Is Our Universe ‘Real’? - General Discussion Discussion

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

It's Nick Bostrom's idea rather than Elon Musk's, isn't it? Elon Musk just believes in it very firmly, whereas Bostrom just floated it as an idea to play with, because Elon Musk doesn't have the subtety of thought that Bostrom does.

In any case, existentially it doesn't much matter one way or the other. If we're in a simulation, we're part of it. The sims in SimCity don't and cannot exist outside of the game. So it's our reality. It makes no real difference to anyone's life.

Philosophically/metaphysically, it doesn't resolve anything. You're just adding in a contingency. 'OK, so this isn't the real universe' just pushes the questions back a step. No matter how many steps you add you always arrive at the same everything came from nothing/something always was conundrum.

reply

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

This is kind of that I was going to say. If it is a simulation and we can't take "the red pill" and wake up out of it, does it really matter?

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

Yeah, unless there's a funny electronic gurgling noise and a big GAME OVER notice that comes up at the end of our lives, I can't see why we should care.

Also, I'd find it difficult to believe that - even if it is a simulation - it has anything to do with us. Whatever the folk who built this thing are testing or monitoring must be at a cosmic level, or - you know - why use all that computing power to make a mahoosive universe instead of just one planet. It's not like we'd question it. We're part of the simulation. Whatever it was like it would be real and natural to us.

So if it's a simulation, we're still likely to be an unobserved byproduct of whatever experiment 'they' are doing.

reply

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

There was an interesting book series about that called The Game Is Life by Terry Schott. I stopped reading after a certain point as I thought it ended well and then he kept on going, but in the first book, (and this is not a spoiler as it's in the description of the book) children play 'The Game' which is a simulation that lasts a lifetime. People can watch them play, and how well they do in the game affects what they can do afterwards in the real world, how much money they start with, what sort of career they can have. That sort of thing. I do recommend the first few books anyway. Although they added books into the mix and the numbers have changed since I've read them, but I read up to Digital Evolution, which was book 5?

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Something similar happens in an episode of STAR TREK: Next Generation where CAPT. PICARD lives an entire SIMULATED LIFETIME in about 40 MIN (during which time he also learns how to play the flute).

But it turns out a civilization that had gone EXTINCT was responsible for that, because they wanted someone to experience what they'd been like so that they wouldn't be forgotten. So that's why it happens, was because PICARD got hit with some kind of a BEACON or something that they'd set up.

My idea that PLANET EARTH is just one of many other PETRI DISHES is also similar to how what happens afterwards in THE GAME (due to how well one does while still inside of the PETRI DISH also determines the OUTCOME once one is outside of the GAME).

What happens is Book 5 with the DIGITAL EVOLUTION???

Do they become LIGHT BEINGS without a MATERIAL or PHYSICAL BODY???

reply

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

I'm not going to spoil a book series, especially since the author has written more books now. I just looked and that is now book 6. But I do recommend them.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Reviews say the BOOK ends without an ENDING, and they also say after book 4 the story gets repetitive, predictable, and isn't as interesting (something about any time a knife appears someone gets STABBED in the eye with it).

Because by Book 5 there's too many characters and inconsistencies (something about a GENERAL who's horrible, but then gets nice).

Others also say the writing is amateurish and the characters are cardboard cut outs (instead of being well rounded or having depth and substance).

reply

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

So don't read them. I thought that the book did have an ending, it just wasn't the ending people wanted.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

MOST of those who read them (60%) said they LIKED THEM.

But those who didn't, also didn't like them for the same reasons.

I stopped reading after a certain point

In other words, they also agree with the way that you stopped reading them at the point where you did.

reply

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

I don't usually base what I like on what others say about it, so I've not really looked at any reviews. The books are self published, and they could have used an editor, but I liked the story.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Yes those who reviewed the story also say they also like the IDEAS that take place in the story, but they also say the way that it's been written wasn't satisfactory enough for them, and that it could have been done much better.

And before one goes to see a SHAKESPEARE play (such as HAMLET) the chances are probably pretty good that you've already READ it, or watched it before, or at least heard about what happens in that story, but there's still also no reason why you can't enjoy watching the performance of it anyhow.

So that's the reason why I always read REVIEWS of something before reading it or watching it (a film or a TV SHOW), because SPOILERS don't bother me, and one also doesn't want to WASTE one's time reading or watching something only to be disappointed by it if one doesn't know what it's about beforehand.

reply

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

Other's experiences are not mine. I don't care if other people think that something is crap. I might like it. In fact there are more than a couple movies or books that I really enjoy that critics and others give poor ratings. Often something that others seem to really enjoy and rate really high I don't enjoy.

It's fine that you enjoy having things spoiled for you. Some people really enjoy stories more that way. Just remember that not all people do. Like for instance here, if someone else might have been interested in reading the books, you've pretty much given away key plot points.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Since it's the PERFORMANCE itself that I mostly enjoy, that's why KNOWING what happens BEFOREHAND doesn't bother me.

Because once you already KNOW the PLOT of the story, you are also FREE to SIT back, RELAX, and CONCENTRATE on other SUB TEXUAL matters that take place once you already know what's taking place SUPERFICIALLY or on the SURFACE.

But YES we've probably ALL had the experience where we'll LIKE something that others do not, or don't like something someone else does like.

But there's also a way to know if that's the case by reading REVIEWS of something. Because if you're already familiar with the person who does the REVIEW (like EBERT), then you can usually also rely on their opinion of something to be the same as your own.

Or if enough of those who REVIEW something keep saying the same things about something, then that also seems to indicate there's a certain level of TRUST you can have in what they have to say.

CRITICISM of something isn't the same as giving away KEY PLOT POINTS. Because saying the END of a story has NO ENDING doesn't explain the PLOT of the story (which is also continued on in BOOK 6).

And pointing out that the story gets REPETITIOUS (by always having a character with a KNIFE STABBING another one in the EYE with it) doesn't give away a KEY PLOT POINT either.

Not unless you've got a LOUSY PLOT to begin with ...

The other complaint is that situations are also always RESOLVED by the INTRODUCTION of other characters with some kind of SUPER POWERS (which amounts to the introduction of DEUS EX MACHINA ... which is also another unsatisfactory form of storytelling).

Deus ex machina - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina

Sep 07, 2002 · Deus ex machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly and abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence.

In other words, people with more SOPHISTICATED expectations are probably also going to be DISAPPOINTED whenever this kind of a CHEAP TRICK or STORY TELLING DEVICE is used.

reply

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

Thank you, I am very well aware of what a deus ex machina is. It's very apparent that you have already made up your mind about my recommendation to capuchin, so thank you and I wish you a good night.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Since others also read the topic who may not know what it means the definition was for their benefit and I hope you don't take it personally that it was provided for others.

As for the way characters appear who have SUPERNATURAL POWERS each time another character gets into some kind of a bind, the point is how REPETATIVE and PREDICTABLE the story can be when the same things keep happening again and again (such as what happens when the KNIFE is pulled).

And since it's also a GAME that is being played (which can also be REPETITIVE as well), that may also be DELIBERATE on the part of the writer, but by BOOK 4 apparently both the others who REVIEWED the books agree with you (about how they'd also had enough at that point and decided to STOP reading them the same way as you did).

So one was just wondering if you STOPPED for the same reasons, or if you thought what they said had any validity or not.

But if you'd rather not discuss the matter then so be it, and one also hopes that you've had a GOOD NIGHT as well.

reply

[–] sslssg (35194) 3 years ago

I didn't take anything personally. 🥂

The reason why I stopped reading was because that story arc was complete. At first I was a little like "that's it?" but then I really appreciated what I thought was the end. The story did get a little repetitive, but at that point it worked with the story. He started it as just a story he was writing on a blog, so I was able to forgive some of the editing issues.

I usually lose interest in tv shows after 4 or 5 seasons as well. Especially if they have a story arc, like Supernatural did, and was only supposed to be 5 seasons. What I wasn't thrilled about with The Game is Life series is that he went back and added books in between the books he had already written. I didn't go back and read those because I mostly liked what I read and I didn't want to go back and get frustrated if things changed, or just bored. I was reading them as he was releasing them, so I can't say if my experience is the same as others who are reading it now.

Regardless of anything else with the books, I still think that the first book was a really interesting take on why simulations would be developed.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Thanks for explaining more about the GAME of LIFE series. Ever since reading ARISTOLE'S "POETICS" for an INDEPENDENT STUDY class (where he instructs us to first DEFINE a topic before attempting to discuss it), one's had the habit of doing that.

And others here may also be able to verify for you how I've been posting definitions for quite some time.

Anyhow, those who REVIEWED the story LIKE IT, it's just by BOOK 4 they've grown a bit bored with the REPETITIONS (which is probably also the same thing that eventually happens with any kind of a game that you play)???

I also remember giving away the first computer game to my niece and nephew (the kind you break down a wall and bat the thing back & forth like a game of tennis or ping pong) after playing it and getting bored with it.

So perhaps that's also something that's meant to be intentional in the story???

In the "MATRIX TRILOGY" you've also got a PROGRESSION where the GAME gets more complex and complicated as the story unfolds. But basically NEO also fights Agent SMITH the same way as he first fights MORPHEUS when the program is LOADED and he first learns how to fight.

So there's also LOTS of REPETITION in that story as well ... (including the other FIRST 5 VERSIONS of NEO that we never meet) ... who chose the DOOR back to ZION instead of the one that takes NEO (Version 6) back to TRINITY again.

Is there anything like that going on in the story??? Situations where the character finally makes a different choice like NEO did???

Can hardly wait to find out what MATRIX RESURRECTIONS (PART 4) will be about.

1. MATRIX
2. RELOADED
3. REVOLUTION
4. RESURRECTIONS

Others also say that they liked the 1st FILM, but didn't care for the other stories as much.

So for that reason this other guy is probably also very lucky that he could keep his fans going until BOOK 4.

HBO also use to have shows that would last at least 5 SEASONS or more. But now we're lucky to get more than ONE SEASON of something. And instead of 13 episodes per season (like SIX FEET UNDER had), now we get about 6 per season.

And the regular NETWORK TV SHOWS also use to have about 26 episodes per season (for a total of nearly 52 episodes per year).

So anyone who can manage to keep someone's ATTENTION going for 4 BOOKS in this day and age has definitely also accomplished something to be proud of.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

we're still likely to be an unobserved byproduct of whatever experiment 'they' are doing.

What if we've been created for the purpose of ENTERTAINING those who have created us (who have maybe also created us in their OWN IMAGE)???

In that case we wouldn't be an experiment, but would be created for their amusement (sort of like they had the HOLODECK in Star Trek: Next Generation and VOYAGER as a way to keep themselves ENTERTAINED on the SPACE SHIP).

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

Then why bother with a massive universe? You and I wouldn't know any different if the Earth was under a dome with fixed stars and a sea outside of it like the ancient Greeks believed. A massive, largely empty universe to be entertained by human beings on a tiny speck of dust at the arse-end of nowhere just seems like a massive waste. But I'm sure they've got a Core i9 in their laptops.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

There's also theories about there being several other EARTH LIKE PLANETS out there (based upon there being BILLIONS of STARS and other GALAXIES which indicates from the SHEER numbers of them that there would have to be DUPLICATES that were created).

So what if EARTH is like a PETRI DISH, and the PLANET who does the BEST JOB (as far as the EXPERIMENT goes) gets IMMORTALITY as a REWARD???

In such as case, one would also assume this PETRI DISH (where the INHABITANTS are POLLUTING the place to death) is doing a BAD JOB and won't WIN that kind of a REWARD???

reply

[–] Solastine (1104) 3 years ago

Who says the universe is massive, our instruments give returns that make it appear to be massive but we have not verified those returns to be factual.

If we are to assume that someone created a simulation of the world, why not create a simulation of a night sky that runs a lesser simulation for those outer worlds.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

The answer is already in the post to which you're responding:

There'd be no point in simulating a massive, empty universe to attempt to fool simulants who wouldn't know any different. You may as well design something smaller because we have no other universe to compare it to. As a part of the simulation, we would accept the simulation.

reply

[–] Solastine (1104) 3 years ago

Stop deflecting, your premise is that the universe is too massive for just simulating human life. My premise is that we only believe it is massive because we are incapable of escaping the boundaries of the simulation.

Like in a video game where you can see in the distance but cannot actually reach what you see. If you use cheats to move there you'll find something that is nothing like the rest of the simulation. Untextured areas, walls without collisions, etc.

Any so called "tests" we do basically involve observing the simulation, there could be a giant painted dome surrounding us, but if you have advanced sensor spoofing you can make it appear that it's something bigger.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

Stop deflecting

I'm not deflecting. That's quite a strange accusation to make. I've responded directly to your point. And I understood your point the first time around. There was nothing to be gained from restating it. And there will be nothing to be gained from me restating mine, especially because I had already largely addressed it in the post you initially responded to.

But once more for the road: there would be no point in fooling simulants who wouldn't know any different.

reply

[–] Solastine (1104) 3 years ago

Are you making the claim that we WOULD know the difference... thus the universe IS massive because that's what we measure it as? We're simpletons, we believe the universe is massive even though it is tiny.

If you keep deflecting then my only assumption is that you do not understand the argument which means that I need to restate my position until you stop deflecting and actually address it. There is nothing strange about pointing out someone keeps deflecting and simply throws up a random claim that all was answered somewhere else.

And you NEVER addressed my point in any of your posts, despite repeatedly claiming you did. More to the reason that this sounds like deflection.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

No. I'm making the claim that we wouldn't know the difference, which is why I've repeatedly stated that we wouldn't know the difference.

The simulants within the simulation would accept the rules of the simulation whatever they were. You would neither have to create a massive empty universe, nor fool them into thinking there was a massive empty universe. You could just stick a dome around the whole thing, something similar to what the ancients believed.

There is nothing strange about pointing out someone keeps deflecting

No-one is deflecting; that's just in your mind. That's why it's strange. Also, why you imagine anyone would 'deflect' over such a trivial hypothetical is beyond me. But... whatever floats your boat.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Since what's in The OP is a quote from an article that was written by someone else, neither MUSK nor Bostrom's ideas are that familiar for me and most of what I know comes from watching SCI FI FILMS.

For K in BLADE RUNNER 2049, for instance, JOI was MORE REAL to him than the other REPLICANTS were, and he also LOVED her more than he did them or the humans.

But if you watch this clip (especially the part where JOI serves K DINNER at the 1:36 TIME MARK), then it's also pretty clear that what she serves him isn't REAL FOOD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ujAAsU1ww&t=1s

Blade Runner 2049 / Deftones - Anniversary of an Uninteresting Event

Nevertheless, his FEELINGS for her were STILL REAL, and he also FELT MORE for her than he did other REPLICANTS like himself or the humans.

And since RACHEL (the REPLICANT from the ORIGINAL BLADE RUNNER) also had the MEMORIES of TYRELL's NIECE implanted in her, I'm also thinking ANA (who's suppose to be DECKARD's daughter) can also IMPLANT the memories of JOI inside of another REPLICANT body (the same way as WALLACE also created another REPLICANT copy of RACHEL).

In other words, by using K's MEMORIES of JOI, Ana might also be able to RESURRECT her again, and then place those memories inside of a REPLICANT COPY of JOI (the same way that TYRELL also placed copies of the memory of his NIECE inside of RACHEL).

And in this case the HUMANS, REPLICANTS, and the HOLOGRAMS also inhabit the SAME UNIVERSE.

And RACHEL also wasn't AWARE at first that her MEMORIES were actually the MEMORIES of TYRELL's niece.

So is it possible that we could also have MEMORIES that belong to someone else IMPLANTED into us without KNOWING it???

How do we know what we know is REAL??? Because RACHEL also had PHOTOS of herself as a child with her MOTHER (the same way as we do), yet those photos were also NOT really her (even though her IMPLANTED MEMORIES indicated to her that it was her with her mother in those photos).

So is it possible that we're like RACHEL and not really who we think we are ???

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

How do we know what we know is REAL???

Oh, that's a much older philosophical inquiry than either Musk or Bostrom. Western Philosophy has been tossing that one backwards and forwards for literally centuries. 'Cogito, ergo sum' and all that.

George Berkeley thought none of it was real. Karl Marx thought all of it was. Most people in the west are materialists and empiricists these days - which doesn't mean they're right to be... but... anyway, I'm not getting into all that - even in relation to Bladerunner 2049 - as it's hundreds and hundreds of years of thoughts by people much cleverer than me.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Yes, but when RACHEL THINKS with the IMPLANTED MEMORIES of the NIECE can she say:

I THINK, THEREFORE I AM (aka:'Cogito, ergo sum')

with the same result as the NIECE???

Because when RACHEL THINKS by using the MEMORIES of the NIECE, then WHO is SHE???

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

So Rachel cannot conclude that she thinks therefore she is? But only that she thinks, therefore there is thinking.

Seems like the Buddha was more right than old Descartes then...

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Actually DECKARD ASSURES her that it was SHE who played the PIANO BEAUTIFULLY.

In other words, it didn't matter to him that she had the MEMORIES of someone else because SHE was still also the one who had played his PIANO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlK5b033xOY

Blade Runner - Rachael & piano

In other words, he was also IN LOVE with RACHEL the same way as K was IN LOVE with JOI in BLADE RUNNER 2049 (even though they both also knew the person they LOVED wasn't really suppose to be REAL).

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

This is actually kind of an old idea, isn't it? You could probably find some version of it in old science fiction stories that came before Bostrom was born. They wouldn't have used terms like virtual reality, though, but the underlying idea of someone living in a false reality with all the information their senses were giving them being artificial was there.

edit: I guess the new wrinkle is they are talking about the technology human beings are developing could get to a point that we could do that, but I'm not sure even that is new.

reply

[–] capuchin (3366) 3 years ago

Well, yeah. And ultimately it's a Vedic idea. Hinduism and Buddhism wouldn't use the same language, but the idea that reality is a false construct/simulation dates back to ancient times. But in its current formulation, it's Bostrom's much more than it's Musk's... although, heck, we can just as well award it to the Wachowskis as anyone else.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Imo, The "THIRTEENTH FLOOR" did a better JOB (story wise) than the FORMER Wachowski BROTHERS (who are also FEMALES now).

Because in that film characters from the 1990 WORLD (who create SIMULATED characters in their OWN IMAGE in a 1930 WORLD), then discover that they themselves are also SIMS created by others from a 2024 WORLD (who had also created them in their OWN IMAGE).

So the situation goes even DEEPER into the SIMULATED situation than the MATRIX TRILOGY does.

And Matrix RESURRECTIONS (PART 4) is also coming out soon as well.

reply

[–] Solastine (1104) 3 years ago

That was a better movie than the Matrix... but we know we're not in a simulation because we can drive outside the city limits.

I think the real problem with your question can be exposed by questioning what it means for something to be "virtual" or "synthetic" or even "artificial." In most cases, the argument is that anything made by an intelligent life form gets into fun things as well. If gods exist and they created humans does that make humans artificial intelligence? What about human cloning, would that be a synthetic human? We can separate out a virtual life and a real world life, but does that make a virtual life any less of a life than the life you have in the real world?

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

A CLONE isn't SYNTHETIC but it is INFERIOR in several ways due to the way it only has about HALF the LIFESPAN and it also has several other problems with it's organs for some reason as was demonstrated by studies done on DOLLY the SHEEP (which is also why it's forbidden for us to create HUMAN CLONES who would have the same kind of problems).

But that's definitely a VERY INTERESTING question as to whether or not we'd be AI's or not.

In JAPAN I hear people live in VIRTUAL WORLDS as a way to try to deal with being so OVER CROWDED, because that also gives them the feeling of not being as CROWDED???

reply

[–] Solastine (1104) 3 years ago

Yeah, Dolly is ancient history. Clones are no different from a regular person, don't believe everything scifi horror movies put out.

Do note that we call man made diamonds synthetic even though they're no different from an earth mined diamond (and we can put in impurities with our SYNTHETIC diamonds too). The issue lies in the definition, what makes a virtual world any different from a real world?

I'm trying to poke fun at the idea that anything is really Synthetic or anything is really Artificial or Virtual... artificial intelligences are still intelligences, virtual realities are still realities.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

It's not SCI FI but FACTS about CLONING that indicate they only live HALF as LONG and they also have lots of other MEDICAL ISSUES as well.

Why should human cloning be banned?

https://essaypride.com/ex/human-cloning-should-be-banned-cda8b

The first reason for banning human cloning is the unacceptable medical risks. The first risk is unimproved cloning technology. Nearly 98% of cloning efforts end in failure. For example, in order to clone the sheep Dolly 277 embryos were needed, from which only one healthy and viable sheep was produced.

The second risk is short term living of the clone. Again take up the Dolly's case. Taking into consideration that sheep can live to 11 or 12 years, Dolly died at the age of 5 years old. And still the cases of long term consequences are not known. Lastly, the cell taken from adult donor could have accumulated the genetic mutations during its years that could give the resulting clone a predisposition to cancer or other diseases. The second argument is that human reproductive cloning is not necessary.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ethics-of-human-cloning-scientific-progress-2020-7

those that make it to term often die soon after birth or end up with severe abnormalities.

one very interesting tidbit, and that is the announcement of cloned human baby Eve, who was born on December 26, 2002. And the source of this announcement is a company called Clonaid, which was formed in 1997 by the Raelian cult. And they're a cult that believes that humans were cloned from aliens and the only way for us to reach immortality is to clone ourselves. It's been 18 years, and we haven't gotten any proof that baby Eve exists or has ever existed, but the company is still alive and well. So if any proof does come through, we will update you.

reply

[–] Solastine (1104) 3 years ago

If you actually understood what you were quoting, you'd know none of that has anything to do with cloning despite the word being repeated many times.

The problem is actually in vitro fertilization which has a high failure rate (throw in delays in implanting the embryo and the failure rate goes up). That you don't understand the technology and are using an appeal to mysticism doesn't change that a clone is no different from any other creature. We're already producing Genetically Modified Organisms, insisting that our technology has not advanced since the 2000's is down right absurd.

There is no god in the machine, and the machine still works even if we fiddle with it. No matter how much scifi horror film nonsense you reference, it isn't going to magically put god in the machine.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

No one is suggesting technology hasn't advanced. And one also isn't making reference to SCI FI FILMS, but to SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that have been done on CLONES.

One problem is how EXPENSIVE it is to have that many FAILURES which makes the process not an economically feasible one to use.

And to create a HUMAN that only has HALF the LIFESPAN is also NOT ETHICAL. PLUS it would also inherit all kinds of other GENETIC MUTATIONS that come with AGE (such as those that also cause CANCER).

Impact of Cloning Organs on the Medical Field

https://nursinganswers.net/essays/impact-of...

Both cell types have the ability to grow fast and some studies show that “after 60 cycles of cell division, stem cells can accumulate mutations that could lead to cancer.” [12] When dealing with cloning tissues, it is hard to look past the effect of cancer on today’s world.

I've also read other studies that explain how the ORGANS also tend to be DEFORMED and break down, which means it's also CRUEL to create someone who would SUFFER for most of their life (which would also only be HALF as LONG).

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/cow-gene-study-shows-why-most-clones-fail

>>Using RNA sequencing, the researchers found multiple genes whose abnormal expression could lead to the high rate of death for cloned embryos, including failure to implant in the uterus and failure to develop a normal placenta.

>>researchers found anomalies in expression of more than 5,000 genes.

>>The study also revealed other points of potential failure for the clones, including problems with hormonal signaling

>>“Our discoveries also reinforce the need for a strict ban on human cloning for any purposes.”

The BOTTOM LINE is a CLONE is DIFFERENT because it's BORN with ALREADY USED PARTS.

So it's the same as if you had a NEW CAR, but that car also had USED CAR PARTS from another OLDER CAR (which also means they would WEAR OUT and it would also BREAK DOWN sooner).

reply

[–] chilone (18328) 3 years ago

Depends on your definition of real.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

What if we have MEMORIES that have been IMPLANTED into us that aren't REAL like the case was with RACHEL in BLADE RUNNER who had the MEMORIES of TYRELL's niece???

In that case wouldn't the UNIVERSE be REAL, but not us???

reply

[–] nyctc7 (44107) 3 years ago

Metaphysics? Epistemology?

WAY over my head. The way I see it, whatever you want to call it, we have to live in it. No philosophical theory will stop a criminal from cutting your throat.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Have you seen BLADE RUNNER???

It's not that complicated.

HUMANS create REPLICANTS who look just like HUMANS.

And then the guy who CREATES the REPLICANTS (TYRELL) also PLANTS the MEMORIES of his NIECE into a REPLICANT named RACHEL, who discovers the photos that she has of herself as a child with her mother aren't REALLY photos of her with her mother (even though the MEMORIES she has indicate to her that's the case).

Then she also has an IDENTITY CRISIS when she discovers she's NOT HUMAN and that her MEMORIES are also those of someone else.

reply

[–] nyctc7 (44107) 3 years ago

I have a hard enough time figuring this out (1 minute long):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9WtjFhEGrM&t=19s

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

IMAGINE someone makes a LIFE SIZE DOLL that can WALK and TALK, and looks so REAL and LIFE LIKE, that you can't tell it's not HUMAN.

That's what a REPLICANT is, something that looks and behaves just like a HUMAN does.

Then you also put the MEMORIES of a HUMAN inside of that LIFE LIKE DOLL.

That's what happened to RACHEL.

She thinks she's HUMAN, then discovers that she's NOT, and the MEMORIES that she has are HUMAN, but aren't really originally her MEMORIES.

reply

[–] nyctc7 (44107) 3 years ago

Send her to Dr. Phil

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

She died giving birth to a CHILD that is being HUNTED for in BLADE RUNNER 2049.

reply

[–] mikethemartian (7001) 3 years ago

Yes

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

What makes you so sure that the UNIVERSE is REAL mike???

reply

[–] Kowalski (79128) 3 years ago

REAL ENOUGH.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

Maybe, maybe not. Unfortunately we'll never know.

🤨

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Perhaps if we WAKE UP in another LIFE at the end of this LIFE then we might find out then if this one was REAL or not???

🧐

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

Maybe, maybe not. Meanwhile, please define "real".

🤨

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

REAL

actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

synonyms:
actual · existent · nonfictional · nonfictitious · factual · historical · material · physical · tangible · concrete · palpable · corporeal · substantial · unimaginary · veridical

(of a substance or thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.

synonyms:
genuine · authentic · bona fide · sincere · true · unfeigned · unpretended · heartfelt · from the heart · unaffected · earnest · wholehearted · fervent · honest · truthful

*******************

As someone else already pointed out, certain cultures consider this place that we now inhabit to merely be an ILLUSION or MAYA.

And that would also include certain CHRISTIAN beliefs as well , such as those who assume this WORLD is a mistake that was created by SOPHIA (the mother of GOD) when she creates the DEMI URGE without the assistance of her husband and then sets him off in a place by himself where he proceeds to mistakenly assume he's the ONLY GOD.

And then he also creates other CREATURES (us HUMANS) in his own image, only to discover he can't breathe the SPARK of LIFE into us (because he's only a HALF GOD), so SOPHIE takes PITY upon us and BREATHES it into us for him.

And that also explains the reason why our MITOCHONDRIAL DNA is passed down to us by our MOTHERS (not our fathers).

Anyhow, this story also says that SOPHIE is going to DESTROY this place of ILLUSION that should never have been created in the first place so we can return back again to the place where we should be located.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(Gnosticism)

the Sophia"[1]) is a major theme, along with Knowledge (γνῶσις gnosis, Coptic sooun), among many of the early Christian knowledge-theologies grouped by the heresiologist Irenaeus as gnostikoi (γνωστικοί), ‘knowing’ or ‘men that claimed to have deeper wisdom’.

In Gnosticism, Sophia is a feminine figure, analogous to the human soul but also simultaneously one of the feminine aspects of God. Gnostics held that she was the syzygy (female twin divine Aeon) of Jesus (i.e. the Bride of Christ), and Holy Spirit of the Trinity.

She is considered to have fallen from grace in some way, in so doing creating or helping to create the material world.

In most versions of the Gnostic mythos, it is Sophia who brings about this instability in the Pleroma, in turn bringing about the creation of materiality.

Christ is then sent to earth in the form of the man Jesus to give men the Gnosis needed to rescue themselves from the physical world and return to the spiritual world.

For the Gnostics, the drama of the redemption of the Sophia through Christ or the Logos is the central drama of the universe. The Sophia resides in all humans as the Divine Spark.

In other words, we HUMANS are pretty much also like the REPLICANTS in BLADE RUNNER (where a HUMAN CREATURE also creates other creatures in their OWN IMAGE).

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

I know the definition of the word "real". Duh.

That's not what I was asking. I was asking how do we determine if anything is real? The answer, of course, is that we cannot. We actually can't PROVE anything, we can only fail to DISPROVE it.

🤨

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

OK. Is this any better or what you had in mind:

https://www.messagetoeagle.com/what-you-see-is-not-real-its-a-visual-illusion-scientists-say/

What You See Is Not Real – It’s A Visual Illusion – Scientists Say

According to a new study not everything you see is actually real. Many things around you are a visual illusion, scientists say. There is even a simple test you can do to find for yourself how real the illusory experience is.

As the brain processes incoming information about an external stimulus, we come to learn, it creates a representation of the outside world that can diverge from reality in noticeable ways.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 3 years ago

No, not really.

😎

reply

[–] TexasJack (12516) 3 years ago

Realest universe eva!

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

EVER JACK???

Have you been inside of other VERSES as a way to KNOW that for sure???

If so, then please also tell us about them and what they were like.

😉

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 3 years ago

It’s like the old song goes: Life is but a dream. Reality is largely an illusion to us due to the way we perceive it with our primitive minds, a puzzle that can never be solved, just like Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. The “true” reality is beyond our comprehension as we are entirely constricted by time and space. We can perceive the three dimensional space we live in, but there is a fourth dimension out there that is entirely unknown to us.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

If we're SIMULATIONS created in the IMAGE of our FUTURE SELVES, perhaps their REALITY isn't beyond our comprehension if they would ever bother to explain it to us???

🧐

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 3 years ago

Yes, if you subscribe to the theory of alternate timelines and infinite universes. There could fact be a future version of ourselves that are able to transcend the space-time boundaries and perhaps even contact us in some form. But that is maybe only happening to some other version of ourselves somewhere. There may in fact be many different versions of you where this is happening somewhere.

There was a Joe Rogan episode (a show I normally don’t listen to) where a physicist explains that our universe is possibly just an extension of an even larger universe. So this one could be a “simulation” or offshoot as it were.

There are others who subscribe to the notion that the human mind is as infinite as the universe however. So your reality is entirely constructed by you.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

your reality is entirely constructed by you.

Yes, that's what one means about how if our FUTURE SELVES created us then they could probably also explain to us the "true” reality (that) is beyond our comprehension.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 3 years ago

Well that is one theory, although it seems more likely that in our current situation we are merely a random result of evolution.

reply

[–] joi2049 (5632) 3 years ago

Yes I agree about how EVOLUTION seems more likely than some of the other theories about how we got here.

Didn't PLATO also have some interesting things to say about REALITY and how there are BLUEPRINTS which can also create something again that's destroyed???

What kind of concept did Plato have of reality?

Plato even said the forms can apply to beauty, love truth and even justice. In comparable terms to modern Philosophy, Plato would be considered an Idealist. He believed that the objects we perceive in the world by way of our senses are only pale imitations of their eternal and ideal form.

What concept did Plato have of reality? - Quora

www.quora.com/What-concept-did-Plato-have-of-reality

reply