I mean, I sort of imagine it to be less the “rule on the books” part, and more the “do we actually have the physical capacity to enforce those rules” end of it. They cant really imprison him (I mean while he’s feeling guilty he might stay willingly, but they cant keep him in if he eventually changes his mind, so itd more be him imprisoning himself). Trying to despite the futility of it would seem somewhat dangerous, because again, if he should ever change his mind, you clearly dont want to seem hostile to something with that kind of power, especially when you dont have it. Saying “Our law is not sufficient for you” could just be interpreted as the most diplomatic way given his mental state to justify leaving and not returning.
I find them comforting in a reassuring, kinda awe inspiring way. Like, they’re a visual sign of at least trying to address climate change, and there’s something about having a giant, obviously artificial moving structure towering over the landscape that just gives me a sense of thrill and wonder that we are capable of building that. Those things are pretty massive if you get anywhere close to one, after all.
This cannot reasonably be how mentally healthy people react though, because this would seem to suggest that the healthy thing to do is to never worry about anything at all, in which case, what utility would have led to that emotion evolving in the first place?
I mean, he might have liked it, it’s not a bad movie and it’s not a terrible adaptation of the story either. Probably would have to first explain the context of what the muppets are and a bit about the various characters to really get some of it though
But, what if that person was a time-traveller, and was actually tying future mass-murders, serial killers, and dictators to the tracks before they ever got a chance to start their crimes?
Im an atheist myself, though I’ll agree, the universe having a beginning does not preclude the possibility that it was created by an intelligent entity of some kind, a simulation is one way this can occur, but not the only one. I dont think such a creator likely, but I cant rule the option out. However, I dont think that an entity like this is really deserving of the title of god, because a simulator (or someone who has some kind of weird tech to mess with spacetime such as to create a new physical universe artificially) is still just as fallible as any other limited entity inside their own universe. Conceivably, if someone discovered a way to cure aging or something within the next few decades, its not impossible tho probably very unlikely that you or I might someday see the technology to create such a simulated universe developed, but if I were to create one, that would not really change what I am at all, or give me limitless knowledge or make me deserving of worship. This might be because I was raised in a family mostly full of Christians and therefore interpret the word the way Abrahamic religions do, but I dont think I could really consider anything less than an actually Omnipotent, Omniscient and therefore limitless and infallible being to be a god, and as I also believe that omnipotence is a logically impossible and self-disproving concept, and therefore, that it cannot exist in any reality no matter what rules may govern it, I feel as certain as I can be of anything that no such thing exists.
Which is why I only dabble in it as a hobby and don’t generally take commissions from people (that and my skills aren’t as good as I’d like to do that, but that’s another matter)
That’s a bit like trying to become rich from writing books to my understanding. Some people manage to build enough of a fanbase to make a lot of money that way, but most people who try it won’t make such a huge amount.
I mean, isnt this a thing in comedy, where you can make the jokes of the one being funny have more impact by contrasting them with a super serious character? Scrooge is already a normally quite serious character, and the muppets are known for their antics, so leaving the comedy to them and acting serious makes a lot of sense.
I don’t personally suspect that anyone could truly create a simulation of their own universe at all. You could absolutely simulate a universe, but simulating your own universe (presumably your own universe at a point in the past since that’s what context the simulation argument generally gets made in) would have to have some kind of deviation from the real universe, be it that not all of the universe is simulated, or it’s only simulated to a certain level of detail or “resolution” and any physics on a smaller scale is simplified, or time runs slower or something. Because if you can simulate a perfect copy of your universe, or a universe of equivalent complexity and speed, then you can build a computer in that simulation equivalent to the one running it, and since that simulated computer doesn’t use all the resources of it’s simulated universe presumably, you can build several of them and get more processing power than you started with, which makes no sense. And if every “layer” of simulation inheritly has dramatically less possible complexity to it than the layer above, you should eventually (and I suspect rather rapidly) reach a level where further nested simulations are not possible
(Sarcasm aside, what’s so worrying about lizards? Only a couple types are venomous, only a few more are big enough to seriously hurt you (and most of those live in tropical forest sort of places), and anything smaller is probably just going to run away and hide it you get close to it. Lizards are pretty non-threatening.)