>>11882698You're probably the most reasonable person on here. I would like to add that we almost certainly are not part of a simulation--this can be deduced by just knowing that there are natural values (e and pi) out there that are irrational. There's literally no reason beyond the planck length scale (what is that, around 30 decimal places) to add more digits, yet there seem to be infinite. No programmer, no matter how intelligent or how much power the computer would have would create multiple natural numbers with infinite digits. This would mean that the computer itself had to actually calculate a value that's basically infinity. Although nobody can *prove* this isn't the case, it's ridiculous to consider, like you say.
and to
>>11882669You're almost there. You keep saying oh I can't logically refute anything because of physics, but that isn't the point of math or physics. You cannot refute that there aren't very specifically little fairies who created the universe because one lost a bet to another, yet it would be ridiculous to consider it since we literally have no evidence to support it. So, equivalently, it would be ridiculous to consider things that are supernatural just based on the assertion that we cannot prove that it doesn't exist. This type of thought is backward and it's a good thing our laws (in the US) aren't based on this sort of thought or else you'd get nowhere. If I used your argument in court, I could say "well, it's certainly possible that I murdered him because I had a knife in my hand with his blood on it and I was at his house at the time of his murder, but let me put the possibility out there that he called me over to his house, stabbed himself when I arrived, called the police, forced me to hold onto the knife and THAT is what actually happened?? It's certainly POSSIBLE!"
Sorry, you believe things when you are presented evidence...you don't believe just because lack of evidence.
