That is the thing I’m seeing the most this past year and it’s already starting up for this year - there seems to be little thoughtfulness being put into things online. It’s just a firehose of high-engagement, low-impact, low-thought chaff.
Why does it always have to go to extremes immediately with you people? They are not “my favorite person”. None of them. You are not my friend. Not in the slightest. I’m not inventing a narrative. It is a fact that this was all done at Nate’s request and that the amount of time the support existed is dwarfed by the amount of time they’ve supported AIDS education after realizing it was a mistake. You’re the one basically saying it’s unforgivable, that people can’t change their minds, and are inventing a narrative. You’re just projecting. Stop. Just admit that you mischaracterized it and that what you said wasn’t accurate and be done with it.
I’m not dishonest and I haven’t said anything that suggests I’m not arguing in good faith. I’ve sufficiently explained the concept and the idea that our observations can only extend to what we’re capable of. I also don’t see where I’ve contradicted myself but I’m sure you’ll point that out instead of being nebulous and ignoring the points actually demonstrated…
Your comment added nothing to the discussion and provided no counters to what was said. What was the point of writing it?
It’s not a belief because there’s not an absence of evidence. There’s quite a bit of evidence for it. Whether you agree that it’s compelling is another story. Also, no one “believes” in simulation theory. It’s simply a theory to explain our current understanding of the world. In the same way that no one “believes” in the theory of gravity. It’s just a possible explanation of what we observe.
That’s exactly where religion falls apart, though. If the Creator can interfere with their creation or directly influence it, then the idea becomes inconsistent based on what we directly observe as happening. The answering of prayers was just an example since the image in the OP is an image of the god of the Bible that people do believe answers their individual prayers (and that some people believe they can speak to and through).
Simulation theory doesn’t really allow for that kind of intervention so your Sims example isn’t relevant. Ladders in pools and whatnot don’t disappear before your eyes.
The purpose is to observe our behavior and how we react to stimuli. And it’s not that it’s “correct”, it’s just that it requires no intervention. If it’s “real”, then it was started by an outside force and is being observed like a Petri dish amongst other simulations.
The terms and conditions you mention, though, explicitly state that you don’t own the media and that they can revoke the license at any time. If people didn’t like it, they shouldn’t have given Sony their money. Don’t buy products if you don’t like the terms of the purchase. It’s precisely because people bought this shit that we have the system we do. Why would the publishers and Sony change it when they’re still making money and telling people ahead of time that this media can go away? It makes zero sense for them to change it as much as it made zero sense for people to buy these videos if it was important to them that they could access it forever.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with games. This is only about video content for which Sony no longer has publishing rights to so, even if they wanted to, they can’t let you keep this content. It’s a shitty system that’s working exactly as intended by the publishers (read conmen) behind digital media and both Sony and its users are being punished for willingly taking part in their system.
These people have zero moral standing when they agreed to these terms when they bought the media. The idea that this somehow justifies piracy is ridiculous.
How could it be backdating current knowledge when those properties are literally in his paper where he posited the theory to begin with! You’re either being disingenuous or intentionally misleading. The reason he didn’t expect to find it in his lifetime was because the chances of observing the particle were infinitesimally small because of its short lifetime and the fact that it decays into other common bosons. It is not found in nature and can only be produced in a lab.
I really don’t know how much clearer you can be about their ability to predict what they were looking for other than repeating the quote and linking the paper:
Most properties of this particle are predicted by the theory
Are you saying CERN is lying on their Highs Boson page?
And you’re also wrong about the idea of “variants” that you’re claiming. The variants they’re referring to are the byproducts of the decay. Since the Higgs Boson decays into the same products as normal Z and W bosons and photons.
Every type of particle is characterized by a set of properties: mass, electrical charge, lifetime etc. For the Higgs boson, mass was the only unknown. For a known mass, all the other properties can be calculated from theory. Measuring them experimentally and comparing them with the result of these calculations allows scientists to verify that they have really found the Higgs boson.
You’re mischaracterizing what they’re saying and arguing that what they are saying, and what I’ve quoted directly from their website where it says that all the properties except the mass were known, is not true. You’re also confusing us having the capabilities, using technology available at the time, with the ideas underpinning how it would be observed and what would have been observed based on the theory associated with it. They knew what they were looking for but being able to observe a particle that decays immediately isn’t easy. Your chart and quote are talking about the variations of interactions with other bosons and photons. How am I supposed to take any of your replies seriously?
I’m not making unjustified claims. You keep moving the goalposts away from the initial statement and are now arguing probability instead of the actual argument. The fact is that it is impossible for us to be in a simulation where the creators can change conditions if they end any simulations where we’d notice them. It’s not improbable. It’s impossible. You can keep making more straw men all you want. It doesn’t change the initial argument.
How do you draw the conclusion that anything can be proven by that logic? The entire issue with religious gods is that there is no evidence nor logic which can be used to prove or falsify the hypothesis of their existence. You can’t see evidence of an abrahamic god because it doesn’t exist. If it did, he wouldn’t be a religious god, he would be empirically proven to be god because there would be evidence that he exists that people could see or otherwise observe with their senses.
I don’t understand your line of reasoning when you’ve just confirmed how metaphysical gods can escape any attempt to falsify them. If we live in a simulation, then that wouldn’t be the case. We’d be able to prove we are in a simulation by exploiting the limits of the simulation. If it doesn’t have any limits, then it’s a moot point since it’s perfect and we wouldn’t have the capacity to distinguish that from any other layer of abstraction of simulation. What if we’re living in a simulation that’s being run inside of another simulation? What if this reality is a simulation running in a VM running on a host machine? At some point, if we can’t objectively tell a difference then it’s a moot point as I would compare it, yet again, to the one day old world hypothesis. If we can’t tell the difference (meaning we are unable to or incapable of distinguishing), then it doesn’t matter how many layers of abstraction there are. If we have the ability to know that and just haven’t observed it yet, that still makes the other options impossible since our very existence predicates a simulation that is still ongoing and that we are a part of.