Could Be Worse...

#2
I'm sorry to be a Grammar Nazi, but this:

Suddenly you're a new bump of soil in the rose garden about-which-we-shall-not-speak-of-again

is just bad English.

I bring it up because I'm increasingly seeing sloppy or ill-informed English usage in public from some supposedly highly intelligent people, and it bugs the shit out of me. It causes me to suspect that the writer's thinking processes are not to be fully trusted.

So carry on. Thanks for the opportunity to rant a little.
 
#3
I'm sorry to be a Grammar Nazi, but this:

Suddenly you're a new bump of soil in the rose garden about-which-we-shall-not-speak-of-again

is just bad English.

I bring it up because I'm increasingly seeing sloppy or ill-informed English usage in public from some supposedly highly intelligent people, and it bugs the shit out of me. It causes me to suspect that the writer's thinking processes are not to be fully trusted.

So carry on. Thanks for the opportunity to rant a little.
I'm sure you're not sorry at all. In fact, I'm sure you enjoy pointing out the errors of others. That's the whole point, right?
 
#5
I'm sorry to be a Grammar Nazi, but this:

Suddenly you're a new bump of soil in the rose garden about-which-we-shall-not-speak-of-again

is just bad English.

I bring it up because I'm increasingly seeing sloppy or ill-informed English usage in public from some supposedly highly intelligent people, and it bugs the shit out of me. It causes me to suspect that the writer's thinking processes are not to be fully trusted.

So carry on. Thanks for the opportunity to rant a little.
Haha yeah. No prob
 
#6
Interesting. I take issue with the last paragraph however:
Discovering that the universe is a simulation

Arguments have been made that many outstanding existential puzzles would be resolved if, in fact, we live inside a simulation. Yes, it's a version of the Matrix answer. It's also not entirely new (related speculations go back to the ancient Greeks) but it has a little more gloss now because we have a hazy impression of where our own technology is headed, and because it would fix items like the Fermi Paradox and perhaps our continued puzzlement over quantum phenomena like entanglement and causality.

Of course this may all be wrong. But for a moment just suppose that we had proof that everything we knew - the cosmos around us, its physics, its mathematics, and our own existence - was simply an emergence within a simulation. And that instead of this happening inside our heads, our heads are actually inside the simulation.

That, I think, would bring on a pretty brutal type of existential crisis. Not only are we not in a real universe, we are not real either - whatever 'real' actually means.

Would there be anything to do about this? Not really, because where would we go?

Ouch.
His presupposition of materialism taints his interpretation of what a simulation or "holographic universe" could actually mean. The sentence I emphasized in bold print show his materialist bias. Strange because by his interpretation, not only is consciousness an illusion, but everything is an illusion, and we don't actually exist!
 
Top