Flat Earth = Simulated Universe

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Nothin

Do you believe that whatever science says is 100% correct?

...Absolutely . The term "science" would by definition mean proven
Evidently , you do not . ...

Yeah. Nope. That's not the definition of science. Nope. Not when you put "absolutely", and "100% correct" in it.
Sorry.

Uhh , that is exactly what differs science and the term theory
So , I guess you let me know the answer to the second part of my post as well
Endgame

Even a "simulated universe" would have to follow the coding of the program
So , with the "simulated" Laws of Physics there could still be no flat earth (nor any other flat object in space)

If we lived on a flat earth..wouldn't at some point during the year, we see a 'line' across the moon? Instead, all year long we see a spherical shadow or part of one. Do flat earthers contend that the 'disk' rotates in such a way that it is always full face to the Sun?
Oooo! Look! They're ALL flat!! Frisbee anyone??

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Nothin

Do you believe that whatever science says is 100% correct?

...Absolutely . The term "science" would by definition mean proven
Evidently , you do not . ...

Yeah. Nope. That's not the definition of science. Nope. Not when you put "absolutely", and "100% correct" in it.
Sorry.

Uhh , that is exactly what differs science and the term theory
So , I guess you let me know the answer to the second part of my post as well
Endgame

Can we not agree to disagree about what the stadard definition of science is? Don't really care too much.

The second part of your post contained no questions. So you drew your own conclusions.

Even a "simulated universe" would have to follow the coding of the program So , with the "simulated" Laws of Physics there could still be no flat earth (nor any other flat object in space)

You are imposing beliefs and conditions, within a thought experiment. This leads down a narrowed path of conclusions.
There may be an endless and unimaginable amount of possibilities, that we can not conceive of.

Do you really think that we could comprehend a computational system 5, 10, 100 times more complex than the ones we have invented so far?
Open your mind a bit.

a reply to: Nothin

What if our supposed reality is some kind of simulation?
Would that curvature still be real, or just perceived?

This makes no sense, why wouldn't they just create the simulation to have round planets to begin with instead of some weird hack where they trick people into seeing something round when actually it's flat. Can you not see you're just making up any possible rationalization in order to maintain your beliefs? There are countless reasons to believe the Earth is a sphere and if you deny all those reasons you're just denying reality.

That's really funny, in an accidental, and unfortunate way.

Yes because obviously you know the secrets of reality and everyone else is deluded for believing in science.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

This makes no sense, why wouldn't they just create the simulation to have round planets to begin with

C'mon man! Who the heck are we to judge, among the infinite possibilities of simulations, that we absolutely all have to be in one with absolutely all planets spherical?
-
If a simulated universe is plausible: then why not an infinite amount of potential, and varied universes?
-

Yes because obviously you know the secrets of reality and everyone else is deluded for believing in science.

Opps: looks like you may have stepped into the same accidental, and unfortunate doo-doo...

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

C'mon man! Who the heck are we to judge, among the infinite possibilities of simulations, that we absolutely all have to be in one with absolutely all planets spherical?

Because you're arguing there's some vast conspiracy to make us believe the Earth is round through any means necessary when actually it's flat, but if they have the power necessary to generate a universe this complicated they'd simply make the planets round to begin with and then we'd be much less likely to discover it's a simulation.

And if we're just talking about probability, sure maybe there is a universe which has flat planets, but there are dozens of different experiments we can do to show the Earth is round, so if we want to accept the most likely conclusion, we must accept our planet is round, it makes no sense to claim the Earth is flat despite absolutely everything indicating otherwise.

. The player usually cannot reach the edge because there will be things blocking the way, so the player isn't aware there are edges and it doesn't ruin the illusion, rest assured the edges are there in most games except those like No Mans Sky which model fully spherical planets.

Well edges in games are not always needed just modulate the coordinates (people that travel to antarctica might end up at the northpole).

I believe in simulation theory but not really in flatearth. But if simulation theory is correct earth might be sphere and flat at the same time. because it isn't that difficult to imaging an adaptive Algoritm.


Funny that you mention No Man Sky. In the game perlin noise is frequently used. Which in turn means that pseudo random numbers play a main role in creating infinite simulated worlds.

If there is a correlation our world and it is possible to calculate that pseudorandom number sequence is used that might proof that this world is indeed simulated in some way. Somehow it seems to me that the golden ratio / fibonacci numbers hint at this.

People tent to think in objects time and distances. Present day QM tells us that these properties loose their meaning at a very small scale. for instance A particle can be at 2 positions at the same time , or particles can be created out of nothing (heisenberg).

Maybe the 'rendering' of reality fails at very small scale and is self correcting. Blunt said Classical mechanica is an artificial layer on top of a more deeper fundamental layer. Earth being a sphere (or flat for that matter) is surely an classical statement (no QM needed for that one).But maybe just maybe it's too simplistic to ignore 'QM' just because the scale is too large.

To me it seems that a lot of 'weirdness' ufo's/paranormal and such hints that sometimes the simulation is buggy even at large scale. Bugs always break the symmetry and that's why our universe might exist.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

This makes no sense, why wouldn't they just create the simulation to have round planets to begin with

C'mon man! Who the heck are we to judge, among the infinite possibilities of simulations, that we absolutely all have to be in one with absolutely all planets spherical?
-
If a simulated universe is plausible: then why not an infinite amount of potential, and varied universes?
-

Yes because obviously you know the secrets of reality and everyone else is deluded for believing in science.

Opps: looks like you may have stepped into the same accidental, and unfortunate doo-doo...

A simulation would have to have a logical procession of coding
And , current theories state that gravity may well transgress the dimensions and flow through all the universes in the theoretical multiverse. Meaning , the Laws of Gravity would of necessity be the same.
Thank you for playing the game....

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

C'mon man! Who the heck are we to judge, among the infinite possibilities of simulations, that we absolutely all have to be in one with absolutely all planets spherical?

Because you're arguing there's some vast conspiracy to make us believe the Earth is round through any means necessary when actually it's flat, but if they have the power necessary to generate a universe this complicated they'd simply make the planets round to begin with and then we'd be much less likely to discover it's a simulation.

And if we're just talking about probability, sure maybe there is a universe which has flat planets, but there are dozens of different experiments we can do to show the Earth is round, so if we want to accept the most likely conclusion, we must accept our planet is round, it makes no sense to claim the Earth is flat despite absolutely everything indicating otherwise.

Is it possible that you, like some others, have fallen into the belief-trap, that that is my belief (delusion)?
Are you sure?

...Because you're arguing there's some vast conspiracy...

Really? Is that so?
-

...but if they have the power necessary to generate a universe this complicated they'd simply make the planets round to begin with and then we'd be much less likely to discover it's a simulation...

Is that a fact?

...so if we want to accept the most likely conclusion, we must accept our planet is round...

Make conclusions at your own peril . There is no "we must".

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

This makes no sense, why wouldn't they just create the simulation to have round planets to begin with

C'mon man! Who the heck are we to judge, among the infinite possibilities of simulations, that we absolutely all have to be in one with absolutely all planets spherical?
-
If a simulated universe is plausible: then why not an infinite amount of potential, and varied universes?
-

Yes because obviously you know the secrets of reality and everyone else is deluded for believing in science.

Opps: looks like you may have stepped into the same accidental, and unfortunate doo-doo...

A simulation would have to have a logical procession of coding
And , current theories state that gravity may well transgress the dimensions and flow through all the universes in the theoretical multiverse. Meaning , the Laws of Gravity would of necessity be the same.
Thank you for playing the game....

Really? Are you 100% sure that you now comprehend all of the potential of future computational possibilities?
That's, uhmmm, possible...
The limitations of coding, as we know it today, don't seem to apply to the myriad of possibilities that go far beyond our comprehension.
Perhaps there are also possibilities, that we cannot comprehend?
-
Gravity could potentially be the same, sure, through an infinite amount of possibilities is also conceivable.
But could there also not be many possibilities of universes, with unimaginable rules of gravity?
-
Within the simulated universe concept: why state rules as if they are absolutes?
Who are we to say?

a reply to: Nothin

I love you guys. No matter how much of a fool i make of myself i know i haven't gone as far as you and your fellow...er... Believers?

I have tried to make sense about the claims your camp puts forth and nothing has come close to convincing me. I have seen people post very specific questions including my self amd those questions have either gone ignored or has been met with animosity.

Then you have the pac-man effect...
Or is it an ice wall?
Then Australia doesn't exist...
Been there beautiful country.

a reply to: Somethingsamiss

I love you guys.

What whoze guys?

the claims your camp puts forth

What claims? Which camp?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder... First of all gravity pulls things together, rocks and dust clump together until they form a large ball of rock, there is no way they could naturally form a flat disk shape. Secondly, a flat shape would not produce gravity pulling us down toward it, gravity pulls towards the center of mass, so with a sphere we always get pulled towards the center of the planet, we are not "walking upside down" and the fact I even had to clarify that makes me face palm myself. With a flat earth the gravity would be pulling us around in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways...

So they were lying about spiral galaxies, and the reality is big round galaxies?

A galaxy is not a solid object though. It is a group of objects. When something that is not solid, or not one object but many, spins, the natural shape is a disc type shape. That's how we get Saturn's rings. They are also Not a solid object, but many solid objects. And they are rotating/spinning just like a galaxy. And they go into a flat disc/ring type shape, just like a galaxy.

a reply to: Nothin

Sydney to Santiago, Flat Earth is now impossible. Thanks.

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder... First of all gravity pulls things together, rocks and dust clump together until they form a large ball of rock, there is no way they could naturally form a flat disk shape. Secondly, a flat shape would not produce gravity pulling us down toward it, gravity pulls towards the center of mass, so with a sphere we always get pulled towards the center of the planet, we are not "walking upside down" and the fact I even had to clarify that makes me face palm myself. With a flat earth the gravity would be pulling us around in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways...

So they were lying about spiral galaxies, and the reality is big round galaxies?

A galaxy is not a solid object though. It is a group of objects. When something that is not solid, or not one object but many, spins, the natural shape is a disc type shape. That's how we get Saturn's rings. They are also Not a solid object, but many solid objects. And they are rotating/spinning just like a galaxy. And they go into a flat disc/ring type shape, just like a galaxy.

Hi Enigmato.
That seems close enough to the standard views of clasical physics.
-
What about the context, of my comment, that you are commenting on?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

Sydney to Santiago, Flat Earth is now impossible. Thanks.

Occam's Razor eh?
Are you sure you're keeping your assumptions to the minimum?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

Sydney to Santiago, Flat Earth is now impossible. Thanks.

Occam's Razor eh?
Are you sure you're keeping your assumptions to the minimum?

No assumption, pure fact. In fact it's such an impregnable argument you didn't even try to defeat it. So since you know I am right, why argue?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

According to who, and under which conditions, could your argument be considered impregnable?
-
Do you believe, that in the spirit of this thread: (discussing potentialities of simulated universes), that you can put universally agreed upon limitations from common life, into this thought exercise, and those are not assumptions?
-
Am not interested in defeating your arguments.
Am trying to back you up, to that place before assumtions are made.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

According to who, and under which conditions, could your argument be considered impregnable?
-
Do you believe, that in the spirit of this thread: (discussing potentialities of simulated universes), that you can put universally agreed upon limitations from common life, into this thought exercise, and those are not assumptions?
-
Am not interested in defeating your arguments.
Am trying to back you up, to that place before assumtions are made.

The thread is not the possibility of simulated Universes, but that the one we live in would have to be if it were to be flat. Sydney to Santiago disproves FE theory.