Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Johnny Rotten · 11-02-2004, 12:29 AM

Every once in a while, I consider the stock-and-trade topics of philosophy; the existence of God, free will, euthanasia, the Matrix, altruism, homosexuality... but every once in a while, I'm stuck at the root of the problem--that you can be sure of precious little. I might not have existed the moment before I finished typing this sentence. I might exist only as a tool in someone or something else's device, only aware of myself in an illusory way, in a functional way that is only a sliver of true being. Sure, we've all considered this at one time or another. The world might be some form of Matrix.

But every once in a while I'm afraid that I'm the master of my domain but am unable to muster the ability to do anything godlike because of how I've been conditioned to be a face in the crowd. Every once in a while, I'm afraid that life as I know it is a puzzle that I have to unlock to reach higher ground, else stay here for another turn of the wheel.

Occam says to not multiply uneccessarily. So what's the simplest explanation? I suppose that depends on whether you're the practical type or a little stoned and listening to OK Computer, like me. But I think it also depends on our knowledge of the situation. Before factories came along, a windmill was the best way to grind grain into flour. Nobody could think of a better way to do for a long, long time. A 12th century Norman couldn't even conceive of such a thing. Likewise we cannot imagine what devices it would take to simulate a reality for the problem of the individual. Any factory owner would tell you that his idea is much more efficient and profitable than a bunch of windmills. Than billions of them, given a million factories.

Come to think of it, reality occlusion culling is a great way to save on processing power. Randomness (within rules) is a great way to save on storage space. So is instantiation, where I only exist as a set of rules before being summoned to appear. But as there is nothing necessary about my being alone here in my room typing away and listening to Thom Yorke whisper sweet nothings in my ear, I must be real. As there is nothing necessary about my self-awareness, I must be real. I've stumbled into Descartes. It's pretty crowded in here.

So I am real and, with existence considered as a computing device, there is no strict reason for anything beyond the realm of my senses to physically exist. The world around me, as rulesets waiting to be summoned, with me being the X factor, the representative of entropy that generates glitches like spirit hauntings, deja vu, and strange Ouija occurences. Maybe the cultural picture we have of the abducting alien is really my own face reflected back to me through millions of eyes, so I don't forget.

This explains why there appears to be no other intelligent life in the universe--a large given for many to swallow, but it's my personal conundrum--no aliens because there don't strictly need to be any. A culled occlusion. For now, at least. Just make sure they're not curious enough to ever find out for sure. Build failure into the system so that the program will if-then destroy itself if it finds out that it's alone, instead of asking the questions that break the illusion. That would generate insurmountable instability.

Since the future does not have to exist beyond our ability to guesstimate it, the present and the past don't have to lead towards a specific destination. There does not have to be a purpose beyond mere persistence of existence. Only one entity, the anomaly, has to be present. Only as much timespace as needed. Just enough to falsely convince the entity that is not alone.

You/I will not know which one is The One until the system has run out of neccesary lines of code. Given my reasoning, probability reaches one when the descendants of the human race become convinced that there is only one ultimate origination of self-awareness. That does not look like it will happen any time soon. The ability to view all of time and space at once is impossible from within the system, but it takes only "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a jury to send the defendant to the chair.

But what I'd really like is to be convinced of is that all of this is nonsense.

11-02-2004, 12:29 AM	#1 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	Is life one big playground just for you? Every once in a while, I consider the stock-and-trade topics of philosophy; the existence of God, free will, euthanasia, the Matrix, altruism, homosexuality... but every once in a while, I'm stuck at the root of the problem--that you can be sure of precious little. I might not have existed the moment before I finished typing this sentence. I might exist only as a tool in someone or something else's device, only aware of myself in an illusory way, in a functional way that is only a sliver of true being. Sure, we've all considered this at one time or another. The world might be some form of Matrix. But every once in a while I'm afraid that I'm the master of my domain but am unable to muster the ability to do anything godlike because of how I've been conditioned to be a face in the crowd. Every once in a while, I'm afraid that life as I know it is a puzzle that I have to unlock to reach higher ground, else stay here for another turn of the wheel. Occam says to not multiply uneccessarily. So what's the simplest explanation? I suppose that depends on whether you're the practical type or a little stoned and listening to OK Computer, like me. But I think it also depends on our knowledge of the situation. Before factories came along, a windmill was the best way to grind grain into flour. Nobody could think of a better way to do for a long, long time. A 12th century Norman couldn't even conceive of such a thing. Likewise we cannot imagine what devices it would take to simulate a reality for the problem of the individual. Any factory owner would tell you that his idea is much more efficient and profitable than a bunch of windmills. Than billions of them, given a million factories. Come to think of it, reality occlusion culling is a great way to save on processing power. Randomness (within rules) is a great way to save on storage space. So is instantiation, where I only exist as a set of rules before being summoned to appear. But as there is nothing necessary about my being alone here in my room typing away and listening to Thom Yorke whisper sweet nothings in my ear, I must be real. As there is nothing necessary about my self-awareness, I must be real. I've stumbled into Descartes. It's pretty crowded in here. So I am real and, with existence considered as a computing device, there is no strict reason for anything beyond the realm of my senses to physically exist. The world around me, as rulesets waiting to be summoned, with me being the X factor, the representative of entropy that generates glitches like spirit hauntings, deja vu, and strange Ouija occurences. Maybe the cultural picture we have of the abducting alien is really my own face reflected back to me through millions of eyes, so I don't forget. This explains why there appears to be no other intelligent life in the universe--a large given for many to swallow, but it's my personal conundrum--no aliens because there don't strictly need to be any. A culled occlusion. For now, at least. Just make sure they're not curious enough to ever find out for sure. Build failure into the system so that the program will if-then destroy itself if it finds out that it's alone, instead of asking the questions that break the illusion. That would generate insurmountable instability. Since the future does not have to exist beyond our ability to guesstimate it, the present and the past don't have to lead towards a specific destination. There does not have to be a purpose beyond mere persistence of existence. Only one entity, the anomaly, has to be present. Only as much timespace as needed. Just enough to falsely convince the entity that is not alone. You/I will not know which one is The One until the system has run out of neccesary lines of code. Given my reasoning, probability reaches one when the descendants of the human race become convinced that there is only one ultimate origination of self-awareness. That does not look like it will happen any time soon. The ability to view all of time and space at once is impossible from within the system, but it takes only "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a jury to send the defendant to the chair. But what I'd really like is to be convinced of is that all of this is nonsense.