Conspiracy Theories

[Heretical Rants]

Ah yes... simulation games.

I recently co-authored a short story about our reality being a simulation game.

However, if this is a simulation game, then where are the players? Are they busy shooting people in one of the ongoing wars, or what?

[terranus]

The simulation argument:


...We don´t know if the technology is even possible, to start with, but what motivation would we possibly have to simulate a world such as this one?... and surely that would require a huge amount of work to pull off?

Eh, I'd say it's 50/50 chance.

Oh sure, people conspire against people, governments against governments, governments against people and corporations against pretty much everyone for different reasons and with different gains in mind.

Exactly. I conspired against some douche tailgating me on the interstate this morning by slowing down and letting him fly by me right in front of a cop. Everyone conspires against someone or something for different reasons...I do it multiple times per day.

Not real sure where I'm going with this.

[fester30]

For a simulated reality, the human race, if it exists outside the simulation, would have had to change significantly enough to pretty much lose curiosity, otherwise our simulation would get all kinds of tourists, I imagine.  If humans lost curiosity, there wouldn't be much point to a simulation game.  To me it seems circular, so I'll wait to ask the aliens about it when they quit screwing around and realize that abducting me will teach them more than abducting farmer Joe and his toothless wife.

[fester30]

The difficulty proving a negative can be aided with mathematics, I think.  For an example, I will use the conspiracy theories surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald's assassination of JFK.  There has not been any actual evidence of any sort of a conspiracy that hasn't been proven a forgery or fraud.  Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot, but that doesn't prove there wasn't someone else out there who was supposed to shoot.  (my father-in-law presented this one to me).  There is not one shred of actual evidence showing that Oswald was involved with anybody else in planning or carrying out the assassination.  Father-in-law says that doesn't prove there wasn't a cover-up.  I think it does prove there wasn't a cover up or another gunman, as the more real evidence you have, and the less they have, the more chance you are right.  

If the evidence you have is y, and the evidence they have is x, the chance you are right is perhaps y/x.  Of course, for this to work, there has to be a way of assigning value to each piece of evidence, perhaps on a scale of 1 to 100 in importance, and then adding all the numbers up on each side of the evidence to find y and x.

The closer the evidence on each side of the argument is, the closer to 1 the answer becomes.  But what happens when x (evidence in support of a conspiracy of the JFK assassination) is zero?  The function is undefined.  You can't prove it exists or doesn't.  Since y is trying to prove conspiracy didn't happen (proving a negative), there has to be some way to work with this function when it is zero.  Limits were made just for this problem.  As x approaches zero, the function gets larger.  So as x approaches zero, the limit of y/x approaches infinity.  Since y in my case is evidence against a conspiracy and x is evidence for a conspiracy, then the chances of me being right are infinity!  Oswald was a lone gunman without anybody else in on the planning or execution!  I win!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot ...

Not to derail, but these statements are clearly false.

[JoeBobSmith]

that's a good one

[The Magic Pudding]

Ah yes... simulation games.

I recently co-authored a short story about our reality being a simulation game.

However, if this is a simulation game, then where are the players? Are they busy shooting people in one of the ongoing wars, or what?

So the extinction of dinosaurs could have been caused by data corruption, not caused by an asteroid but by a hard drive crash.

[fester30]

So the extinction of dinosaurs could have been caused by data corruption, not caused by an asteroid but by a hard drive crash.

So that's the answer!  All this time the theists have believed that god has magic powers and warps the laws of physics.  The reality is god is actually a 16 year old in his parents' basement who can't find a girlfriend, likes practical jokes, and has learned how to program this simulation game!

[Recusant]

Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot ...

Not to derail, but these statements are clearly false.

Heheh, how could it be a derail?  It's not like this thread is all that specific.  When you make a definitive assertion like the above, you should at least provide a source or two.  At a history forum which I belong to, every year (usually by mid-November) we have a nice long thread to re-fry the whole conspiracy/not a conspiracy issue re: the JFK assassination.  Really, I have seen no substantial or reliable evidence that there was a conspiracy.  Rather, the "scientific acoustical evidence" is repeatedly pointed to, and when it's shown that that evidence has been debunked, those who would rather continue to believe in a conspiracy just say (in essence), "Well that debunking is actually further proof of the conspiracy!"

But what the hell; maybe you have something that I haven't seen yet.

[fester30]

Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot ...

Not to derail, but these statements are clearly false.

Heheh, how could it be a derail?  It's not like this thread is all that specific.  When you make a definitive assertion like the above, you should at least provide a source or two.  At a history forum which I belong to, every year (usually by mid-November) we have a nice long thread to re-fry the whole conspiracy/not a conspiracy issue re: the JFK assassination.  Really, I have seen no substantial or reliable evidence that there was a conspiracy.  Rather, the "scientific acoustical evidence" is repeatedly pointed to, and when it's shown that that evidence has been debunked, those who would rather continue to believe in a conspiracy just say (in essence), "Well that debunking is actually further proof of the conspiracy!"

But what the hell; maybe you have something that I haven't seen yet.

I kinda thought Thump was joking.  You know, I write that long, nonsense paragraph because I was loopy tired and bored, and he just says in one brief statement that I'm wrong.  It's funny.  Thing is nothing will ever stop these people.  In any murder where you can prove exactly who committed the crime, you can always speculate someone else told them to do it.  Dahmer, Gacy, Son of Sam, Green River Killer, etc., very well could have had co-conspirators (someone they talked to at the supermarket more than once perhaps?).  I think we should start conspiracy theories about some of them.

[Recusant]

 

If so, at least I'm the one that fell for it, and not you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not one shred of actual evidence has been produced showing that there were any additional gunmen.  Forensics has proven if there were any additional gunmen they didn't shoot ...

Not to derail, but these statements are clearly false.

Heheh, how could it be a derail?  It's not like this thread is all that specific.  When you make a definitive assertion like the above, you should at least provide a source or two.  At a history forum which I belong to, every year (usually by mid-November) we have a nice long thread to re-fry the whole conspiracy/not a conspiracy issue re: the JFK assassination.  Really, I have seen no substantial or reliable evidence that there was a conspiracy.  Rather, the "scientific acoustical evidence" is repeatedly pointed to, and when it's shown that that evidence has been debunked, those who would rather continue to believe in a conspiracy just say (in essence), "Well that debunking is actually further proof of the conspiracy!"

But what the hell; maybe you have something that I haven't seen yet.

Watch the Zapruder film.  Where does his head go?  Back.  Where do his brains go?  Back.  What does physics says about that?

That is evidence he wasn't shot from behind.  Yes, I'm aware that Posner says that the head-snap is neurophysiological, but that doesn't explain why a piece of occiput was found 20' behind and to the left of the Lincoln.  Nor does it explain his brains on the trunk-lid -- a nerve spasm would not remove brain material from the front seats, nor put it on the trunk.

However, my point is that the post to which I reply states an absolute which is still very debatable.  The fact that the debate would be mighty long is why I included the "derail" disclaimer.  Saying "not one shred" of evidence has been found contrary to his assertion is nonsense.  That was my point.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, Fester, what do you mean by the phrase "these people"?  Who are you lumping me in with, and why?

[Recusant]

You're right, Thumpalumpacus; we don't need to turn this into a long thread about the assassination.  There are plenty of other places to do that sort of thing. I just wondered what particular evidence you feel there is to back the conspiracy theory.  You've given it-- I'm not going to take it any further than that.

[Whitney]

Also, Fester, what do you mean by the phrase "these people"?  Who are you lumping me in with, and why?

I'm pretty sure fester was lumping you in with people who think JFK's death did not happen according to the official story....due to your comments.  So, I'm not sure what the problem is unless you aren't one of "those people."