Pinch Paxton

Just because there are different words for different results from experiments, doesn't mean that they aren't the same ability. It's like saying that the ripples caused from a stone throw, are different to the ripples caused by swimming. What I mean is that we are talking neuroscience, so we are talking about the same part of the brain being used for all of these examples. This puts all examples into the same basket. Pincho.

Yeah you have to see some evidence first. I was not going to bother with the subject myself, but 3 things made me decide to write my computer programs. 1/ When I was 13 I was given some tarot cards. When I was 18 I decided to try them out. I told someone that their gran was in hospital, and they would get a phone call when they got home. She would be alright, and would be leaving hospital that same night. I also told her that she would split up with her boyfriend, but meet someone else on the same night. She would be getting engaged to her new boyfriend. Everything I said actually happened! I didn't even know the girl, she just wanted me to read her tarot cards. 2/ The ball bearing experiment. Ball bearings are dropped in their thousands down a board, and pins in the board bounce them around in all directions. The ball bearings can fall into two buckets. Left bucket, and right bucket. You are sat in front of the pinboard, and asked to concentrate on making the bearings go into the left bucket. Apparently more bearings go into the left bucket. Then you are told to do the same, and make the bearings go into the right bucket. Research showed that more bearings went into the right bucket. Now I wasn't present during the test, it was on TV so who knows what really happened. 3/ The national Lottery. Well I thought it might be worth making a computer program to predict Lottery numbers, even if the experiments didn't work it wouldn't cost me anything. So I made my computer programs based on the psychic research. Instead of picking winning Lotto numbers, they picked 5 of my own Lotto numbers that I place every week. That is still amazing though. Pincho.

Yes you have figured it out. It's surprising how clear it becomes when the computer program works.

@alt_f13...You seem to think that this simulation would run from the big bang, all of the way till today. You said that we are most likely on the brink of extinction because we will soon be able to recognise that we are in a simulation. Therefore the simulation will be turned off. It is more likely that we were deliberately put in the simulation at this time so that when we die, and become part of the outside world, we will understand that world better. If it is so advanced, they wouldn't want a caveman wandering around out there. Pincho.

Are you talking about Physics, or Psychics? There's a BIG difference.

No, Nutrinos are allowed to have mass if they slow down, but if they speed up, then they most likely can't have mass. That's true. Even my computer program would be hard to make sense of. My example is that it picked 5 of my lotto numbers, and 5 of my friends lotto numbers. It only did it once for each of us. The odds were pretty amazing, and I only ran it 3 times for myself, and 3 times for my friend, but it doesn't do it all of the time, so hard to prove. Pincho.

The new computer program. Rem Change Choice Amount = 1000000 Randomize Timer() For n = 1 to Amount Car = rnd(2)+1 choice = rnd(2)+1 Goat = car+1 if Goat = 4 then Goat = 1 if goat = choice then goat = goat + 1 if Goat = 4 then Goat = 1 change = goat + 1 if change = 4 then change = 1 if change = choice then change = change +1 if change = 4 then change = 1 if change = Car then inc Changewin next n Rem Stick to Choice For n = 1 to Amount Car = rnd(2)+1 choice = rnd(2)+1 if choice = Car then inc Choicewin next n Print "Change and win = "; Changewin Print "Stick to First choice = "; Choicewin Suspend for key

Ahh, I have found the error in my program. The host of the show was taking the goat from any of the two doors, but that was allowing him to take the goat out of your chosen door. I have stopped him from doing that now. This gives me new figures... Swap = 666699 stick = 334077 You should always swap doors!!! Wow amazing! Pincho.

By "tiny" I am assuming you mean "compared to something an awful lot bigger". By tiny I mean even my computer in front of me can make mandelbrots, it is just too slow to make billions of them in a fraction of a second. Again it's speed that's the problem.

Hmm your equation.... It is not required for a computer system with no slowdown at all. Also the storage capacity of the computer could be tiny as well if most things were created by mathematics like a mandelbrot or fractal system, which actually is funny because......... well most things are made from a mandelbrot or fractal system. Pincho.

Well the on/off switches have already been made, but people didn't think of using them in computers. I think that I thought of it myself..dunno. So we are on the brink of that possibility. But it would take thousands of years to develop the entire human race, plus all of our technology, and all of our history. This would require a computer language to be developed that can incorporate the entire internet as individual digital presentations in solid 3D form, manufactured from molecules. We are not really close to that. Then this would have to be neurally connected to you so that all of your emotions, and feelings, are readily available to be used. The simulator would not simulate these things, it would use your actual brain, or whatever you have in the real world. What's the drake equation?

The article may state that, but theories don't have to rely on the original wording of the theory. Someone who does not use English well could still be on the right track. I am more in favour of interpreting the paper as a good argument for the simulator, but not worded well. The paper does include details that show that statistically, it is very likely that we could be in a simulator because if man could reach that point of technology, he would want to make something like this.

Processing power is speed, you do understand that part. Speed is reliable on how fast computer gates can be opened. Computer gates are on/off switches. Spooky behaviour shows that On/Off switches can be instant. There is a theoretical computer that has no speed loss at all, and I have already told you about it. Are you sure that it is me that is not following the given information? Pincho.

Prove that I have a lack of ability to recognise the scope of this discussion. This is one of you methods for obscuring a discussion. You use prove this, and that. Then we give you examples like Grass is already programmed, leaves are already programmed. Then you ignore the replies, or cancel them out by saying that I am misunderstanding, whereas actually, you do not know what I mean about computers. Then you misunderstand the nutrino argument, which is also evidence for this topic. You start a one to one debate with me, now you are saying that you are replying to me, but actually, I am replying to you. Pincho.

I think that you fail to understand a lot of the comments. That's why you keep typing... wtf?

Ok let's look at these again..... (1) The chances that a species at our current level of development can avoid going extinct before becoming technologically mature is negligibly small **************************************************** This is false. There is the mutation of genes to consider! **************************************************** (2) Almost no technologically mature civilisations are interested in running computer simulations of minds like ours **************************************************** Of course 2 is a deliberate negative. So we are interested in this technology. **************************************************** (3) You are almost certainly in a simulation. **************************************************** Cheating! So the paper cheats. I agree, but I say that science cheats also. It uses past unproven knowledge to substantiate future knowledge. The speed of light cannot be passed... This is not proven, but it is used all the time to prove other things like....... Nutrinos change state therefore they have mass! This comment is decided because they are not allowed to travel faster than the speed of light. There were two choices. 1/ Nutrinos have mass 2/ Nutrinos travel faster than light. But 2 was ignored completely. Pincho.

I like driving games, not on the list. I want a good free chess game if anyone knows of one. I like chess games where the pieces fight each other. I haven't played chess for about 10 years. Since the Amiga. Pincho.

There's no proof that we aren't all being dreamed about by the omniuniversal super banana, Geoffrey. Reality sucks, the real world is boring and dull, you will never be a spectacular superhero. Get over it. I need to know how to pilot a Killatron KF-300. Simulating a civilisation may not be mathematically and computationally possible at any level of technology. Spam this thread with useless nonsense and you'll get warnings. Giant man-eating space carrots are possible, but we don't simply assume they exist. If you are going to argue with me it might help if you familiarised yourself with the discussion as it was prior to your involvement, instead of just the bit that interests you. you will not hijack this thread for your unfounded gravity imaginings. **************************************************** You say that I am hijacking the thread??? Pincho.

Well, there is the possibility of a psychic centre in the brain. Nutrinos pass through our body all of the time. They change type during their journey from the sun to Earth. This change in their type means that they do not travel at the speed of light. It was decided that they must therefore have mass. This is not the only possible explenation for nutrinos to change though. Science has cheated by not allowing the nutrinos to travel faster than light. If nutrinos travel faster than light then they can change, but they also pass through our bodies in a different time zone. If we could pick up their information, we could see an event that is going to happen in the future. I have written a few computer programs that attempt to amplify this information from the nutrinos. Or any other matter that might be passing you faster than the speed of light. My computer programs show a considerable increase in your chance of predicting future events. I have been testing this for 3 years, and have had some very strange results.

There are lots of reliable theories for gravity, but because the standard theory is so old it has gained an unfair advantage over the other theories. You are saying that there are a lot of possible outcomes for this topic, and you are saying that it gives the possible answers an unfair swing. It's the same thing.

All of science does that. Like we decide on the most probable theory for gravity, for the big bang, for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Then you just pick the most probable. He is giving 3 choices, but science usually only gives you 1 choice, otherwise it goes in pseudoscience. Well this site does anyway, I don't know about other science sites.

Maybe, but I can't find anything wrong with it. I have checked it several times. Car is stored in a box. = car You choose a box. = choice man tells you a goat box = goat (solved by not car) change = not goat, not choice. I can't see any errors in that. So I think my program is OK. Pincho.

I don't see anything wrong with the theory. It seems to be correct with the 3 choices.

Were not talking about something not existing. Were talking about something that already exists, like computer generated grass, and leaves. All you are asking is that can they have all the detail of real life? I am saying yes they can. The only reason that they don't have much detail today is because they would slow your computer down. This is not science it is fact. Some of the topic is Modern and Theoretical Physics, but not the part that you are not understanding. Pincho.

But we are talking about a computer related subject, and I know a lot about computers, and what's possible. It's my job.