¿ wrote:tycho wrote:harrydre wrote:so if we can travel faster than light, then we can live in the future
There's neither past nor future. When we use such terms we're just creating convenient metaphors to live with our sense limitations.
tycho wrote:'How big the universe is' is a myth we are trying to create. There's nothing like 'universe' in or by itself.
Another illusion and myth is that of a 'person'; or in this case 'scientist'.
In my estimation the 'greatest' realization is that experience must be appropriated and molded into subjective ideals and desires not for any other reason, but to 'satisfice' the pressures of momentary existence... a breath of a 'lifetime'.
http://themindunleashed....-not-looking-at-it.html From @Ash Ock's
post - If we accept the simulation hypothesis we also accept that anything is possible and that nothing can be determined...as the extent of the illusion cannot be determined nothing can be determined.
We're back to
absurdism.Existence is what you choose to believe it is.You could be right and we may never know or you could be wrong and it would be irrelevant.
Wow! Why is it so difficult to read @tycho's posts? I've been trying to read what he/she had been writing here, and how do you guys understand what this guy writes?
Anyway, I can now see the universe as a simulation.
But I also see how the objection to simulation may be flawed.
God is necessary, yet no morality is necessary.
And that God too is part of the simulation.
Everything is a game, therefore moralities are strategies of play.
Problem is when we become unaware of fields, and the strategies they demand.