Do We Live In a Simulation

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Dieter

Quote: EvenBob

sim·u·la·tion
/ˌsimyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

the production of a computer model of something

"Simulation theory says that we are all likely living in an extremely powerful computer program, directed by an entity outside of our physical comprehension."
link to original post

While computers are often how we produce simulations, they are not the only way.

Do the ants know that they are burrowing inside an ant farm, or do they just go about their ant business within the circumstances of their environment?
link to original post

Ants are curious creatures. Their brains are tinier than we can imagine yet they function at an extremely high level. How is this possible. They are organized, they're loyal, they exist to preserve the status quo. All on a brain about the size of the head of a pin. Only a simulation could come up with that.
link to original post

Can you prove all, or even any of that happens in their brains? If you cut a cock-a-roach's head off it will die of thirst, not from not having a brain. (That's actually a pro-simulation argument.)

In the lower animals it appears a lot of the work is distributed across the whole nervous system, not just in the head and whatever kind of brain it has.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Dieter

Quote: EvenBob

sim·u·la·tion
/ˌsimyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

the production of a computer model of something

"Simulation theory says that we are all likely living in an extremely powerful computer program, directed by an entity outside of our physical comprehension."
link to original post

While computers are often how we produce simulations, they are not the only way.

Do the ants know that they are burrowing inside an ant farm, or do they just go about their ant business within the circumstances of their environment?
link to original post

Ants are curious creatures. Their brains are tinier than we can imagine yet they function at an extremely high level. How is this possible. They are organized, they're loyal, they exist to preserve the status quo. All on a brain about the size of the head of a pin. Only a simulation could come up with that.
link to original post

Can you prove all, or even any of that happens in their brains? If you cut a cock-a-roach's head off it will die of thirst, not from not having a brain. (That's actually a pro-simulation argument.)

In the lower animals it appears a lot of the work is distributed across the whole nervous system, not just in the head and whatever kind of brain it has.

A time I observed terrible harm come to a cat. Click only if it's not a bad time to read such a thing.

Once I saw an alley cat run across a street and get run over by a car. It's head was crushed, nothing left of it. But the cat lay on it's side and all 4 legs continued their running motion. Apparently the signal that tells a cat's legs to run is stored someplace other than the brain.

link to original post

My grandparents had nothing but fresh chicken and once when I was there he chopped the head off of one and it ran all the way around the barn with no head. However an ant does it it's pretty amazing. There are so many strange things in the universe that we do not understand and we discover more of them everyday that you almost have to believe it didn't happen by accident. Many people take the easy way out and just blame it on some God, a simulation seems more logical. And now in the last 60 years at the University of Virginia they have pretty much proven that reincarnation exists. The people who die a traumatic unexpected death quite often a short time later are reborn as somebody else. Even the harshest Skeptics have looked at this stuff up close in person and came away scratching their heads. This would be covered very nicely in simulation theory.

I also find it odd that no matter how close a person is to someone or how religious they are, once that person dies never in my life have I heard anybody wonder how that person is doing now. Nobody ever says I'm really worried that Grandpa never went to heaven. It's like we naturally accept the fact that we don't know where that person is but they're doing just fine. No matter if your religious or not. It really makes no sense.

I find it immensely coincidental that the oldest religion in the world, Hinduism, has always said that what we see around us is an illusion. It doesn't really exist. Zen Masters also say the same thing. Shakespeare said that we're just players on a stage. The whole point of deep meditation is to get to where you can see that nothing around us is real. A simulation makes more and more sense the more I look into it.

Quote: EvenBob

I find it immensely coincidental that the oldest religion in the world, Hinduism, has always said that what we see around us is an illusion. It doesn't really exist. Zen Masters also say the same thing. Shakespeare said that we're just players on a stage. The whole point of deep meditation is to get to where you can see that nothing around us is real. A simulation makes more and more sense the more I look into it.
link to original post

What does that mean, "real?" If I walk around a movie set, everything there is real. It is made of atoms. Wood, plastic, cloth, just as real as any other. It's just designed to create an image in our minds that there is something more than that, that there is something going on other than workers and actors on a stage. To the guys behind the scenes who built it it is very real. They see the frame members and fasteners and marks indicating how to put it together, just as if they were house builders framing a house. What it is intended to represent to the people watching from the audience side is not their concern; that's the job of an artistic designer. As the set builders do not have the luxury of using illusion or imagination; if they build a staircase on the set it really has to function as a staircase and support the weight of the actors on it, no pretending allowed.

Thus if we say "illusion," just like saying "simulation" - illusion of what? And what is the real substance of this illusion? If I see a movie where Igor is walking around with a human head, I know that "Igor has a human head" is the only part that is an illusion. The reality is that "An actor playing Igor has some papier-mache fashioned to resemble a human head." Actors are real, papier-mache is real, and human heads are real- at least relative to what is being implied in the movie, which is fiction. If all of the universe is an illusion we are left with those same questions- what is its real substance, and what real thing is it supposed to represent?

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

If I walk around a movie set, everything there is real. It is made of atoms.
link to original post

Interesting thing about atoms is even as human bodies age our atoms don�t age. I assume if you could just see the atoms of the same person old they would just look slightly rearranged, or missing. I think atoms just come and go though. We�re not the same atoms we once were but the same kind of atoms. Probably.

I�m making guesses and assumptions though. Heck if I know.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

I find it immensely coincidental that the oldest religion in the world, Hinduism, has always said that what we see around us is an illusion. It doesn't really exist. Zen Masters also say the same thing. Shakespeare said that we're just players on a stage. The whole point of deep meditation is to get to where you can see that nothing around us is real. A simulation makes more and more sense the more I look into it.
link to original post

What does that mean, "real?"
link to original post

When they use the word real or say that everything we see is an illusion what they mean is that this is not the base reality. This is something else entirely. The one thing that the so-called enlightened people in other religions try to accomplish with meditation is get as close to the base reality as they can. And they all report the same thing, that what we see around us is not true reality. There was a famous Jesuit priest who said we are not humans on a spiritual journey, we are spiritual beings on a human journey.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

I find it immensely coincidental that the oldest religion in the world, Hinduism, has always said that what we see around us is an illusion. It doesn't really exist. Zen Masters also say the same thing. Shakespeare said that we're just players on a stage. The whole point of deep meditation is to get to where you can see that nothing around us is real. A simulation makes more and more sense the more I look into it.
link to original post

What does that mean, "real?"
link to original post

When they use the word real or say that everything we see is an illusion what they mean is that this is not the base reality. This is something else entirely. The one thing that the so-called enlightened people in other religions try to accomplish with meditation is get as close to the base reality as they can. And they all report the same thing, that what we see around us is not true reality. There was a famous Jesuit priest who said we are not humans on a spiritual journey, we are spiritual beings on a human journey.
link to original post

Oh yeah, Father Teilhard. But I'm looking for a different kind of distinction than the ones he made.

Everything we perceive is taken through our sensory organs and processed in our minds. What is the difference between "real" information coming in and being processed, and something we just make up in our imaginations? How would we know the difference?

This came to me when I was 12 years old and had a wet dream about Shari Lewis. She was awesome. And I thought about it- what was the difference between having her in a dream, and having her "for real?" No one had touched me, but if she had crept into my bedroom and treated me like her monkey puppet it would have been just as awesome, I would have had the same memory of it, and the sheets would have been in the same condition. So how is it different?

The difference is what other people see. If I had her for real I could strut around my high school with her hand in hand and show her off. In my dream, only I see her. I can describe the experience but there is no way I can fully share or demonstrate it. The dream is also not a unique experience. While only one guy can hold her hand at a time (her other hand is busy) there are no limits on how many guys can have the same dream about her at the same time.

Thus I came to this conclusion: objective reality is the equivalent of shared experience. You and I can look at the same tree and see the same thing, just from a slightly different perspective resulting from our different loci. Our subjective realities, dreams, thoughts, imagined events cannot be shared directly which is why we invented words, to do that. We both see the same tree but if one of us likes it and the other doesn't, we need words to communicate that. The idea of objective reality being an illusion does not apply in this framework, because we never see objective reality without our subjective interpretation of it.

So what you might mean is that our observed reality isn't quite an illusion, but a counterfeit. If someone hands me a counterfeit $100 bill, it is not a real $100 bill, but it is a real piece of paper. If I didn't know anything about money I would think I was just receiving a marked piece of paper. It is only my familiarity with $100 bills that would lead me to believe I was receiving a $100 bill, and my expectation of receiving money that leads to my disappointment that it is not really that. But it is really something.

Why would I want all the guys in my school to know I was doing Shari? Ego, pride, and a desire for increased social status. I'm not sure that those are worthwhile things. It's no coincidence that suppression of the ego is considered a virtue in most if not all of the major religions.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Everything we perceive is taken through our sensory organs and processed in our minds. What is the difference between "real" information coming in and being processed, and something we just make up in our imaginations? How would we know the difference?
link to original post

Exactly! It would be like building a robot to do 10 specific tasks and you only give him what he needs to perceive those 10 different tasks. That's his whole world, he can't perceive anything outside of that. It's the same with us. What's real to us is only that which we can perceive with our sensory organs and our very limited mind. It all seems very very real just like it does to the robot. That's how it would be in a simulation, we can't perceive anything outside of the simulation. It can be done because a few dedicated Eastern religion types have become enlightened through meditation and they see beyond the simulation. And they all say the same thing, that everything we see is not real. Quite a coincidence.

As far as everything else you posted that's just us creating our own reality. There is no one basic reality, we each create our own within certain parameters. And then we agree on a lot of it and that's how we get along. Ever notice how extremely susceptible we are to suggestion at any age? Experts call it brainwashing, we can be talked into almost anything if the right techniques are used. That's because nothing is real and your reality can be changed, quite easily.

Is it just me or does anyone else imagine different lyrics for certain songs�?

The [Simulation] Will Not Be Televised

ETA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwSRqaZGsPw

Quote: camapl

Is it just me or does anyone else imagine different lyrics for certain songs�?

...

No, it is not just you who imagines such things...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI

Okay, now we're getting serious. Deepak Chopra supports the simulation Theory. And why would he not.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O4FcShJxxBY

In my teenage years I had this job where nearly everyday a crazy homeless guy would walk by on the sidewalk, stop, turnaround, and flip off the sky and start cursing at it.

A coworker said to me laughing one day �What if there really was something real there that he can see and we can�t?�

And I said what�s the difference? Is reality what you experience or is reality determined by majority rule?

Quote: Brickapotamus

In my teenage years I had this job where nearly everyday a crazy homeless guy would walk by on the sidewalk, stop, turnaround, and flip off the sky and start cursing at it.

A coworker said to me laughing one day �What if there really was something real there that he can see and we can�t?�

And I said what�s the difference? Is reality what you experience or is reality determined by majority rule?
link to original post

Both! You're entitled to your own reality, but if you want to share with others there has to be a common frame of reference.

But what if there was only one person in the universe? What would be the difference between his seeing something and his imagining it? Nothing, probably.

And if the Copernican Principle holds true, and if the universe is really expanding uniformly around all points relative to that point, we really are all in our own universes.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

But what if there was only one person in the universe? What would be the difference between his seeing something and his imagining it? Nothing, probably.
link to original post

This really puts the recurring "There are other players at the table?" into focus.

Quote: Brickapotamus

In my teenage years I had this job where nearly everyday a crazy homeless guy would walk by on the sidewalk, stop, turnaround, and flip off the sky and start cursing at it.

A coworker said to me laughing one day �What if there really was something real there that he can see and we can�t?�

And I said what�s the difference? Is reality what you experience or is reality determined by majority rule?
link to original post

There is a baseline reality that we are surrounded by but we create our own reality within it. A good example is eyewitnesses to a bank robbery. You can have six witnesses inside the bank that saw the robber up close and they will have six different descriptions. There's a podcast I listen to from a really smart guy who was a bank teller in his twenties and he witnessed two robberies and the descriptions he gave the police turned out to be totally wrong and to this day he can't figure out why. That's because he was creating his own reality within the reality that was happening. Everybody saw the same thing yet everybody saw something different because our brains do not interpret things identically. People who end up in asylums are creating a reality for themselves that is so different from ours that they can't live among us.

You are correct though, reality is basically determined by majority rule. We find the things that we agree with in everybody else and we make that our base reality. Problems arise when you live in a society where they choose to create a base reality that is dangerous for the rest of the world and we usually end up having to eliminate them. Look at North Korea, the people there actually believe that their leader is from a divine origin. They believe it because they've been fed that lie all their lives as were their parents. They could be deprogrammed and talked out of it but it wouldn't be easy.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: Brickapotamus

In my teenage years I had this job where nearly everyday a crazy homeless guy would walk by on the sidewalk, stop, turnaround, and flip off the sky and start cursing at it.

A coworker said to me laughing one day �What if there really was something real there that he can see and we can�t?�

And I said what�s the difference? Is reality what you experience or is reality determined by majority rule?
link to original post

Both! You're entitled to your own reality, but if you want to share with others there has to be a common frame of reference.

But what if there was only one person in the universe? What would be the difference between his seeing something and his imagining it? Nothing, probably.

And if the Copernican Principle holds true, and if the universe is really expanding uniformly around all points relative to that point, we really are all in our own universes.
link to original post

It's more like every person is the center of the universe. But so is every tree, every fish, every cockroach, if all points are expanding uniformly into Infinity the center is where you happen to be standing.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

But what if there was only one person in the universe? What would be the difference between his seeing something and his imagining it? Nothing, probably.
link to original post

(truncated. aggressively.)

This really puts the recurring "There are other players at the table?" into focus.

Show Spoiler

Trying to figure out which person is the only one makes it all fuzzy again.

link to original post

Isn't aggressive truncating a first degree felony in some states?

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

But what if there was only one person in the universe? What would be the difference between his seeing something and his imagining it? Nothing, probably.
link to original post

(truncated. aggressively.)

This really puts the recurring "There are other players at the table?" into focus.

Show Spoiler

Trying to figure out which person is the only one makes it all fuzzy again.

link to original post

Isn't aggressive truncating a first degree felony in some states?
link to original post

Given the state I'm in, I'm willing to chance it.

Quote: Brickapotamus

In my teenage years I had this job where nearly everyday a crazy homeless guy would walk by on the sidewalk, stop, turnaround, and flip off the sky and start cursing at it.

A coworker said to me laughing one day �What if there really was something real there that he can see and we can�t?�

And I said what�s the difference? Is reality what you experience or is reality determined by majority rule?
link to original post

I would say reality is what is capable of being experienced by those who are witnesses or participants. If I'm walking down the street at night and I see a shooting star in the sky, that could be a real event. If it only happened in my head as a delusion or hallucination, then I argue it isn't real. If it actually was a celestial body plummeting in our atmosphere and burning up, then that is something could be experienced or witnessed by others.

Of course, if it's happening inside your head, why should that mean it isn't real?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN7uK8KBODI

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: Brickapotamus

In my teenage years I had this job where nearly everyday a crazy homeless guy would walk by on the sidewalk, stop, turnaround, and flip off the sky and start cursing at it.

A coworker said to me laughing one day �What if there really was something real there that he can see and we can�t?�

And I said what�s the difference? Is reality what you experience or is reality determined by majority rule?
link to original post

Both! You're entitled to your own reality, but if you want to share with others there has to be a common frame of reference.

But what if there was only one person in the universe? What would be the difference between his seeing something and his imagining it? Nothing, probably.

And if the Copernican Principle holds true, and if the universe is really expanding uniformly around all points relative to that point, we really are all in our own universes.
link to original post

It's more like every person is the center of the universe. But so is every tree, every fish, every cockroach, if all points are expanding uniformly into Infinity the center is where you happen to be standing.
link to original post

And this is why they might all be different universes: we have an event horizon. Being the expansion rate of space increases with the distance from the observer, there is a point at which the rate of expansion is c and you can't get any information from beyond that point. That means relative to that observer, things further than that do not and cannot exist.

But we can't lose information either. Professor 't Hooft has an idea. And a bunch of really smart guys liked his idea, and gave him a prize for it! All of the information in a space enclosed by an event horizon also must be encoded in some form on that event horizon, which is a two-dimensional surface, a sphere in this case. And being everyone's sphere is going to be a little different, that allows everyone's 3D reality to be different too.

This is a short but challenging read, and he doesn't blow your head off nonstop with specialized math in this paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0003004

Quote: Dieter

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

But what if there was only one person in the universe? What would be the difference between his seeing something and his imagining it? Nothing, probably.
link to original post

(truncated. aggressively.)

This really puts the recurring "There are other players at the table?" into focus.

Show Spoiler

Trying to figure out which person is the only one makes it all fuzzy again.

link to original post

Isn't aggressive truncating a first degree felony in some states?
link to original post

Given the state I'm in, I'm willing to chance it.
link to original post

Are you still in a state of indecision and indifference? Snap out of it

I doubt we are in a simulation. I natural laws that govern the physical, chemical and biological interactions in the universe are well structured to give the universe...structure. Without those laws, the universe would be in total an complete chaotic entropy.

Instead of being in a simulation, could the universe exist in a black hole?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKeCr-MAyH4

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

And this is why they might all be different universes: we have an event horizon. Being the expansion rate of space increases with the distance from the observer, there is a point at which the rate of expansion is c and you can't get any information from beyond that point. That means relative to that observer, things further than that do not and cannot exist.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0003004
link to original post

I was a follower of Krishnamurti back in the seventies. He's one of the reasons I moved to California in 1976 because I wanted to meet him. In his books and lectures he always talked about the observer being the observed. I never got to meet him though I did attend one of his lectures in Ojai.

"The core idea is that the observer and observed are not separate entities
but rather are part of a single, unified process. What you observe
(the observed) is a manifestation of what you are (the observer)."

In other words you create your own reality, which plays right into the simulation theory. In the simulation we are not puppets on a stage being manipulated by something outside of ourselves, we are creating our realities within the simulation. Otherwise what would be the point and that's obviously what we're doing, you can't argue it. It's why no two people see exactly the same thing.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Quote: Brickapotamus

In my teenage years I had this job where nearly everyday a crazy homeless guy would walk by on the sidewalk, stop, turnaround, and flip off the sky and start cursing at it.

A coworker said to me laughing one day �What if there really was something real there that he can see and we can�t?�

And I said what�s the difference? Is reality what you experience or is reality determined by majority rule?
link to original post

I would say reality is what is capable of being experienced by those who are witnesses or participants. If I'm walking down the street at night and I see a shooting star in the sky, that could be a real event. If it only happened in my head as a delusion or hallucination, then I argue it isn't real. If it actually was a celestial body plummeting in our atmosphere and burning up, then that is something could be experienced or witnessed by others.

Of course, if it's happening inside your head, why should that mean it isn't real?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN7uK8KBODI


link to original post

It is real until someone convinces you that it isn't.

It's always amazing when somebody famous comes to this realization.

�I glimpsed it for an instant, I chased it for a lifetime�

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3ggYM2aizOg

.
we entered this world ignorant
and we will leave this world ignorant
we know some things - but so many things we don't know

the mysteries of the universe - we're not even remotely close to understanding it all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2mEiT6aBz8

.

Quote: EvenBob

Okay, now we're getting serious. Deepak Chopra supports the simulation Theory. And why would he not.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O4FcShJxxBY
link to original post

This just blows me away, it's religion meeting scientific thought. I have been studying Hinduism and Buddhism since 1970 and Deepak sees it all as one and the same. Obviously it is one and the same. Just different approaches.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KvPINDu7rs0

Jim Carrey has started down the path that will lead him to realize we live in a simulation.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZnBtnI3RfBo

So the simulation theory has been around for thousands of years. Why am I not surprised.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aMJZsOQ5GcE

Further evidence�?

https://www.earth.com/news/evidence-that-earth-is-inside-a-colossal-structure-big-galaxy-ring/

Or are we merely contained within the RNA/DNA of some larger being?

Quote: camapl

Further evidence�?

https://www.earth.com/news/evidence-that-earth-is-inside-a-colossal-structure-big-galaxy-ring/

Or are we merely contained within the RNA/DNA of some larger being?
link to original post

I understood absolutely nothing from that article other than they give cute names to everything. I'm actually glad I don't understand it.

a-scientist-says-he-has-the-evidence-that-we-live-in-a-simulation

This article, originally published in Popular Mechanics, is about a scientist that claims that as the universe evolves that information becomes more organized. The scientist claims that this appears to violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics which says that entropy and randomness always increase, and that this might be evidence that we live in a simulation.

Something to ponder when you hear public figures exhorting you to follow the science. Science is often a garbled mess.

Quote: gordonm888

a-scientist-says-he-has-the-evidence-that-we-live-in-a-simulation

This article, originally published in Popular Mechanics, is about a scientist that claims that as the universe evolves that information becomes more organized. The scientist claims that this appears to violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics which says that entropy and randomness always increase, and that this might be evidence that we live in a simulation.

Something to ponder when you hear public figures exhorting you to follow the science. Science is often a garbled mess.
link to original post

//The idea that something "violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" is a common misconception that arises from misunderstanding what the law actually states. The key principle is that while the entropy of a local system can decrease, the entropy of the entire isolated system (the system plus its surroundings) must increase for any spontaneous process.//

Sometimes the simulation gets stuck for creativity and just uses an old script thinking nobody will notice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9jeulUK9ABQ

Quote: EvenBob

Sometimes the simulation gets stuck for creativity and just uses an old script thinking nobody will notice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9jeulUK9ABQ
link to original post

I remember doing a report in elementary or junior high school on this set of coincidences.

EB, I have a couple of honest questions: Do you believe that your edge in roulette comes from exploiting a glitch in the matrix? If so, are there any other perceived glitches or anomalies that you exploit?

Quote: gordonm888

a-scientist-says-he-has-the-evidence-that-we-live-in-a-simulation

This article, originally published in Popular Mechanics, is about a scientist that claims that as the universe evolves that information becomes more organized. The scientist claims that this appears to violate the 2nd Law of thermodynamics which says that entropy and randomness always increase, and that this might be evidence that we live in a simulation.

Something to ponder when you hear public figures exhorting you to follow the science. Science is often a garbled mess.
link to original post

What�s a better process than science?

Quote: camapl

Quote: EvenBob

Sometimes the simulation gets stuck for creativity and just uses an old script thinking nobody will notice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9jeulUK9ABQ
link to original post

I remember doing a report in elementary or junior high school on this set of coincidences.

EB, I have a couple of honest questions: Do you believe that your edge in roulette comes from exploiting a glitch in the matrix? If so, are there any other perceived glitches or anomalies that you exploit?
link to original post

And I have a question for you. Considering the way you treated me in the past why would you think that I would answer any question that you have. Dream On.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: camapl

Quote: EvenBob

Sometimes the simulation gets stuck for creativity and just uses an old script thinking nobody will notice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9jeulUK9ABQ
link to original post

I remember doing a report in elementary or junior high school on this set of coincidences.

EB, I have a couple of honest questions: Do you believe that your edge in roulette comes from exploiting a glitch in the matrix? If so, are there any other perceived glitches or anomalies that you exploit?
link to original post

And I have a question for you. Considering the way you treated me in the past why would you think that I would answer any question that you have. Dream On.
link to original post

Because if you don�t respond to those that consider you a fool based on your roulette nonsense you will end up only talking to yourself?

I do still like your food pictures, and your cat thread is OK.

Quote: SOOPOO

Because if you don�t respond to those that consider you a fool based on your roulette nonsense you will end up only talking to yourself?
link to original post

I've said this a hundred times I'm always talking to myself, I only post for myself, I only post for my own edification. I really could not care less if you ever see this post because I'm posting it for me. And if people here think I'm a fool, how does that affect me exactly. Do I win less at roulette? Do my cats love me less? Just because you obviously live your life totally caring what other people think of you, don't put that burden on me.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: camapl

Quote: EvenBob

Sometimes the simulation gets stuck for creativity and just uses an old script thinking nobody will notice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9jeulUK9ABQ
link to original post

I remember doing a report in elementary or junior high school on this set of coincidences.

EB, I have a couple of honest questions: Do you believe that your edge in roulette comes from exploiting a glitch in the matrix? If so, are there any other perceived glitches or anomalies that you exploit?
link to original post

And I have a question for you. Considering the way you treated me in the past why would you think that I would answer any question that you have. Dream On.
link to original post

Because if you don�t respond to those that consider you a fool based on your roulette nonsense you will end up only talking to yourself?

I do still like your food pictures, and your cat thread is OK.
link to original post

So how much does it cost to keep an open mind about it?

I'm not that secretive about my methods. I use a combination of counting (all kinds of counting, multiparameter, multi-level, up to 4 shoes at a time) and card sequencing (not necessarily the ace!) and error exploitation. With those things together I have assembled a really sustainable solo AP practice.

But if I were to explain exactly what I was doing, in detail, to some random guy sitting next to me at the table, even (especially!) someone who believed he was an expert in the game, he either wouldn't understand me or he would think I'm crazy, that it wouldn't work or that no one is capable of doing that. While an experienced AP would know, yeah, stuff like that does work and there sure are people capable of doing it. But we still wouldn't give each other the exact details of what we were doing without a valid reason. No "need to know" in many cases.

So what if... when there's a poster here talking about methods that don't seem to make any sense, it's actually me who is the muggle and they who are the wizard? Of course there are many people who understand things I don't and have abilities I don't, or perhaps never made use of. When I saw the Ken Uston interview on 60 Minutes I was still too young to go into a casino and didn't understand how what he was talking about really worked, and had no idea that I would be good at this and would someday be doing what he does. But nonetheless it was all true, and all being laid out in front of me.

Bottom line is those 4 words that keep us from straying too far from reason- "I could be wrong." The smarter you are the harder that is to say, but the more powerful it is as well. Just imagine how magnificent the things you are wrong about must be!

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: camapl

Quote: EvenBob

Sometimes the simulation gets stuck for creativity and just uses an old script thinking nobody will notice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9jeulUK9ABQ
link to original post

I remember doing a report in elementary or junior high school on this set of coincidences.

EB, I have a couple of honest questions: Do you believe that your edge in roulette comes from exploiting a glitch in the matrix? If so, are there any other perceived glitches or anomalies that you exploit?
link to original post

And I have a question for you. Considering the way you treated me in the past why would you think that I would answer any question that you have. Dream On.
link to original post

Because if you don�t respond to those that consider you a fool based on your roulette nonsense you will end up only talking to yourself?

I do still like your food pictures, and your cat thread is OK.
link to original post

So how much does it cost to keep an open mind about it?

I'm not that secretive about my methods. I use a combination of counting (all kinds of counting, multiparameter, multi-level, up to 4 shoes at a time) and card sequencing (not necessarily the ace!) and error exploitation. With those things together I have assembled a really sustainable solo AP practice.

But if I were to explain exactly what I was doing, in detail, to some random guy sitting next to me at the table, even (especially!) someone who believed he was an expert in the game, he either wouldn't understand me or he would think I'm crazy, that it wouldn't work or that no one is capable of doing that. While an experienced AP would know, yeah, stuff like that does work and there sure are people capable of doing it. But we still wouldn't give each other the exact details of what we were doing without a valid reason. No "need to know" in many cases.

So what if... when there's a poster here talking about methods that don't seem to make any sense, it's actually me who is the muggle and they who are the wizard? Of course there are many people who understand things I don't and have abilities I don't, or perhaps never made use of. When I saw the Ken Uston interview on 60 Minutes I was still too young to go into a casino and didn't understand how what he was talking about really worked, and had no idea that I would be good at this and would someday be doing what he does. But nonetheless it was all true, and all being laid out in front of me.

Bottom line is those 4 words that keep us from straying too far from reason- "I could be wrong." The smarter you are the harder that is to say, but the more powerful it is as well. Just imagine how magnificent the things you are wrong about must be!
link to original post

What a great post. You are correct you cannot explain anything to anybody if they go into it thinking that you're wrong. If they have the exact opposite of an open mind. If their only goal is to make you look bad. You could take them to the casino win 50 times in a row in front of them and they would still think you're wrong, that you're using a trick or just lucky. Because they can't do it, they think nobody can do it.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: camapl

Quote: EvenBob

Sometimes the simulation gets stuck for creativity and just uses an old script thinking nobody will notice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9jeulUK9ABQ
link to original post

I remember doing a report in elementary or junior high school on this set of coincidences.

EB, I have a couple of honest questions: Do you believe that your edge in roulette comes from exploiting a glitch in the matrix? If so, are there any other perceived glitches or anomalies that you exploit?
link to original post

And I have a question for you. Considering the way you treated me in the past why would you think that I would answer any question that you have. Dream On.
link to original post

It�s true that villains often believe that they�re the victim. Perhaps the belief that one lives in a simulation allows one to never need to take any accountability for oneself.

Quote: camapl

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: camapl

Quote: EvenBob

Sometimes the simulation gets stuck for creativity and just uses an old script thinking nobody will notice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9jeulUK9ABQ
link to original post

I remember doing a report in elementary or junior high school on this set of coincidences.

EB, I have a couple of honest questions: Do you believe that your edge in roulette comes from exploiting a glitch in the matrix? If so, are there any other perceived glitches or anomalies that you exploit?
link to original post

And I have a question for you. Considering the way you treated me in the past why would you think that I would answer any question that you have. Dream On.
link to original post

It�s true that villains often believe that they�re the victim. Perhaps the belief that one lives in a simulation allows one to never need to take any accountability for oneself.
link to original post

Please don't discuss your personal problems here, there's a good lad.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: camapl

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: camapl

Quote: EvenBob

Sometimes the simulation gets stuck for creativity and just uses an old script thinking nobody will notice.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9jeulUK9ABQ
link to original post

I remember doing a report in elementary or junior high school on this set of coincidences.

EB, I have a couple of honest questions: Do you believe that your edge in roulette comes from exploiting a glitch in the matrix? If so, are there any other perceived glitches or anomalies that you exploit?
link to original post

And I have a question for you. Considering the way you treated me in the past why would you think that I would answer any question that you have. Dream On.
link to original post

It�s true that villains often believe that they�re the victim. Perhaps the belief that one lives in a simulation allows one to never need to take any accountability for oneself.
link to original post

Please don't discuss your personal problems here, there's a good lad.
link to original post

lol I see what you did there� about as clever as, �I�m rubber, you�re glue��

We can always count on EB to be EB �until he is no longer. I find solace in the latter.

Quote:

Are we living in a simulation? Mathematical proof debunks the idea

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/are-we-living-in-a-simulation-mathematical-proof-debunks-the-idea/ar-AA1Pz0Tl?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=6904c9208cca4a6ca03bff650110e62b&ei=22

You decide.