there are plenty of things going on in the world that science can't explain. but it happens, without a "plausible pathway by which it could be done"

anyway, nice talking. i reject the "it's impossible" claim

if there is no evidence suggesting it as a possibility

100 years ago there was no evidence that you (and everyone) would have not just a phone, but an actual computer in their pocket. "balderdash!" they would have said if you suggested it. "preposterous! impossible!"

again i'm not saying we ARE in a simulation, nor am i telling you what to believe, but i'm still skeptical of the "it's impossible, proven by my math" claim, seeing as how so many "certainties" throughout history have had to be adjusted--or discarded--due to new developments

The point being that this kind of math is not capable of simulating a universe. If it did something else, it wouldn’t be a computer. It would be something else.

the "something else" is the thing-- saying that it's impossible for the universe to be a simulation is going ahead and claiming that there will never ever be a "something else" that could do the computation, or, have the "non-algorithmic understanding" they're talking about.

which to my mind is on an equal plane as "we don't know why X happened, therefore god exists"

edit: interestingly, speaking of "god," hermeticists believe the universe itself is a mental projection "all is mind," the principle of mentalism. from that point of view, our universe isn't a "simulation" per se, but more like a dream. or nightmare. more nightmare than dream at this point

https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/7-hermetic-principles

"Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone," Dr. Faizal explains. "It requires non-algorithmic understanding, which by definition is beyond algorithmic computation and therefore cannot be simulated. Hence, this universe cannot be a simulation."

aren't they basing this conclusion on their current "understanding" of what computers are capable of, and assuming that their current limitations will remain limitations forever? not saying the universe is definitely a simulation, but you don't have to go too far back in time for the tech we have today to seem like impossible "magic" even to the smartest most imaginative scientists

"the law" is literally meaningless when no one enforces it

maybe GOP will get firsthand experience of what 42 million people who have very little to lose are capable of when actual starvation kicks in

also if you want to be sciencey and technically correct, there are 3 daughters in the photo

i would say "boycott EA," but that's accomplished approximately nothing for each of the previous bullshit ea moves ("pride and accomplishment" my favorite).

so enjoy your new Electronic Artsrabia

develop completely separate processing systems to account for the fact that genitals look weird. Their appearances are so strange that you’d rather avoid them

wat

if i was a business owner (which i never would be), in florida (which i also never would be), i would know to request that the interviewer leave that question out of the article, lest i add boycotts, vandalism, arson, death threats, etc to the money woes

seems like more than half the articles i click on anymore are shit-tier model garbage that was generated the instant i clicked the link

no proofreading, no editing, just instant word salad for the purpose of getting ad views