Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Basically, given that there is a better than zero chance of intelligent life in the universe, and that there is a better than zero chance of that life becoming technological, chances are that sooner or later said life will reach a state where they can run simulations containing intelligent life which cannot be distinguished (from the inside) from reality. In this case, (and assuming that such simulations don't require, say, all the matter in the universe being turned into one giant computer to run them) it's infinitely more likely that you live in a simulation than in the real universe. So maybe you'll live your life over and over again until you get it right. Maybe you're the only real person in existence and everything else is just testing you to see how you'll behave. Maybe, as in the book, once a certain percentage of the universe realises you're probably in a simulation then you'll all move on to the next level.
/geekout
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 11:46, 4 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
Thank you.
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 11:48, Reply)
and arguably Dark City / Exiztenz.
(I wrote my dissertation on how sci-fi films explore what we perceive as reality)
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 11:54, Reply)
And then, on the final read through, moments before handing it in, I thought "Damn, this is shit!". Panicked for a month, then got the mark. I'd scored very highly, which made up for ballsing up my Sartre exam.
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:05, Reply)
Then ballsed up my 'exam'. :(
I always mention the 1st in my CV though...
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:36, Reply)
Well, I did in my interview anyway, so I guess that counts.
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:37, Reply)
but it was to do with snap-shot photographs and the idea of truth.
Merlot-Ponty FTW!
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:00, Reply)
It was awful and got a dreadful mark, but it was fucking brilliant too.
It was based on that childish concept of 'We'll never know if we're perceiving things in the same way or not. Not evena a straight line.'
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:02, Reply)
Phenomenology - my version of the colour green might be your version of blue.
Fascinating stuff - Merlot-Ponty and Sartre argued about it for years.
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:06, Reply)
I've never successfully discussed it with anyone
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:07, Reply)
Other than to maybe go into a 'social contract' thing about agreed-upon notions of what is green/blue etc.
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:14, Reply)
how can you get across to someone how you perceive a colour?
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:18, Reply)
why some people are good at matching colours and others aren't. At least, that's what I like to believe, as it's a good excuse for a girl like me who always seems to put together the wrong clothes.
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:20, Reply)
The only essay that I didn't hurriedly scribble together at 6am on deadline day.
53%
SAD
FACE
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:07, Reply)
I think I tought about that thing of the colours without anyone telling me, and I was so proud of myself. Until I realize there was a whole science behind it :(
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:16, Reply)
so it's not really relevant here.
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:03, Reply)
I think you'll agree that I am clearly the authority here.
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:05, Reply)
My first was about historical accuracy in the book, 'Gone with the Wind' and my third was a poetic-prose novella about a stalker.
So I'm covering all bases.
Mad women? I'm your expert.
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:08, Reply)
(, Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:13, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread