The person I am talking about is very un-intelligent so I guess it wouldn't surprise me that she is clinically depressed.

It's unintelligent to perceive oneself as a tiny speck in a vast, tremendously large universe?

And again I use the term insanity loosely, not clinically.
[/quote]

Yes, you said that. But why would thinking these thoughts drive one "insane" (in your non-clinical sense)?

[quote name='CryoGenesis' timestamp='1344652147' post='4968297']
The person I am talking about is very un-intelligent so I guess it wouldn't surprise me that she is clinically depressed.

It's unintelligent to perceive oneself as a tiny speck in a vast, tremendously large universe?

And again I use the term insanity loosely, not clinically.
[/quote]

Yes, you said that. But why would thinking these thoughts drive one "insane" (in your non-clinical sense)?
[/quote]
I mean she is un-intelligent in that she becomes depressed because of this fact. Most people accept and move on.
Depends on how emotionally unstable someone's brain is. I guess it would be a ridiculously small chance of someone breaking from the thought.
For me, I don't like thinking of the universe being a program or something other than the conventional idea just because the universe seems unsafe otherwise. Like someone can just pull the plug and the whole history of the human race and the beautiful universe is lost.

I mean she is un-intelligent in that she becomes depressed because of this fact. Most people accept and move on.

Their loss, in my opinion. I enjoy such thoughts and the emotional rush it gives me.

Depends on how emotionally unstable someone's brain is. I guess it would be a ridiculously small chance of someone breaking from the thought.[/quote]

Yes, but that's not what I asked. I asked why one would "break" from the thought of how small one is relative to the scale of the universe. Call me unintelligent (or perhaps unempathetic), but I've seen it happen and I've never fully understood why. I find these thoughts awe-inspiring.

Like someone can just pull the plug and the whole history of the human race and the beautiful universe is lost.
[/quote]

1. If the universe were a computer simulation and someone "pulled the plug," wouldn't we never become aware of this? Barring some kind of unpredictable shutdown transient, it's not as if the universe would die in a flaming apocalypse or anything. Time would end - the physics state of the universe would simply cease to iterate. If someone booted up the computer again, I would think that the iteration would simply begin again where it left off and nobody would even notice the gap since it literally would not exist for us. Does an AI agent in a game that's been restarted from a save game know that the game was saved and restarted?

Maybe the computer has been rebooted multiple times. Maybe it shuts down every night. How would we know?

2. The notion that the history of the human race is worth preserving and even that the universe itself is inherently beautiful is only a subjective value construction. Maybe those who run the simulation have different values than us.

1. If the universe were a computer simulation and someone "pulled the plug," wouldn't we never become aware of this? Barring some kind of unpredictable shutdown transient, it's not as if the universe would die in a flaming apocalypse or anything. Time would end - the physics state of the universe would simply cease to iterate. If someone booted up the computer again, I would think that the iteration would simply begin again where it left off and nobody would even notice the gap since it literally would not exist for us. Maybe the computer has been rebooted multiple times. Maybe it shuts down every night. How would we know?
[/quote]
Even though I wouldn't notice this happening It would still be a fiercely terrible shame. It doesn't matter if we don't notice or feel it. What matters is that all the memories and stories and everything the human race has ever done is lost. How would you feel knowing that in the future you'll never be remembered. Your very existence meaningless and your name lost forever. Maybe the programs writers feel this and decide to keep the program runnning. But even thinking of the universe as a concept such as a program would be illogical because a program is based off of universal concepts. Thinking of the program to have creators would also be illogical because creation is again an entirely artificial ideology. I guess it just makes explaining the idea easier.

2. The notion that the history of the human race is worth preserving and even that the universe itself is inherently beautiful is only a subjective value construction. Maybe those who run the simulation have different values than us.
[/quote]
But that's again thinking of entities outside of all concepts of this universe. Even thinking of the program writers as creatures (or anything) wouldn't be correct.
I guess it's just a paradox to try and explain (or even think) of things outside of a universe that we live in. Heck its impossible. Maybe the program writer's universe is not even a universe because the term and idea of a universe is a completely human concept based on physics which again is observation of this universe. So there is not even a correct terminology to explain this.
Maybe we should make up words.

1. It's also weird to think that every thing you've ever done has already happened trillions of times in this universe (if you believe in the big bang theory).
2. I think the theory is that after the big bang all the elements of the universe start imploding due to gravity. It then creates a singularity. The singularity messes up time due to the gravitational force and then time reverses and the singularity explodes instead of implodes. I think that's what Stephen Hawkings said.
3. I feel that
4. as theoretical physics gets more and more sophisticated it starts getting more and more surreal without being backed up with mathematics. For instance: String theory.
5. The theory that everything in the universe is made up of small vibrating strings.

1. I think you're talking about a multiverse theory (that there are trillions of universes, that diversions in the timeline can occur every moment). A different thing from the standard big bang theory.

2. I'll need to reread Hawking on that.

3. When you say "I feel," you're either guessing or letting emotion rule over intellect.

4. No. String theory arose out of the mathematics.

5. I think string theory sounds very plausible. Especially the part about strings being junctures, collisions between dimensions, and especially when considering that the big bang could itself have been a collision between branes (essentially huge strings) - meaning subatomic particles made of strings are just like the universe itself, thus the subatomic and the macrotomic are unified.

Like someone can just pull the plug and the whole history of the human race and the beautiful universe is lost.

We grew up with the comforting thought that the earth is permanent, that our monuments will stand for millions of years, that our knowledge and our stories will continue beyond ourselves.
But it's likely that the universe will come to an end some day, taking our knowledge and our stories with it.
Our knowledge and our stories live on as long as we live on, provided we don't destroy them. That's one of the things I worry about as we continue to commit our knowledge and stories to computers rather than physical media. Wipe out electricity and technology, and it could all be lost.

Even though I wouldn't notice this happening It would still be a fiercely terrible shame. It doesn't matter if we don't notice or feel it. What matters is that all the memories and stories and everything the human race has ever done is lost.

Lost to whom? Surely not to us - if we don't exist, then how do we lose anything?
Lost to the creators of the simulation, perhaps? Only if they didn't keep backups, which I suppose is quite plausible.

How would you feel knowing that in the future you'll never be remembered. Your very existence meaningless and your name lost forever.[/quote]

Oh, I already know that. This is the case regardless not only for me but for the vast majority of us. I will die and almost certainly be forgotten by my own species long before the human race dies out. Most of the 7 billion people on this planet have never even heard of me and I'm still alive - why should I expect that they'll hear of me once I'm dead? The thought does not trouble me.

But even thinking of the universe as a concept such as a program would be illogical because a program is based off of universal concepts.[/quote]

What do you mean by "universal concepts?"

Thinking of the program to have creators would also be illogical because creation is again an entirely artificial ideology. I guess it just makes explaining the idea easier.[/quote]

I think you've lost me now. It appears to me that you're using certain words to mean things that they don't normally mean, specifically "illogical" and "ideology." What exactly do you mean by these terms?

But that's again thinking of entities outside of all concepts of this universe. Even thinking of the program writers as creatures (or anything) wouldn't be correct.[/quote]

It might not be logically sound to do so due to lack of evidence, but if one makes a few ground assumptions it's logically valid to discuss a hypothetical "super-universe" and beings dwelling within it, just so long as one remembers that the truth value of such ground assumptions is unknowable. Hell, given the definition of logical validity it's logically valid to discuss the societal implications of the sudden appearance of unicorns on Earth so long as one remembers that such an event is very, very unlikely.

Maybe the program writer's universe is not even a universe because the term and idea of a universe is a completely human concept based on physics which again is observation of this universe. So there is not even a correct terminology to explain this.
Maybe we should make up words.
[/quote]

I don't believe any such coinage is necessary. If our universe is a simulation, then there must be a universe in which that simulation is carried out, even if it is purely natural and is not an artefact. How do you carry out a simulation without a mechanism of some kind to represent that simulation's current state and without some mechanism to iterate upon that state? How do you have a mechanism without existence?

[quote name='CryoGenesis' timestamp='1344648669' post='4968280']
1. It's also weird to think that every thing you've ever done has already happened trillions of times in this universe (if you believe in the big bang theory).
2. I think the theory is that after the big bang all the elements of the universe start imploding due to gravity. It then creates a singularity. The singularity messes up time due to the gravitational force and then time reverses and the singularity explodes instead of implodes. I think that's what Stephen Hawkings said.
3. I feel that
4. as theoretical physics gets more and more sophisticated it starts getting more and more surreal without being backed up with mathematics. For instance: String theory.
5. The theory that everything in the universe is made up of small vibrating strings.

1. I think you're talking about a multiverse theory (that there are trillions of universes, that diversions in the timeline can occur every moment). A different thing from the standard big bang theory.

2. I'll need to reread Hawking on that.

3. When you say "I feel," you're either guessing or letting emotion rule over intellect.

4. No. String theory arose out of the mathematics.

5. I think string theory sounds very plausible. Especially the part about strings being junctures, collisions between dimensions, and especially when considering that the big bang could itself have been a collision between branes (essentially huge strings) - meaning subatomic particles made of strings are just like the universe itself, thus the subatomic and the macrotomic are unified.
[/quote]
1. No I'm talking about the big bang. When the universe shrinks (the big crunch theory I think) the gravitational force on a single point messes up time (because time can be altered with gravity) and it basically flips, reversing the crunch and therefore a bang.
2. It was from a movie about him called Hawking. He explains it at the near end of the movie and he explains it a lot better than me.
3. That's just me saying I feel as though theoretical physics is getting more and more surreal nowadays. It has nothing to do with emotion.
4. Sure, I'm not too up on my string theory anyway. Everything I know about it is just from documentaries on TV that don't go into the mathematics of it.
5. again, I don't know much about string theory. I was just using it as an example of surrealism.

[quote name='CryoGenesis' timestamp='1344653025' post='4968299']
Like someone can just pull the plug and the whole history of the human race and the beautiful universe is lost.

We grew up with the comforting thought that the earth is permanent, that our monuments will stand for millions of years, that our knowledge and our stories will continue beyond ourselves.
But it's likely that the universe will come to an end some day, taking our knowledge and our stories with it.
Our knowledge and our stories live on as long as we live on, provided we don't destroy them. That's one of the things I worry about as we continue to commit our knowledge and stories to computers rather than physical media. Wipe out electricity and technology, and it could all be lost.
[/quote]
Hmm I agree. Although, if we can find a way to travel between universes then we could survive for a lot longer.
I wish politicians would see that we have to put more money into space exploration. I think that the longer we are on one planet the more chance we have of being eradicated by a meteor or something.

Lost to whom? Surely not to us - if we don't exist, then how do we lose anything?
Lost to the creators of the simulation, perhaps? Only if they didn't keep backups, which I suppose is quite plausible.
[/quote]
I don't think I'm explaining my point very well.
It doesn't matter if anyone loses it what matters is it is lost. If it meant that all we ever did was for nothing then that is bad.
I would be good if they kept backups but that's contradicting with my other statement about how they exist outside of universal concepts.

Oh, I already know that. This is the case regardless not only for me but for the vast majority of us. I will die and almost certainly be forgotten by my own species long before the human race dies out. Most of the 7 billion people on this planet have never even heard of me and I'm still alive - why should I expect that they'll hear of me once I'm dead? The thought does not trouble me.[/quote]
I guess we're at an odds here. I'm going to try my hardest to dump my name somewhere in the world. Doesn't matter if only a few people remember me.
I'm also going to try and do a 100% selfless thing as well. But that's a whole other debate.

What do you mean by "universal concepts?"[/quote]
Ok I've going to have to make up words for a second.
Let's just call the program Uni. If I make up a word for where he lives then I would be contradicting myself.
Well, If you were to write a program such as uni then the creatures inside it would only know of everything accessible to them from inside the program. We our place the universe. A universe is a scientific concept and would not be applicable to uni because it would be outside of all concepts unless it was modelled from it's own cosmos. But even giving uni a cosmos would be self contradicting. It's impossible to explain something like this with images and words because every single thing inside this universe(even the universe) does not apply to uni.

I don't believe any such coinage is necessary. If our universe is a simulation, then there must be a universe in which that simulation is carried out, even if it is purely natural and is not an artefact. How do you carry out a simulation without a mechanism of some kind to represent that simulation's current state and without some mechanism to iterate upon that state? How do you have a mechanism without existence?[/quote]

Lets just take a smaller example to make the explaining simpler. Lets say you have a computer and you program a universe with laws and little creatures. Lets dump a concept into their universe like their universe is made up of two separate universes. Let's also say the universes cannot function without one another. Ok, so when the little creatures in the computer think the same idea they are thinking now they will try to explain it like: "Oh the program must be inside the left universe instead of the right" but actually they are trying to explain it with their own universal concepts instead of literally thinking outside the box by stating that there is no such thing as a left and right universe outside of their program.

I think you've lost me now. It appears to me that you're using certain words to mean things that they don't normally mean, specifically "illogical" and "ideology." What exactly do you mean by these terms?[/quote]
I mean it would be illogical because trying to explain something that exists outside of out program would always lead to failure due to explaining it with concepts from this universe. I guess using ideology wouldn't be correct. Even so, the term creation would be of an artificial nature outside of our universe.

It might not be logically sound to do so due to lack of evidence, but if one makes a few ground assumptions it's logically valid to discuss a hypothetical "super-universe" and beings dwelling within it, just so long as one remembers that the truth value of such ground assumptions is unknowable. Hell, given the definition of logical validity it's logically valid to discuss the societal implications of the sudden appearance of unicorns on Earth so long as one remembers that such an event is very, very unlikely.[/quote]

Again, I'm not getting my point across. Just the term evidence would not be correct if the program's universe is completely different to ours (just using the word universe to help explain. Actually, it's self contradicting). The term super-universe would be invalid because we as human beings invented it from observing out OWN universe. There might not be a writer to the program because in saying that you are using one of the laws of physics that says something can't come from nothing but outside of the laws of physics that is possible. The laws of physics are based off of our universe and not a higher existence.

I don't believe any such coinage is necessary. If our universe is a simulation, then there must be a universe in which that simulation is carried out, even if it is purely natural and is not an artefact. How do you carry out a simulation without a mechanism of some kind to represent that simulation's current state and without some mechanism to iterate upon that state? How do you have a mechanism without existence?[/quote]
Yes in this universe that would be impossible due to the laws of physics. You can't have something coming from nothing. But outside out the universe it could be exactly the opposite. Sure, the program could be running in a universe but it doesn't have to and saying that it would be impossible is just a conclusion based on evidence of this universe.