Durakken

I wonder how many people realize that that Power Girl is the Power Girl that is in Earth Two...even though Power Girl actually already exists in the DCnU as well as Supergirl... which makes this whole thing not work at all >.>

Personally I find the Helena Wayne as Robin in the background a tad more atrocious... until one realizes that We've already seen these characters and as they aren't supposed to be altered and they are supposed to be in their late 20s early 30s seems someone doesn't know how to draw developed women...

No... because that is not the universe starting to exist. That is the current form of the universe starting to exist. There is a huge difference there.

Actually it does... The universe didn't exist at some point and thus at some point "matter" didn't exist which means matter had to come into existence after the creation of the universe... sorta... There are ways that that could not be true that is anti-cause and effect and/or goes into infinite regression territory... the former you just have to argue that if we're going in reverse than the "creation" of matter is actually the destruction which still defeats the argument... likewise just because matter didn't come from "this" universe doesn't mean that it didn't come from another universe and as such is just a neutral or supporting to that matter is created but whatever...

Of course this all doesn't matter as...even though it slipped my mind it's not true on the sub-atomic level so >.>

on a side note: the universe being infinite doesn't necessitate that matter is so i was wrong there...

First if I was in Ellie's position at the moment I'd call BS. Mathematics is not something that can be changed like that. 2+2 can never equal anything but 4. and Pi will always be Pi. It can not be changed and if there is some sort of "message" then it's a coincidence. Nothing more. And no it's not that I'm not posing the question. It's that if you were to change Pi the result would be that it wouldn't be a circle any more and therefor not Pi.

Also Carl Sagan, as much as I love what he was and all that was one of those people that they'll add some theistic thing into their writing to please the theist. DesCartes and Hume are both huge examples of this. They are both clearly atheists, but they pay a lot of lip service to theism.

This is one of those things that it is pretty clear you've been listening to a group of con men that preach about things violating this or that scientific law or theory when they clearly don't have a grasp on what it is they are talking about.

For example the whole "matter and energy can neither be created no destroyed" isn't exactly correct... And that is obvious to anyone that even remotely believes that the universe, as in our physical space, began. If the universe is infinite why wouldn't matter be as well? If the universe is not then whatever created the universe created matter as well. It's not a hard thing to get.

As far as simulating life to see if things follow what I said, there is no point, because we will come across another society that will pretty much show us this and it's obvious Life that favors death dies. Life that favors anti-socialism never gets society going. Life that favors anti-technology dies. It's not a matter of needing modeled because as soon as you favor the opposite of what we favor that life form pretty much dies out because without certain key traits you don't get very far because you simply can't. The only real modeling at that point is whether a society that favors technology lives longer than one which doesn't to which I would argue that technology is a gamble and pays in spades or you lose everything. Either you gain immortality and life among the stars or a pretty short flash in the pan society, where as without technology you may live millions or billions of years before you're killed by your star.



As far as the existence of the universe and such i think that is pretty easy to answer metaphysically which is only hard because we have axioms that prevent us from looking at certain things... such as logic is. Why is logic...because it is... We make the assumption that the universe is ultimately logical without ever really questioning it, however there are other possibilities...

1. Logical: A = A
2. Illogical: A = !A
3. Anti-logical: A != A
4. ???: A != !A

Think those through and you get that 3 and 4 can never result in anything existing, but 1 and 2 both can result in things existing. There is no way we can say whether it is 1 or 2, but if we apply the fact that the universe and that is ultimately absurd because there is no way for it exist and the idea that if one answer can have the other answer in it we should go with that one then 2 is the correct answer... The Universe is Illogical, but within an Illogical universe would exist a Logical universe. Of course within an Illogical Universe everything both does ad does not exist, but hey that's the nature of the beast ^.^

Some of what you said is possible and some are not... Most are unlikely though.

funny enough though is that it really doesn't matter as much as people might expect because it all ends up being data that can be and in most cases would be uplifted/transferred... Only a few instances I can think of where it would matter...

It's not really all that much "speculation." We are assuming the assumptions that that science does. This means that logic and math is the same all universes. Among those things is that certain things are ultimately selected for and thus are more or less 100% guaranteed. For example ethics will always be that harm is selected against as "bad" and things promoting life are good. Likewise those things that increase survivability like technology and intelligence will always be selected for and pack mentality will be as well.

Same thing applies to technology and where it will go (mainly because it is part of evolution). Technology will always favor tech that is geared towards immortality, comfort, intelligence, energy production, and expansion to accumulate as many resources to produce a sustainable or increasing amount.

Basically what we are likely to find is...what's the phrase... variation within "speciation" by which i mean you might find some entity that is more logical or more sadistic or more benevolent or more creative, but you're probably not going to find something that is so alien to us that we couldn't understand them. The difference in understanding would only come in the form of why they are doing it in terms of knowledge, but not why they are doing it in terms of motive.

No point as we already know that even if we could go back and restart the universe at the beginning and progress it forward things would be different. There are things that are just random enough that build up over time that causes something big to be different

No point as "low" resolution passes can do that already and tell us all we need to know. We hen would only use those simulations to give us a basis of an environment where we would then run evolution based algorithms to see anything we need from that stand point. And there is no need for the particular or atomic resolution because the "low" resolution would already know how that works and nothing but rather intelligent creatures work on the level where those things would be needed to be simulated.

There is really no reason to simulate sentient life because we can see it all around us. Even if we did we wouldn't let it go for this long because once sentient life is produced we're raise them up into our universe. As far as morality problems...simply put, any intelligent being smart enough to get to that level would recognize the immorality of letting such a universe as this run is if they can stop it. We're talking hundreds of billions of just humans that are sentient beings being tortured, killed, etc and points of view just being eradicated pointlessly. And why Morality would matter in that is simply because what morality is, which is a method for sentients to create the best world they can with each other.

The thing is the experiment would be such utter cruelty and it's not like they could uplift a lot of the AIs, because a lot of the AIs just wouldn't understand and or would and would be furious so their only option would be to let us die and be deleted. That would be akin to murder in their eyes, because Sentient Artilects and "people" are the same thing. Of course this concept won't sink in for us for another half century to century so meh ^.^

Come up with an experiment where at the very least an entire world has to be simulated full of Sentient artilects. I'm pretty sure there isn't one. And even if there was one there would be massive moral implications that I'm pretty sure no enlightened person would ever do.


Also that doesn't remove the possibility that our universe is really just a singularity inside another universe which itself is inside another universe.

I know they are both "simulated" but I'm trying to explain the slight difference in purpose and scale when there isn't a word for it. The simulations needed or games and such are different than those used for scientific purposes. It's not just a matter of resolution, but a matter of how and why we would do it. Someone who is a scientists wouldn't run the program because there is no way to run it without blocks in the AI while an artists wouldn't care to do something that wouldn't be immediately obvious and likewise would probablt have no qualms in putting in those blocks.

The universe is doomed to heat death and if this is the only universe and we can not figure out how to manipulate the laws of physics we're doomed ^.^

It's not that a programmer can't do that... it's that a programmer/scientist wouldn't do that as the point of creating a simulation to the extent we're talking about would likely only be done in an experiment.


Arcana. I am not talking about the same thing. There is a difference between what I'm thinking of as a simulated "reality" and a Virtual reality which is more what you're talking about and others are thinking about.

There are a few forms of Magic and technology forms...

Magitek from FF6 is an example of Technology that is powered by magic as fuel so that it can uses magic in it's raw form.

There is Code/Lingual Magic which is a form of technology where the person is able to "hack" the universe to cause something to happen either through some means... for example Feng Shui is technically a form of this where it takes the arrangement of items to produce a result such as increased wealth. It's also used in Doctor Who in the episode where he goes to Shakespeare's time

There is technology which is imbued with magical properties such a remote that can control the universe

There is Magic that acts like technology where for example if you had a treasure chest and placed a lock spell on it that lock spell would summon something to input a password to unlock it.

Then there are the various combinations... like where a keyboard is a regular keyboard but you can add magic to it that causes a magic keyboard to expand from it that allows you to input commands to perform magic spells like say a fire ball...

It's a fairly common concept >.>

If we learn that we're pretty much screwed. What will happen then is like that we will go into a largely dormant state, just enough to run a censor that will awaken us when the universe returns to a state we can exist in... if we're lucky... or we figure a way to manipulate the very laws of our universe so that we can stop ourselves from being torn apart.

There was somewhere that posed an idea or two of how we would know and there are or were legitimate experiments being run a few years back or are still in the process of running... Personally I think that it'd be obvious to spot if we were of the Sentient Artilect level of AI in a simulation mainly because magic would have to exist. A programmer would have to build in commands and also any programmer having the resources to do it would also want a way to observe, control, and access any part of the simulation as well as to get out of it which means that every person would have to have access to those commands and just not know it. And if we attribute our level intelligence and exploration to things it is unlikely that we wouldn't have stumbled upon that stuff by now and passed it along. Also you'd have to go with Sentient Artilects because Artilects or Mechilects would never produce the desired results of seeing a society runs because you'd be putting limits on there and breaking the experiment.


Also as far as time is concerned... there's a paper out there that i heard about like a year back about how particles seem to go to a "null space" where in you have 1 instant then you have those particles going to a null space and rearranging themselves and then coming back out of that null space to create the next instant.... That seems to be rather logical if you think about it from the mathematical side of things that supports (i think) 11 spatial dimensions
(1 length, 2 height, 3 depth) = 1 point in time as we know it
(4 linear time, 5 and 6 different time lines?) = basically all the multiple world theories
(7, 8, 9) = all the different "universal constants" or membranes or something like that
10 = the changes of all those or some such
11 = Everything statically existing

That's obviously not 100% correct but close enough...

See What we considr time is just moving through the 4th dimension, but if we were to take "time" and consider it like 3 dimensional space, just with each point represent 1 point in the time-space-multiverse for us and then we're able to step into that realm, there is still "time" it is just us moving through that 7,8,9 set of dimensions the same way we do the 4,5,6 dimensions. So technically we can jump 2 tiers and still experience "time" It's the idea of the 11th dimension and existing outside of that that is really odd because the 11th dimension is everything. All possibility. all time. All space. All existence. Outside of that there is "nothing" and because we can roughly explain time inside that construct, outside of it is a wholly different thing...which is technically a non-thing.

The problem at that point is that you can go metaphysical and/or using the idea that if one all exists then outside that all there must be infinite alls that exist in a space of "existence" so that "existence" becomes this sorta magical construct but at that point the concept is absurd...beyond what people used to consider absurd in that there is more than one universe. When I talk about the 11 dimensional construct I'm talking about all possibility where as when we're talking about the Universe as we used to we're simply talking about a physical object that contains all things and really didn't take into account time or possibility.

I imagine this ultimate reality as sort of an infinite amount of unchanging crystal spheres all in neat rows and columns, but that's just to understand the concept a bit more easily.


Here's a little thing that may mess with your brain...There could be an entity that eats universes so that it destroys the past of a universe. This entity would work at one of the higher tiers of spatial dimensions obviously, but because of the way that universe works even as this creatures eats a universe and destroys it... it simultaneously does and does not exist because the fact that the 11th dimension requires that there is no change.

Further more, it is completely possible/probable that if we can create and manipulate universes to a certain level death is somewhat irrelevant to the individual because each person through out time could be snatched up and taken to an alternate universe or future that allows them to continue existing even while they are "dead" and because of how time for 1 universe is not directly correlated to another that version of you that has already died could have already existed for billions of years already even though you haven't died "yet"

The real question is whether or not you can decouple yourself from linear time while in the flow of linear time and then move backward and forward in it. in programming i guess it would be like creating a separate object where you're rooted in your own bubble universe type thing so you experience time going forward yet you're able to move backwards allowing you to see time reverse...

This is more a confusion of language.
You're saying significant as "this thing has meaning to me"
Where as "Important" is what is the more logical definition to apply... and things that are important are also things that are "this thing has meaning to me"

Oh, but there is a further misunderstanding now that I think about it, because the "this thing has meaning to me" definition is not "I am ascribing meaning to this" but rather "This thing is indicative of being important (to)"

You can use it however you like, but looking at the definition it seems you are using the word wrong >.>

Save for the fact the the universe is the most significant thing to exist... or whatever it does. Without the universe the rest of everything doesn't exist to have significance ^.^

I don't think anyone would ever create a "simulated reality." There's no point. From the scientific point of view by the time we can simulate it in the way we'd want or need to do to simulate a reality such as ours we'd have already lived through it and not need it. All our simulation technology will go toward larger scale models, smaller scale models, and creative pursuits...

Also I'd say there are 3 coming AI types.
Mechilects: AI that does some pre-set function... Such a red shirt in ST:TOS

Artilects: AI that are characters that act like a real person and all that, but have blocks that prevent them from realizing they are not "real" and have quirks and feelings of some sort that are pre-described.

Sentient Artilects (haven't come up with a good name): These grow and learn and don't have pre-described personalities/feelings. These can be "born" or be created by removing the blocks and controls of the Artilects...

The best example might be Star Trek episodes that deal with the Holodeck... Characters on the holodeck that are main characters in the scenario are Artilects. Background characters are Mechilects. Moriarty from TNG is a sentient artilect.

Nyah it's not because of the logarithmic scale thing. It's because of the fact that when we get there we will no longer be "individuals" but rather something like a super-super organism where in an individual will be like like a cell and their cells like atoms. That organism would have it's own wants and needs physically that we need even though we would want relatively nothing... but at that point in our existence we'd be "relatively" immortal making that organism immortal... the problem then is that this organism's only real need to exist is to locate energy and consume it to continue our existence, but at the same time at that point we're likely going to be able to manipulate universes and thus the creation and destruction of energy or the manipulation of it...meaning that purpose doesn't exist. The other purpose would be defense but there will likely be nothing to defend against as any "people" at that level would be fairly similar and have a similar view and more than likely merge together sharing their experiences and knowledge.

So at that point you have a crazy huge organism by our standards that has no real purpose in doing anything externally and thus it becomes "static" The result is that we either become so advanced and what has to occur at that level is so beyond us that we can't imagine it or there is nothing more and we just continue in our box... Or we become like amoeba or atoms or particles in some other huge universe above ours...

Both of which doesn't matter to us as individuals because all our needs and wants will be met via the internet and VR.... and VR we're not talking simple VR I'm talking incredible worlds with AI so advanced that it mimics or surpasses our current intelligence... which even with our ability to reason out and have access to information. The I that is me will likely evolve much slower mentally than the I that is my physical form. The I that is me will likely remain as we are and learn slowly over a vast amount of time...or at least a vast amount of time as perceived by me... and most of us will spend most of our times in game worlds or simulations of worlds or hub worlds where all the people you meet are "real" people...

From figuring that out you can go about figuring out that economy as it is already starting to take shape. It will be more or less what one might call a communistic world and the only real economic resources that any person will have is their processing power and their creativity as far as "real" economy goes, but not to worry capitalists...each world we create will likely be capitalistic because i imagine we'll be living in versions of star trek and star wars and City of Heroes and World of Warcraft because we like those types of worlds and find them fun. We might seek out new "worlds" by which I mean worlds created by those who can imagine new universes such as book authors. The more detailed the better most likely. The reason that will be is likely not to do with the ability to create simply by individuals but rather that ability in general and it not being very fun. Inhabiting a world where you control everything and if you don't like you can get rid of it would lead to a depressing eternity for many. That and I can't help but feel that even in that era creating realistic "people" done by someone who isn't very creative or by the system will create "mechanical" AI... so there might be markets where "people" are sold that are created by artists...

So yeah >.> it's not that we can't handle vast scales it's that when we get there we won't be there per say... and when I said we would be able to go there and back on a lark... I meant it because the "physical" world of us will not really exist. We'll have infrastructure and such that will allow the creation of femtocells at any given point that we will be able to inhabit and discard without much care. So that we can go from here to there to here with a thought because it is only matter of changing where "we" inhabit through instant data transfer stuff like quantum entanglement ^.^

but that's not what i said...

It's more like...

(10^11*10^14)^2

Actually it's more in line with nothing matters at all because it's not happening. Everything that you think of as having existed in the past, present, or future are extant unchanging and linear time is just this weird phenomenon that we are experiencing, but doesn't actually exist.


As far as going to the edge of the universe at light speed... I think the light speed part is wrong, but we will be able to one day go to the edge of the universe and back in minutes on a lark and eventually we will be able to go beyond our membrane or whatever you want to call it into other universes and other times, but at the scale we're talking about any point of us understanding that is a waste of time because that mindset s so far removed that it's impossible to really talk about other than theorizing infinite regression/progression.

So does a lot of porn.

So you are calling me a liar based on make believe projected intentions that you have now? Apparently I don't have to lie to be a liar now. Brilliant. And your judging me based on your own projections while ignoring her actually lying. That sounds completely reasonable for you to do. No really... just let me redefine reasonable as irrational and we'll be all set.

I guess the fact that i try not to lie and that has caused me several problems on these forums doesn't factor into your imagined version of me and instead you like your cynical version.

We can play the mental chess further and we can see there is no win for me with either answer because she can just claim it's harder either way. If it's also a no-win for me either way if she were honest as well because in that scenario i would either admit i'm wrong or the discussion would continue as it did with you guys. So it's easy to see that to bring her the most accolades and me the most damage the best option is to lie.

I have no motive to lie in this situation as it does me no good either way so even questioning whether i did or not without any evidence is all on you and has nothing to do with me other than me being the focus of your delusions.

If I could talk about that I would. Not my rules.

I am definitely not misunderstanding her. And I can guess as what reason she has for lying and why others are supporting her, but then I'm not allowed to say why because of certain reasons I can't mention.

Also whether I'm incompetent or not in the field of programming or in my ability to deduce things has no bearing on the situation. It comes down to a very simple thing...

I asked for an example of what she's talking about and she provided a fabrication. The whole point of the example was to measure the difference of what I would call obvious and what she would call obvious which is a fair and intelligent thing to do when we're talking about subjective measurements. The fabrication, the obfuscation, the lie, whatever you wish to call it, has made this impossible.

You present the question of why would Arcana do such a thing as if she didn't do it when it is so blatantly apparent she did and even admitted it as pointed out. Your question should not be directed at me, but rather at her.


Also, btw as far as reputations go... I generally judge people based on what I see of them and not what others tell me. That's about as far as I can go here. I can also tell you that people disagreeing isn't a sign of being wrong, especially in the world we live in.

Did you miss the point where I asked her to give me an example of what she meant by non-obvious? Or did you miss the part where she says she lies using a sentence with poor grammar as to make people not realize that's what she's doing?

What happened was more along the lines of this

Durakken: I like sweet things
Arcana: You don't know that because you've never had chocolate which is sweet and nasty
Durakken: ok. let me taste some chocolate
Arcana: Ok (gives Durakken an orange)
Durakken: I like this
Arcana: That was an orange you moron!!!!
Durakken: Ok, so you lied to me. And you defeated the point of having me taste this all together because of that lie.
Arcana: Never did I not not tell the truth, but here's some real chocolate.
Durakken: uhh yes you did and I like this because it's sweet, but now I don't know if it's chocolate because you lied.

That's more akin to what happened. It's really sad that even though you can go back and read it that you can't comprehend that that is what happened and will now say that what I just said didn't happen.


Also "rather than come up with one on your own" Why would I come up with my own example of CoH's bug being non-obvious? And how could I? I was asking for bug from CoH that was non-obvious. Apparently Arcana has knowledge of CoH's bugs and noone else does and she's the one making the argument that the bugs are non-obvious. Further more, lying and not giving an actual example in her first statement destroys her credibility because if she actually believed her statement was true she would never need to pull such games and beyond that the original statement has to be assumed to be done maliciously because that lie serves no purpose other than one... So we're left with 2 scenarios. Arcana is malicious towards me OR Arcana isn't as smart as she thinks she is because if she was then false example would have served a purpose.

I don't see why I'm explaining this though. Like I said, there are some people that can admit when they are or do something wrong, like me, and then there seems to be the vast majority of the population who never do anything wrong. Especially not on the internet.

It doesn't prevent them from doing their job. If magic and psychic powers existed and i had a way to help prevent my agents' mind from being scanned and their identities revealed I'd use it. There are little spells you could use to make the ID a charm that could prevent clear photography or something like that. I'd also make it so the ID could only be read using special devices that if you din't have them it would appear to be a blank piece of paper or something like that.

We live in a world where a good number of people know these people and yet don't know their names even though the information is rather easy to look up so even with the ability to know something it is not like everyone does know it. Also Secret Identities are protection from magic and psychic powers as magic, at least in some mythos, needs the name of a person to cast the spell and a psychic without a target really isn't all that useful...especially if someone were to trained to counter psychic attacks like Batman has been ^.^