You guys...?. You may want to take a look at this

You guys...?. You may want to take a look at this...

newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/did-the-oscars-just-prove-that-we-are-living-in-a-computer-simulation

This is insane

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condé_Nast
youtube.com/watch?v=veAPVuuUSUY
twitter.com/AnonBabble

That article is a bit exaggerated, fuck ups and unexpected stuff happens. Was Napoleon's return from exile a whim of some fuck on a computer? Was Chernobyl?

Yeah whoever wrote this needs to be introduced to the black swan theory

oh my god! it's the mandela effecT!!!!!! the berenstein bears!!!!!!!!!! a glitch in the matrix!!!

get a fucking life you boring losers, worry about things that matter. fuck.

adam gopnik is the third worst writer for the new yorker.

So Plato was right about forms after all

whoa technology and shit

These people are really desperate. Trump didn't really win it was an error in the simulation!

>gopnik
>worst writer
Not surprised. Kek.

no, this hypothesis is completely legitimate, but the clickbait normie-tier headline of the article in the OP is what's so stupid. Yeah someone made a small mistake at an award show. Wow. Metaphysics btfo!

Paul Heyman might be my favorite jew

The irony is that a major publication allowing this article to go public is about as good of an argument for the simulation theory as anything found within it.

Don't take anything owned by Condé Nast seriously.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condé_Nast

Does anyone else think that the universal simulation theory is just what happens when the scientific community tries to be involved in metaphysics/philosophy? Something about it seems so self-serving, I can't quite pinpoint where but there feels like there's a flaw in the system of thinking. It relies on the supposed inevitability of simulations being created

Am I just being dumb?

>Does anyone else think that the universal simulation theory
Is the theory impossible to be true? What odds would you say?

Either its true or false. All the ohhs and ahhs and hype, is to "get the youth into science", "get funding by talking about worm holes and lazers shiny fancy crazy cool things give us money", and because they need a spiritual replacement for religion, so they are seeing the reaction this gets, Simulation theory is 'God did it'.

*opens third eye*

no it's just makes the math work right now. journalists and redditors are taking it out of context and making it something it isn't.

This >le simulation stuff being pushed so much lately is utter nonsense, all pop philosophy/science is

>Elon Musk
>Scientist
Top Gun, he's a codemonkey that got lucky in the dotcom bubble, making 400 million from selling x.com, sure he hires a lot of scientists but he isn't one himself

you americans always think the world IS america.

>and because they need a spiritual replacement for religion, so they are seeing the reaction this gets, Simulation theory is 'God did it'.
This, tbph.

>simulacropolis dwelling simulacra shiller describes simulacrons behaving slightly less simulacrone celebrating simulacrana prove everyone else lives in simulacra

>living in a computer simulation
Atheists have gone full circle and is back at theism once more, without realizing it.

>Something unexpected happened
>Therefore, WE LIVIN IN THA MATRIX NIGGA WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Bullshit dumped like it was polystyrene snow. I hate America.

>tfw try to define scientism to friends
>"that doesn't sound so bad, user. what's the problem?"

How do I save them, bros?

Indirectly, through goods work in the name of God Almighty.

St. Thomas Aquinas

>let me try to rationally explain that rationally explaining things is bad

this is why Jordan Peterson's arguments fall flat on their face

youtube.com/watch?v=veAPVuuUSUY

>WE CAN'T LET THE STATE ALTER OUR PERCEPTIONS
>but mainstream and traditional culture, or capitalism can?
>THOSE INSTITUTIONS ARE PILLARS OF STABILITY IN SOCIETY AND OUR GUIDES TO THE FUTURE
>so they're basically the state?
>NO THE STATE WANTS TO CHOOSE WHAT I CAN THINK, RELIGIONS AND TRADITION DON'T
>what is the difference in how religions and states are established?
>RELIGIOUS CONDITIONING IS NATURAL AND NECESSARY STATE CONDITIONING IS NEOMARXIST PROPAGANDA, LET ME TELL YOU A BIT ABOUT A RUSSIAN MAN NAMED ALEXAN...
>very few sane people dispute the totalitarian oceans of blood of the 20th century are one of the worst atrocities of mankind, however during the conquest of the Americas by industrial capitalistic states, it is estimated that almost or exceeding a billion men, women, and children of cultures with more inclusivity of collectivist and trans cultur...
>ITS NOT THE SAME YOU BLOODY NEO-MARXIST

This is the worst shitpost I have read all day.

I really don't think the idea is genuinely being taken seriously by the vast majority of the scientific community. What angers me more is the fact that every time it comes up the proponents use words like "probability" completely out of context and in a manner void of any meaning.

>do you really want your employer to decide whether you're a racist or classist, or misogynist based on psychological screening tests?
>by the way I've made most of my living consulting on psychological screening tests for employers

>imprisoning, killing, or torturing outsiders and heretics has been the modus *pauses* operandi of my religion and culture, until the institutions that I am criticizing came about, who *swallows* may want to suppress any return to traditionalism

The issue with Scientism is not the act of rationally explaining things, what the hell are you on about. It's about the belief that the scientific method should be applied to ALL fields, treating all fields like fields of science, even subjective and unfalsifiable ones like art and philosophy. Mixing the falsifiable with the un- and vice versa is a dangerous and misguided act

Science here replaces religion as a dogma/concept/deity to prostrate yourself before. It's another form of philosophical suicide.

>millions of years in wich every human dies in their 20s, every female get costantly raped and a good chunk of the human population dies while getting mauled by other humans/animals/fucked up diseases
>not enough

>the oscars committee pull a publicity stunt
>WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE LIVING IN A SIMULATION??????

I hate normies.

the Bible is the result of obersvations, discussion, and peer review, what's your point

The form any Bible takes may be, but not its contents

>my analysis, community discussion, and repeated testing of the applicability of religious ideas to my life has no relation to the scientific method

anyone wanting to be a journalist should be required by law to live naked in the streets and forbidden any help or money for at least a year before publishing anything, then maybe the ones remaining would have something worth saying instead of pushing this absolute garbage on the world

>Two unlikely (by our own estimation) things happen
>OMG GUISE IT'S LE MATRIX XDDDDD
Found a suicide cult with the author of the article

I'm not religious, and I never said I was.

Religion is a generally unfalsifiable idea, based on notions that can't be proven or disproven. A scientismist (???) would claim that renders the field useless but I would not, I think the study of the falsifiable and the un- are both quite valid. The issue is when you either use to unfalsifiable to predict the falsifiable (claiming that prayer will have real-world effects for example, or claiming that astrological signs will predict a person's behavior) or using methods applicable to falsifiable study on studies of the un- ("You can't prove or disprove philosophical materialism so therefor you should stop concerning yourself with the question)

>Scientism is a term used to describe the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning

>claiming that prayer will have real-world effects

if you use prayer, and notice effects empirically with your bodily senses or mind, that doesn't escape the scientific method

the belief that humans migration into space will prolong humanity's survival is unfalsifiable, but we can still construct the best ways to attempt so from empiricism (scientism)

>People are having such a hard time coming to terms with how dishonest the American mainstream media is, that they're more keen to talk about how we must have slipped into an alternate dimension when Trump won at the New Yorker, than they are to accept the fact that Trump actually just won straight up.
>The New Yorker columnists are now writing articles about how other pop-culture phenomena backs up this coping mechanism

Is this the best timeline, Veeky Forums?

>use to unfalsifiable
*use the unfalsifiable

>the belief that humans migration into space will prolong humanity's survival is unfalsifiable
I don't think you know what "unfalsifiable" means, my guy. Because that is 100% falsifiable, we simply don't have the resources available to us yet to falsify it. That is a claim of real-world effects. That is the falsifiable

but desu, this article probably got the most clicks of the day, the boss of the writer probably poured him a glass of champagne and gave him a raise and the rest of the day off, that is assuming they do not work on commission per click

the newspaper owners should duel a genetically engineered chimera to the death for their privilege

This argument relies on the assumption that simulated universes could, and do, create simulated universes themselves, as it suggests we live in a simulated universe while we create simulated universes ourselves. Those simulated universes we create should then be able to create simulated universes within themselves, no? Do we have evidence of this that I am unaware of? Or is the idea just that we have not yet created sufficiently advanced simulations? I do understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>Because that is 100% falsifiable, we simply don't have the resources available to us yet to falsify it

claiming an invisible teacup is orbiting the sun is 100% falsifiable, I simply don't have the resources available to do so

falsifi-ability, ability as in skills and resources, is the sole requirement of YOUR ABILITY TO FALSIFY IT

>humans have been around for millions of years

But as to your point, I'm with you.

Your first greentexts are wrong and you are stupid.

>Trump cannot be President; forgetting all the bounds of ideology, no one vaguely like him has ever existed in the long list of Presidents, good, bad, and indifferent; no one remotely as oafish or as crude or as obviously unfit.
Really makes you think...

The term ''human'' doesn't refer to Homo Sapiens Sapiens specifically, it refers instead to the genus Homo.
Homo Erectus were as human as us.

too busy masturbating to teens and trannies, short summary please.

Thing is, everything is probable in a limitless universe, simulations included. This isn't new shit, it goes back all the way to fucking Parmenides.

if everything is probable, then nothing is proable

>dude trump winning is so unexpected that something must be wrong with the system

Wow what an engaging political philosophy these people must have. Democracy only works if I win!

A limited amount of things are highly probable in a limited amound of space and time.

>swath

*shudder*

There is no level of irony above that of atheists believing we live in a simulation. My brain cannot take it.

>the worst kind of pop-scientists all reject any sort of metaphysical discourse
>the only metaphysical theory they came up with is straight up sci-fi bullshit

Yeah, we totally don't need philosophy.

"Unexpected things are happening. The only logical conclusion is that we're living in a computer simulation!"

This article is completely idiotic. It's nothing more than clickbait for people who fancy themselves too intellectual for Buzzfeed.

dude you believe in a divine programmer/program

you gatta belief in somethin, dawg

post-absurdism

Not the other user, but you are fucking wrong. There are aspects of reality that are inherently presuppositional. By their very nature they could not be known. Ever. This is unfalsifiability.

every sentence is a language game.

Play!

Napoleons return from exile is a bad example, he was very lightly guarded

Jesus, that is some shit.

The New Yorker is actually, total, absolute garbage.

What happened to it? Journalism really is so screwed in the internet age. This is just childish.

Everything I've seen from the New Yorker in recent months has been this kind of absolute nonsense.