Hmmm....

An evolution of thought/belief is upon us.

I am still wondering what difference it would make, or better yet, how we could reasonably apply such knowledge in order to make the world a better place.

By the way, the first link provided rests it's laurels upon something that has already been clearly shown as unnecessary. In order for the argument to proceed, it posits the need for an ether(medium of light travel). It has long since been shown that no such thing is needed. If no such thing is needed in order to explain what is going on in the universe, then we drop the notion altogether. Dropping the notion of ether renders the argument without ground. It is premissed upon an unnecessary entity.

Occam's razor applied.

All known examples of thought requires drawing correlations between objects of perception and/or one's own state of mind. Thus, if these things are not present, then thought cannot exist. In all known cases, a physiological nervous system replete with the ability to draw such correlations is present. Therefore, there is no good reason to suggest that all things that are alive are also "thinking centers". There are lot's of things that are alive that do not satisfy such a criterion.

As already mentioned, life requires self-replication. Self-replication does not require thought/belief.

We could alter the common meaning of all sorts of terms in order to fit our own preconceived notions. Confirmational bias often requires just that. The problem is that certain uses of words already have well established meanings. When we are referring to these, we often say 'in this sense'. This distinguishes one meaning/use from another, and allows the reader to better understand what it is that we're trying to say.

Plants don't think.

The answer you gave did say quite a bit. However, as I've already said, without further elaboration, not much necessarily followed from the notion that the universe is a simulation, digital or otherwise. I'll choose to not spend much time arguing about that, for it is beside the point. If we sit and bicker back and forth about that we'll never get to the heart of the matter. I'll say this much...

At most, if the universe is a simulation, then we can say that it is a simulation of something else. It does not follow that a simulation requires to a creator. For instance, part of the criterion for life itself is that the entity in question must be self-replicating. We can see that happen right in front of our eyes. No creator to see though. Why ought our thought/belief about the universe be any different, even if it is 'alive'? The universe could be self-replicating. There is knowledge of self-replication already at hand, whereas we have no such knowledge of a creator. Thus, a conclusion of self-replication requires far less assumptions than anything you've suggested.

I'm granting that the notion of the universe being a simulation is true. I'm asking what difference it would make if it were. We ought think about things on a bit broader level. Nothing that has already happened would change. None of the direct consequences stemming from past events would immediately change. I mean, the president would still be the president; the historical governmental policies across the globe would remain unchanged; etc. In fact, such knowledge would not do much at all in the way of changing what we know concerning evolution either. I mean, surely we can all see that there are all sorts of things that are in place that would be immediately unaffected/uneffected by such knowledge. We can confidently say that much because all these things are already in place even if it is actually the case, unbeknownst to us.

So...

I'm thinking more along the lines of practical change, and what that takes(what it takes for such change to take place). What sorts of things would have to be done in order to invoke the kinds of change that make the world a better place. How could the knowledge be used to make our world a better place? We already know that the world changes in extremely slow fashion, particularly when talking about the way folk think/believe and the overall social change that sometimes, but not always, comes as a result of obtaining knowledge that conflicts/refutes what was once thought/believed to be so.

Contrary to what you thought/believed the answer you offered did not satisfy the target of the question. That may have been a result of the question not having explicit enough meaning behind it, so to speak. That much being said, hopefully you can now better see what I'm asking for.

Ok. Let's say that we suppose that it is true. Our universe is a simulation.

What difference is it going to make? I mean, what would that knowledge change?

Hm. It doesn't seem like much of that follows, even if we knew that it was true that our universe is a simulation. It could be the case, I suppose, and would further agree that what you've set out seems logically possible.

Heading in for the night...

Good to 'see' you JB. Hope you are well. Will give your recent answer it's due attention soon.

Not sure what you're sorry for. If I can't see how, and you're capable of seeing that of which I am blind, then by all means... explain.

If you cannot explain, or chose not to for whatever reason, then your apology is accepted.

I don't see how such knowledge could make a practical/useful difference. I mean, what would have to change as a result that by virtue of changing would make the world a better place?

What difference would it make???

More jobs will certainly move... if left up to most folk who make the decisions about the companies profitability. When profit is the sole motive, there are financial incentives to move jobs and begin companies overseas, and those who make the decisions have no vested interest in American workers' overall well-being because they do not understand nor care about the long-term negative implications that this has on a society, then you can bet that more jobs will be moved and/or begun overseas and be handsomely rewarded for doing so.

Fantastic style.

I don't know about others, but to me... if I am thinking about a text or a call from another during a date - regardless of when - then that shows me that the person that I am on a date with has not captured my attention as much as the call or text.



Time to look elsewhere.

Thank you both. I cannot take credit. The words are not mine. They do not belong to me. A very special lady once said it best... I am merely a conduit.

Well I think it clearly shows a lack of interest and is rude as well. Needless to say that was the last date with her... ah well.



There will be more where she came from.

Into the evening my thoughts they soon grew
Wishing and wondering that there were two
Instead of just one in this life of mine
Where do I turn for God's sake when blind
To what has been given and long since returned
Rejected by past comes a longing a burn
In this head of mine for what was once then
A wonderful feeling so tragic I am
To close the eyes on what could be grand

A walking away in mind and in heart
This self preservation that drove us apart
And keeps me alone where the muse she resides
If only in mind to keep this alive
This wording of mine I cannot soon claim
For without my hurt these words have no aim
No place of birth and nowhere to go
For eyes cannot see what words cannot show
Those things must be felt from within
The touching the sharing that life can't rescind

Do you think/believe that it is appropriate to text others while on a date with someone new? Is there a number or kind of acceptable texts? Assuming no emergency situation, when another is texting throughout the evening is that a sign, one way or the other, that s/he is not that interested in the date itself?