[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.10279519 [View]
File: 22 KB, 250x358, 1509054983305.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10279519

Writer's block is a fedora meme and excuse for laziness. Prove me wrong.

[Neo_disgusted.jpg]

>> No.10193957 [View]
File: 22 KB, 250x358, NeoTheMatrix.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10193957

What do you guys think about (the philosophically relevant thus literature related) Simulation Theory?

Almost always simulation theory discussions on 4chan always devolve into "Dude matrix"--but do you actually know the axioms of simulation theory? If you did, I don't think you'd think it's such a stupid concept.

The following are the only possibilities that can be for our current reality:

1. No life form in the universe has ever been able to get so technologically advanced as to be able to create a replica/simulation of the universe--or they experience species extinction before they are able

2. Life forms have been able to replicate universes, but choose not to on ethical grounds of some sort

3. Life forms have created simulations, and if that is true--they'd have the power to create billions and trillions of simulations simultaneously, thus the chances of not being in a simulation is close to zero.

I honest to god think some people are just oblivion-tier NPCs walking around with no ability of critical thought, self awareness, or higher sentience. Mimics; without a single independent thought in their minds.

Know what's interesting? Let's pretend you don't find simulation theory valid--people do run on biological "scripts" aka D.N.A. and behavourism.

Fascinating vein of thought. What do you think?

>> No.8248338 [View]
File: 22 KB, 250x358, Neo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8248338

>>8248337

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]