Flat Earth? Nah. But wait; what if this isn't the real Earth?

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

the only apparent explanation for the bizarre, seemingly illogical flight paths, refuelling stops & journey times was that the earth's continents were arrayed in planar fashion, in an azimuthal equidistant topography, as per the map on the United Nations seal

A flat map of a globe is skewed, so are the flight plans drawn onto it.

Nice try.

Clogging the boards with 2D ignorance.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

But given that computers only render what's needed at the time and not the whole "game world" at once

This is the way I'm thinking lately. Dont know much about computer rendering but I'd imagine a tree wouldn't have to be defined every time it appeared in a forest. Just a co-ordinate to further describe where it is.

So the idea that a computer would need to have more memory or discrete bits than the universe itself is not violated if there are shortcuts or equations that simplify/reducible the "object"

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

A flat earth floating under a dome in space - I like your thinking

Are we being given clues

I tend to go with GBS Haldanes description, there is no system or theory in the world which is sufficient enough to explain the sheer vastness and complexity of something like reality or the unified theory of everything , in short I believe humans will never know and which is why I believe we are meant to be explorers and pioneers , we need space to survive each other, humans need space between groups otherwise chaos!

The Universe is far stranger than we can suppose !

we will never have an answer which sufficiently covers our entire existence and that of the universe.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: pikestaff
I don't think there is a computer big enough to simulate everything, like every blade of grass in the 'world' every beach pebble, every leaf, every snow flake (with every flake thought to be unique ?) every raindrop, and so on ?

Your right to simulate all the matter in the universe would require more matter then is in the universe. It being a computer would be on such a massive scale as to require several universes. And imagine the information that would need to be stored. Every point would require information on what it is what its attached to and how it interacts. When science talked about simulated they mean more like a hologram we we arent seeing the true nature of things

But given that computers only render what's needed at the time and not the whole "game world" at once. And given that science talks about all matter may only be possibility until it's observed, doesn't it knock the "not enough power to run the simulation" argument a bit?

No because you would stillhave to store the information eveen if it wasnt rendered in case it needs to be. To give you an idea to map aa human and the current positions of each cell would require more computing power then we have on the entire planet.

But how is the amount of computing power on "the planet" relevant to mapping something that's inside the suggested simulation when that too is also inside the simulation?
The computing power would come from the world that's running the simulation, not from the simulated world.

Your argument is like saying the world of Grand Theft Auto 5 can't exist because there's not enough computing power in Los Santos.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

what is " inside " " a simulation " ?

both terms are in "" for a important reason

i am now convinced that several people in this thread have a flawed view of what " a simulation " is

hint - whats the difference between " a model " and " a simulation "

a reply to: dragonridr

No because you would stillhave to store the information eveen if it wasnt rendered in case it needs to be. To give you an idea to map aa human and the current positions of each cell would require more computing power then we have on the entire planet.

and if reality is a simulation then this quoted below really isn't an issue

I don't think there is a computer big enough to simulate everything, like every blade of grass in the 'world' every beach pebble, every leaf, every snow flake (with every flake thought to be unique ?) every raindrop, and so on ?

in which you agreed to.


If we are in simulation then our computers are a part of it.

Yes, the computers that we have knowledge of cannot process anywhere near that much info.

However, if the OP is saying reality is a simulation then something which we know as computers that run small simulations here for us to use for whatever purpose is most likely the only way of understanding what is running the simulation we experience as reality.


Who or what programmed the machine running the simulation or who or what created the computer to run simulations on is a whole other ball game of wild speculation and imagination.

flight paths & journey times for flights on commercial airlines in the Southern hemisphere.

Isn't the reason for that because they fly around picking up and dropping off people from all over.
We assume that airliners would make the shortest trip between cities that it could. But you fail to factor in the weather at the altitude they fly and that they will fly to wherever the most passengers are located, even if that is a round about way.

a reply to: Reverbs

But Lava wall man! And like a baddass giant demon hurtling giant fire boulders that spring into fire mountain titans would be so much cooler..

That wall would have to extend all the way up to the dome. Otherwise we could just fly over it.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Ruiner1978

what is " inside " " a simulation " ?

both terms are in "" for a important reason

i am now convinced that several people in this thread have a flawed view of what " a simulation " is

hint - whats the difference between " a model " and " a simulation "

Hello ignorant ape.
I saw your earlier post asking for the definition of simulation, I thought it was an odd question as the definition should be obvious in the context of the discussion. So I put your post down to you seeing the flaw in the "not enough computing power" argument I highlighted and looking for another angle to try an come at it from. So I ignored it.

Now you're addressing me directly...
If you have a counter argument, then state it.
You give me the unflawed view of a simulation and explain exactly and concisely how it relates and exactly what's inside the simulation makes the argument still stand.

Asking vague questions and asking for definitions to give a false impression of argument is awfullly substanceless

a reply to: InhaleExhale

if reality is a simulation then the computer running it is far more complex than any machine we can come up with and so it is my opinion that the computer running it doesnt exist within this dimension or in fact within this universe and is not machine like in nature but more a biological field or being of some epic grandiose scale as to be completely mind boggling

such as shiva in the godhead multi dimensional form

a reply to: scraedtosleep

So how does an Ice wall hold all that molten lava in is a question I would ask the flat earth gang

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: scraedtosleep

So how does an Ice wall hold all that molten lava in is a question I would ask the flat earth gang

Everything is possible with god, don't you know that. /sarc

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: dragonridr

No because you would stillhave to store the information eveen if it wasnt rendered in case it needs to be. To give you an idea to map aa human and the current positions of each cell would require more computing power then we have on the entire planet.

and if reality is a simulation then this quoted below really isn't an issue

I don't think there is a computer big enough to simulate everything, like every blade of grass in the 'world' every beach pebble, every leaf, every snow flake (with every flake thought to be unique ?) every raindrop, and so on ?

in which you agreed to.


If we are in simulation then our computers are a part of it.

Yes, the computers that we have knowledge of cannot process anywhere near that much info.

However, if the OP is saying reality is a simulation then something which we know as computers that run small simulations here for us to use for whatever purpose is most likely the only way of understanding what is running the simulation we experience as reality.


Who or what programmed the machine running the simulation or who or what created the computer to run simulations on is a whole other ball game of wild speculation and imagination.

Nonsense you dont get to use magic computers. Information needs tobe stored and requires space to do it. A computer simulation works by keeping track of interactions between objects. As i said earlier just keeping track of whats going on in 1 person requires more computing power then we currently possess. At a minimum our simulation would have to keep track of every atom. There is no short cuts because when we look for them their there. So to tell us where this atom is how it interacts would obviously require more than one atom. And heres the problem any simulation the computer has to have more storage space then the size of ghe simulation.

a reply to: dragonridr

well I suppose for the god head or super computer or whatever it is tracking everything is rather easy
as its all the same thing

everything is one

so really it just has to look in the mirror to do that .

Ive often thought about it , I dont think we are in a simulation ther reason I say that is because there are ways to look beyond the standard programming and see sort of some of the back end as it were.

Psychedelics , built in back door code , sort of like the konami code tucked away by the sneaky dev who has a sense of humour.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: dragonridr

No because you would stillhave to store the information eveen if it wasnt rendered in case it needs to be. To give you an idea to map aa human and the current positions of each cell would require more computing power then we have on the entire planet.

and if reality is a simulation then this quoted below really isn't an issue

I don't think there is a computer big enough to simulate everything, like every blade of grass in the 'world' every beach pebble, every leaf, every snow flake (with every flake thought to be unique ?) every raindrop, and so on ?

in which you agreed to.


If we are in simulation then our computers are a part of it.

Yes, the computers that we have knowledge of cannot process anywhere near that much info.

However, if the OP is saying reality is a simulation then something which we know as computers that run small simulations here for us to use for whatever purpose is most likely the only way of understanding what is running the simulation we experience as reality.


Who or what programmed the machine running the simulation or who or what created the computer to run simulations on is a whole other ball game of wild speculation and imagination.

Nonsense you dont get to use magic computers. Information needs tobe stored and requires space to do it. A computer simulation works by keeping track of interactions between objects. As i said earlier just keeping track of whats going on in 1 person requires more computing power then we currently possess.

Wow!
You are really struggling with this aren't you...

One last time for you...

The computing power we currently possess is IRRELEVANT.
If our reality is a computer simulation, our computing power is part of the simulation.
The computing power running the simulation IS NOT our computing power.
The computing power running the simulation is OUTSIDE of the simulation, OUTSIDE of our reality.


Is this really too much of a concept to grasp??

originally posted by: pikestaff
I don't think there is a computer big enough to simulate everything, like every blade of grass in the 'world' every beach pebble, every leaf, every snow flake (with every flake thought to be unique ?) every raindrop, and so on ?

I suggest you read ...
Permutation City by Greg Egan

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
The videographer had highlighted the very unusual, anomalous flight paths & journey times for flights on commercial airlines in the Southern hemisphere.

When I saw that the only apparent explanation for the bizarre, seemingly illogical flight paths, refuelling stops & journey times was that the earth's continents were arrayed in planar fashion, in an azimuthal equidistant topography, as per the map on the United Nations seal - I was quite simply stunned.

Have a chat with this Boeing 747 pilot who actually flies some of these southern hemisphere routes. If the earth was flat then he couldn't physically fly the distance on a full load of fuel.

Metabunk Link A Flight over the Antarctic Sea Ice From Chile to Australia (QF28)

Metabunk Link Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America

His You Tube Channel.

www.youtube.com...

So how are the airlines that fly these route pulling the wool over passengers eyes?

Think about the numbers of peope involved here? For example Qantas.

Qantas today celebrates the third anniversary of its first service from Sydney to Santiago, with more than 430,000* Qantas passengers travelling on the route since launch.

Link

Please post the link to the video that you reference. The question is why have none of these Flat Earthers taken such a flight, or publically admitted to it? It would be interesting to see a whole plane load of these very vocal flat earthers take such a flight.

Tell ya what mate, you'd write a brilliant sci-fi book.

I don't sway with what you're saying, but what you're saying is very intestingly cool

just keeping track of whats going on in 1 person requires more computing power then we currently possess

We are not creating the would be simulation so our computing isn't what matters. Someone has stated this before.

Mankind doesn't even fully understand the universe or whether there is more than one.