you know this happened? It appears that the US army was also
guilty of this as well.

Understanding that would explain why some
people rape while others protect. Everyone should have been
trying to understand the problem. But I was the only one doing
so. And it was I who came up with the solution.

Which was?

In my view I do more to help more than you appear to be doing.

You can't do more than liberating 27 million people from
state-slavery.

But you didnt do that. It's also not fact that there was
state-slavery, at least not on a scale found in other countries. Why
Iraq?

It is a model for the universe. A damn good model, that
answers unanswerable questions, such as "what are the
limits of matter" and "why would a benevolent God allow
evil".

I don't see how it is. I understand what yoiu are saying but just
think yoiu havnt thought it through.

I have thought it through. This is a VR computer simulation.

I don't see this. Saying it's a virtual reality simulation is
meaningless.


No, the evidence is there. But you won't believe it unless
you believe that we should have done everything possible
to protect Iraqi women from being raped by their own
government. Sociopaths won't accept it.

The world is full of bad people doing bad things.

And it was necessary to understand why we have bad people
in the world. The answer is that we have undesirable genetic
traits, and we need a religion to counteract those traits.

Whooooooo there. You're way off target. Genetic traits don't lead to
bad people - anti-social behavour is the product of socierty NOT
genetics. Race is increasingly seen as a cultural thing these days NOT
genetics. Genetically humans are more alike than most species and the
differences within a perceived races is no more or less than that
between races. Genetics is a red herring when it comes down to overal
social success.

I suggest, for moral reasons, you drop the idea that behavour is tied
into genetics.

That is what I have done - come up with a scientifically-derived
religion.

A bad understanding of genetics, a beleif that your actions are
sanctioned by god, a almost non existant understanding of science,
dellusions of grandure - these are not a good mix.

All evil people in history considered they where doing good. Be very
careful of what you are looking to do, you could be the problem not the
solution.

Why the fixation on Iraqi women?

It was the most obvious example of a human rights abuse.
Everyone should be able to agree that raping women is
wrong.

And they do. But I can't see anything you've said that in anyway a
solution.

Provide a link to show this is still happening and then

It isn't anymore! Thanks to the war there has been an
institutional change. Iraqi women are now legally protected
from being raped.

Doesnt appear to have stopped things..
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1007392006

"Michael said a failure by U.S. commanders to hold soldiers to account
had fostered a climate of impunity among troops"

Looks like the legal cover doesnt quite cover all women. It appears
that the US troops are guilty of the same crimes as the troops under
Sadam.

Meanwhile this kind of activity carries on in places like Sierra Leone,
Demoocratic Republick of Congo and by the UK troops in Kenya.

You did not make rape illegal or stop it happening. What ever victory
you are claiming I see no evidence to see that it is anything related
to you.

Get the big picture.

I have the big picture. We need to end human rights abuses.

You do not have the big picture. You think bad behavour is genetic.
You have no idea.


The universe is here for our interest. What would you
prefer to pass the time?

In universe terms we are as important as a grain of sand. Understand
this and you can gain humility needed to do good. Feel that you have a
devine right and you will do evil.

No, I won't do evil, because I have empathy.

You appear not to be able to see youself from outside - this does tend
to indicate a lack of empathy. Why is it I think you are delussional?
If you have empathy you will be able to offer a view on this.

The saying goes - good people do good things, bad people do bad but for
good people to do bad things requires reliigon.

That depends on the religion. A religion that teaches
"empathy for strangers" and "fight subjugation" is exactly
what we need to stop people from doing bad things (as
is their nature).

What we need is increased awareness of humanity, to avoid the
dehumanising of people. We don't need a religion or a cult. What is
needed is people to be free to think and for there to be no
'absolutes'. What is needed is for people to be responsible and aware
of how the world works. Folks like you going on about computer
simulations that are proved because your post tied into an arbitary
religious number that appears to be wrong and the day of the year on
act of terrorism happened (ignoring others) are not helping in my view.


You don't need to run a simulation to create the effects of a
simulation.

The effects of a simulation result from running a simulation. To reach
the conculstion of a calculation you have to do the calculation!
Think about it.

I don't even believe that we are the result of evolution. The
evolutionary evidence was just constructed and placed there
for us to find.

So you would take the objective evidence for evolution as invalid as
you have a fantasy about everything being a computer simulation.

You really havnt looked at this from a different angle have you?

To make us BELIEVE that there was no God.

Well that worked didnt it! Sorry but that makes no logical sense what
so ever. You are trying to predict the motivations of a omnipotent
entity and are saying that it wants us not to believe in it.

Doesnt sound very plausable does it? Try and see things my way.

So you can't even "do the calculation", because the calculation
doesn't produce the end result you want. You need to plant
the evidence instead.

But evolution does produce the results we see - so why fake it? Even
if there was a god it would have just run evolution to get to where it
wanted, which is not likely to be us. We are not the final goal of
evolution as it has no goal, we are a point on a line that stretches
into the future.


You just build the end product, including the fake
archaelogical evidence.

Which you will need to simulate in order for it to look like it's got a
past. Sort of obvious really.

You don't need to simulate it!!! You simply need to plant
the evidence!!!

But for the evidence to work it needs to make logical sense, join up
etc, The only way to do that is to run the simulation otherwise it
won't make sense, it'll be like a set you can see behind when you look
closer. To simulate plate techtonices, errosion, the course of rivers
over millions or years, the layers in an ice core, the rings in a tree
and fo rthem all to be consistent and cross referencing requires you do
all the calculations which means running the simulation!

If you dont' the gaps will be bloody obvious.


The point is there is most likely in this case as you have no idea why
the simulation exists. If it's down to some ego thing then its almost
certainly wrong.

It's not wrong. It's here to entertain me.

No you're here to entertian me. You are just my dream. This is just as
valid and equaly as wrong.

You can't drive a jumbo jet through this one. It's all laid out
and scientifically verifiable.

Sorry but that is simply not true. I've looked at your 'evidence' and
it's just a personal delusion of the worng kind and has the only

It's not a delusion, it is scientifically-verifiable that:

1. I am the only person who devoted his life to finding out how
people could turn a blind eye to institutionalized rape, or worse,
to oppose the ending of it.

So you've never heard of Amnesty International.? Sorry but you
statement is false beyond doubt.

2. The result of that work came to a climax in message 666 on
Sept 11, a miracle.

Urm no.

3. I was the only person who "loved my enemy" enough to
convert to the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam to help the enemy
escape potential genocide.

But you didnt, you claim to be the second coming of Jesus. Opps. My
understanding of religion is enough to know the two are inconsistent.

It appears that none of the above is true.




The evidence is evidence, and doesn't rely on my anecdotal
experience. But my theory of us living in a computer simulation
with God as the computer programmer only came about due to
anecdotal experience.

Which is not evidence - but a illogical conclusion you have made based
upon an unstable mental platform.

It is not an illogical conclusion. It is a logical explanation as to
why evil would exist in this world.

No evil exist because people do things that are against socierty. They
do these things because they consider that is what they need to do to
do well in life. Those with no money will attempt to solve this and
they will turn to crime, those who consider others to be evil will
often do evil like invade other countries and justify it much as you
have.

Evil exists becose of ignorance, much like you have demonstated to me.
You are part of the problem.


Some people have bought into it over the last 2 years.
About 5-10% of people I speak to. I don't speak to a lot
of people.

Probaby a good think. The whole 'universe as simluation' will appeal
to a lot of folks, but it's not real or provable in anyway. It's not
impossible just, like many other similair ideas, highly improbable.

Why do you think it is improbable? It's exactly what you would
do if you had the technology 1 million years from now. The "real"
date is probably billions of years from now.

So we are a simulation in a simulation in a simulation? There is no
way to prove this or disprove it so it is highly improbable given what
we know. I came up with the idea about ten years ago - you can
probably see me talking about it in this news group. I dismissed it
because, ultimately, it makes no difference. I also worked out that it
was easier to run the simulation than fake it, especially if you
consider that time between the obserer and those in the simulation does
not have to be related in any way. The whole of time could be
calculated in an instant then the viewer select which bits to look at,
traveling back and forward much like you view a DVD. It's only our
view that would have the time line. In effect the future has already
happened in this model.

This is as likely as your model.

You can't base things on assumptions or personal views of what you
would do or how you tihnk things will work - they're likely all to be
wrong. You won't be alive in a million years, nor will humans as we
know them.

Stew Dean

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aristotle rejects natural selection, and dislikes its adherents
    ... - you make a science of good and evil by saying good and evil are in ... based on genetics, although many of them were only thought to be based ... people view those diseases. ... such is creationism ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: computer simulation
    ... to postulate that there was no god. ... If this was a simulation then the ... hardware may well be the physical universe, ... explanation for evil in the world. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Aristotle rejects natural selection, and dislikes its adherents
    ... evil as any kind of inherent material attribute. ... in the spiritual realm, which does the job of making choices, turning ... based on genetics, although many of them were only thought to be based ... such is creationism ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
    ... Mendel's genetics was for simple characteristics. ... don't think a low cost launch facility is desirable at all. ... Nobody is putting a laser system in place. ... "False words are not only evil in themselves, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Restrictions On Minority Positions
    ... GENETICS does not make the man, and certainly not the way you ... Race is about genetics. ... Racial genetics does not ... make someone evil. ...
    (sci.math)