Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Why the Probability that You Are Living in a Matrix is Quite High

3stripe3stripe ✭✭
edited March 2006 in Vanilla 1.0 Help Discuss. (Wondered about this quite often after a wee smoke ;-)


  • nope.
  • lechlech Chicagoland
    franky and benji mouse taking over the world once again!
  • But the matrix, the matrix got my brain!
  • This assumes that, as creatures inside the simulation, we would have any frame of reference to the world outside. Most likely, we would not.
  • Aww, no takers?
  • My post doesn't count?
  • I think that it is fairly safe to say, that IF we had made comuters smart enough to overpower us and stick us in to a virtual reality, they would have put us in a virtual reality of the time when the machines started to rebel, and not in to a relity of some past that the machines know nothing about except the vague descriptions in some books. I mean, why did they choose this instead of a reality way easier to recreate? They are machines, they act logically, and action like that is not even remotely logical.
  • I read it all. It seems a little far fetched for me. He 'tried' to support his arguement, but it just wasn't enough for me. Sorry.
  • The author makes it pretty clear he doesn't believe it himself, I think it's more of an exercise to see how convincing an argument he can make...
  • It could get less convincing but i still dont buy it. The world is too beautiful a place to have been made by some machine. And whats with all the fucking wars yo?
  • "The world is too beautiful a place to have been made by some machine."

    Unless they were recreating a point in time by using Google Earth or something...

  • Look at the physics we've worked out about the universe... it's all based on a set of rules, constants, simple component parts... how does something as mathematical as the periodic table just invent itself...
  • It comes down to maths at the end of it. I don't understand maths so I'm fucked.
  • "how does something as mathematical as the periodic table just invent itself..." That is a question I've been asking the evolutionists for years. Still have not gotten a good answer.
  • 3stripe3stripe ✭✭
    edited March 2006
    /me hates maths as well But it seems to be the key to a lot of things. But yeah... how could all that science stuff, the rules, elements etc just be sitting there ready to go at the very start....
  • I think it's more that we've looked for patterns and applied them as opposed to the patterns being there "on purpose".
  • How much of everything is just our way of trying to make sense of things vs the way they really are? Sure, there are rules and laws, but they always seem to have weird exceptions, like the English language. LOL Is it possible? In theory, ANYTHING is possible ... like cold fusion. In reality, things are much different.
  • A good quote: (i've forgotten who i'm citing unfortunately)

    I think it belittles the beauty of the universe to say it was simply created in 7 days by an omnipotent deity

    I think there's too much evidence for darwinism to believe that Genesis is the literal truth. I also think it's dangerous for the answer to every question we don't know the answer to: eg. "how was the universe created anyway" to just say "God did it". Because what happens if we find another explanation?

  • But theory changes when the facts change, and usually theory is based on facts, so when the fact that cold fusion isn't possible changed the theory of it changed.
  • Hehe, we could end up getting really off topic now... "evidence for darwinism" It always makes me nervous when people make that kind of statement. First of all, darwinism does not explain the origin of the universe, only natural selection - which is fine because that is actually science (it is observable and even testable). Evolution on the other hand, although a very intereting idea, is not technically a scientific theory because it cannot be reproduced and it cannot be tested or verified. There is circumstancial evidence to support it, but there is also the same kind of evidence to support that global warming is due to pirate decline. ( The other reason I get nervous is that so often when I ask people, "what evidence?" they typically don't have any. That is not to say there isn't any, the troubling fact is that people blindly accept it as fact even though they don't know why. So Matt, I guess I'd counter your statement about how dangerous it is to say "God did it" as an explanation for everything with the question: how is it different to say "evolution did it" ? At the end of the day both explanations are pretty much the same and it just comes down to semantics.
This discussion has been closed.