It's a snake-eating exercise:

Any simulation of a world — Hallucinogen

would have to simulate a world that physically exists; a hologram is digital representation of a physical object. All the rest follows from the impossibility of 'simulating' a holographic space into existence out of a mind that consists of nothing. Might as well go back to "In the beginning was the Word." (and the word was either 'quantum' or 'abracadabra'.)
The snake looked up, the hungry snake looked up, and was not fed, for its tail was only a simulation.

You didn't understand the argument. — Hallucinogen

Possibly. I also could see no reason for making it in the first place. What did you want an indifferent self-created god for?

I used to love it as a kid. Plus, it's great fun to make.
https://lilluna.com/sponge-candy/

Which hypothesis do you mean? — Hallucinogen

this one

Therefore, our world is the result of information processing in a mind, this mind we call God. — Hallucinogen

seems entirely superfluous, since it's either a tenet of unsupported faith or an infinite regression, neither of which promotes understanding of the world

T'was by way of a jest, intending no offense.

Why bother with that hypothesis? What does it clarify or explain?

1. Any simulation of a world either operates mechanically in physical space (e.g., in a computer) or is information processing in a mind (e.g., a programmer’s mind). — Hallucinogen

So, that's a simulation. What's the original template?

Bec ause some of them are overprivileged macho shitheads?

My question is is this a valid analogy for the moral permissibility of abortion? — Captain Homicide

Not really. OTOH, the same society that requires that a woman carry a foetus to term - even if it was got by rape, coercion or deceit, even if it's defective - can and does deny that same woman and infant the necessities of a reasonable life. So the obligation is not on Henry Fonda - from whom it would be futile to demand it in any case - but the state government, to save both lives if possible, but if not, at least the mother's.

Oddly enough, France, where abortion is an elective procedure up to 14 weeks of gestation, also has a strong social support structure for single mothers. It seems regimes that do least for their citizens also impose the strictest limitations.

Awfully narrow view of divinity as concept. — javra

Narrow might or might not be on target; wide would be far too general. In any case, it was a facetious appraisal, not an in-depth analysis. I could take religions - each in its own historical and cultural context - seriously, but that's a different discussion, not answering the questions "How do we seek the meaning of life?" and "Are we special?"

what exactly is metaphysical about the bible? — javra

Ask a theologian. I have made no claims here regarding that document.
Two sets of ideas or endeavors having the same or a similar purpose does not make them interdependent.

I get your reply above, but with the understanding of terms I've presented, I take it that prayers and such are generally about influencing situations rather than controlling them — javra

Yes. It's the divine sock-puppet who is expected to do the actual controlling on the petitioners' behalf. Therefore, if the prayer is answered, you give thanks (not to the surgeon who saved your child, but to God for letting him do it) ; if it isn't, obviously, you made the wrong sacrifice, or didn't deserve a reward. Catch 22 for the faithful; failsafe for the god and its representatives. It's a terrific scam, religion; that's why it's lasted so long.

Their meaning-of-life may be more social than religious. — Gnomon

The religious impulse may be directed at other than a named deity: it can take the form of hero-worship, obsessive love or patriotism.
But I've often heard (in movies, not from anyone I know personally) someone declaring that they joined the armed forces because they found meaning/purpose in being part of something greater than themselves. Not a community garden, not a crafters' co-op, not Habitat for Humanity or Amnesty International - the army. I suspect* what they really wanted was a bigger, more disciplined social structure, where their individual insecurity would be subsumed by the fraternity.

*not a conclusion, merely a conjecture.

Is the following still the case? — universeness

I guess - we're not in or from the US. They make so many underprivileged, unemployable kids, and so many movies glorifying armed violence, it's easy enough to recruit, especially if you lie to them about opportunities and terms of service.

More to the point of this one reply, doesn't this then mean that we are subjugated to Him? — javra

Sure, and the people "interpreting" His will. But unlike conquest: you are persuaded to place yourself under their rule: you can't fight back.

Otherwise expressed, how can one control the world without in any way subjugating it? — javra

In religion, by imploring and bribing (with sacrifice) the deity to fix your weather, grow your crops, keep the floods off your land, smite your enemies and win your football games.
(I never said this part worked!)

Perhaps you even married him? — universeness

Not Horace - just a nice, clever man who never did any military service.

I might have misinterpreted you before. Sounds like underneath all the superficial bickering, you just might be into this "control over the subjugated other" thing yourself. — javra

I might, subconsciously - who knows? Except I've never sought a meaning or purpose for my life, and have always believed that life is too astounding and wondrous to require justification.
Point of order, though, before I depart. I never said the objective was "control over the subjugated other". I said the objective was control of the world by inventing a more powerful projection of themselves and putting Him in charge, on the understanding that if we do his bidding, He will do ours. Thus, patriarchal religions partially fulfill this objective by giving the privileged few (the god-anointed monarch, the high priest, the pope or ayatollah) control over the faithful through their interpretation of the deity's will.

This can in part be expressed via that whole, "give me liberty, or give me death" motif - a bit of philosophizing in and of itself. — javra

I would classify that as political philosophy, rather than metaphysics.
And it's true that one can go to war for liberty... but only if another attempts to subjugate him.

Soldier on" means "to continue to do something or to try to achieve something even though it is difficult" — Ciceronianus

I know. Geez!

I'm not sure why, but that's how it was intended. — Ciceronianus

Because, traditionally, a soldier asks not why; his is just to do or die. Carry on regardless.

Some want to subjugate. Others want to understand. Here, alone, are two different motivations. — javra

On neither of which does metaphysics deliver. The quest is the thing: the prize is forever tantalizingly out of reach.

It's worth mentioning that these "Great Civilizations which conquered" were all slave-owning. — javra

Well, of-bloody-course!! Their gods are bullies who approve of subjugation and submission. That's what makes empires great.

But this won't define the motives of all humans. — javra

Nor did it aspire to.

Compassion, wonder, eudemonia, to list a few commonly found attributes of many a human, male and female, are not driven by the aim of gaining control over other — javra

And those qualities also don't inspire wrathful gods, vengeful systems of justice or wars of ideology.

(The same, btw, can be said of any form of knowledge, including that which is scientific.) — javra

I'm not sure I could classify the findings of metaphysics as "knowledge of what is", but OK. By what is the quest for this kind of knowledge primarily motivated?

Hard to "prove" what was well over two millennia past, but a good deal of evidence points to societies being far more egalitarian in terms of sexes and their interests when addressing at least western culture prior to Abrahamic religion/metaphysics. — javra

A few pagans in Europe; Lots of unorganized Native Americans - not the Great Civilizations which conquered them.

Everything from women pharaohs supported and admired by the people (we often forget that ancient Egypt is so far the most long-surviving civilization in history by far), — javra

Not a super-convincing example, if you'll look at the depiction. And, of course, being allowed to participate in the rituals is not the same as having invented the gods.

Outnumbered by males, true, but maybe this in large part has to do with cultural indoctrination and resulting education — javra

Which was my contention. Cultural indoctrination is a direct result of the prevailing philosophy.

But hey, in the unlikely case this might eventually come to convince you that religions and metaphysics are not under the primary jurisdiction of males in principle, please let that poor crow be! — javra

Done! My half-facetious summary is not a major tenet of my faith, and I don't eat meat anyway.

But there are men of great wisdom, like Horace of course (and me I would say, but am shy) who accept this and soldier on. — Ciceronianus

Yes, indeed! And I endorse them wholeheartedly - except for that unfortunate bit about soldiery.

Note: I also didn't say 'exclusively' - but if you can prove that organized religions and metaphysics are not predominantly masculine in origin, I'll eat a crow. (But you'll have to kill it.)

Understanding of X does not necessarily equate to control of X. — javra

"If only" - I didn't say it worked, only that control is the aim.

Maybe that is something that has evolved in man as part of his survival strategy. — George Fisher

I don't see how. Crocodiles have survived far longer without ever asking it - afawk... but then, how much do we humans know about crocodile philosophy?
Humans (predominantly, I think, human males) seem in every age preoccupied with their own significance and dashed when they are compelled to admit how very small it is in the scheme of things. This is part of the reason for inventing gods: in a way, gods are magnified sock-puppets for men who want/need to feel in control of the world; who therefore provide themselves the purpose of imposing meaning and order - at least on their fellow humans. It is also the reason for the entire body of Metaphysics: If only we could reduce life, the universe and everything to basic principles, we could wrestle reality into submission.

A more interesting question might be: Why do you need to look for a meaning?

American forces are generally not considered terrorists. — TiredThinker

What's self-image to do with guerilla tactics? Or subjects suitable for discussion?

Seems to me the only reason to regret a true and accurate comment is to appease public opinion. Why should one's own nation's bad decisions be celebrated and the successes of its enemies concealed? It would be perfectly all right to use one of the Paris Underground's stratagems as an example, but not Fidel Castro's. Why are grown men so allergic to any mention of successful actions by forces deployed against them? If you pretend your enemies are all idiots and cowards, what will your chances be of defeating them?

Do you think that idealistic North Americans tend to avoid suicide rather than romanticize about it? — javi2541997

Without question! They romanticize courage, ingenuity, physical prowess, overcoming adversity, survival against all odds, victory in single combat and battle. They're okay with death in any kind of battle from street gangs to war, while banning assisted suicide for sick old people. They romanticize things like the Alamo - glossing over the fact that it was pointless mass suicide. But they smuggled in the coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq and never publicize the suicide rate in their own country and refuse to deal with the causes for it, just as they refuse to deal with the daily public shootings. Americans are so steeped in contradiction, they deny the very existence of objective reality.

Couple of possibly irrelevant remarks about suicide.
It is quite prevalent - and therefore, I suppose, a subject of discussion - in the northern latitudes. Why? Climate may factor in, culture and a historically fatalistic disposition? It has always figured in the literature, even oral tradition of self-sacrifice and self-destruction.
In North America, the Protestant tradition absolutely forbids it, and that has influenced the legal system and induced a culture of dread and denunciation regarding all forms of suicide, for any reason. Idealistic North Americans, in any case, are far more prone to denial, even of what is staring them directly in the face, than are the more realistic and pragmatic North Europeans.

I can't seem to find any rational reason to stay alive. — rossii

You might benefit from a change in lifestyle. Volunteer to do something for people or animals who don't need a rational explanation for wanting to live, wanting to feel well. Or maybe in a hospice for people who are dying in spite of their best efforts not to. There is no Purpose Fairy flying around at night, dispensing reasons to live. You have to find your own.

Though bear in mind people fight and kill over far less. — Outlander

Yes, as I said, over the crumbs off the rich man's table.

If they raised their heirs properly and morally, — Outlander

IF. But they don't raise their heirs at all, do they? Nannies, tutors, private schools and academies raise them as the special class of privileged little lords and ladies their family fortune makes them.
Family strife is the least damaging of the possible outcomes. I don't want to point any fingers, but is family unity so desirable ?

That said, when one looks beyond the short term and gazes into the long term of society as a whole, one might find it is not quite the zero-sum game. I think so at least. — Outlander

That's a happy perspective. I wonder what percent of the world's population shares it? Not these people, probably. Or these... How about them? Are they getting full value? Closer to home, are these guys? They get $19-23,000 a year; the guy up in the big corner office takes home $1.2 000,000,000. Gee, Donnie must work really, really hard and never go to the bathroom at all!

What I mean is, just because someone doesn't like you or something about you, doesn't automatically give the concept merit. — Outlander

No. But if they dislike you for giving children cancer or killing all the fish, you might deserve some of the blame.

Do you agree that writing is a process of approaching only ourselves? — javi2541997

We can each describe only how we see it. Fosse was discussing his own experience - and yet, it sounds to me that he was, in contradiction of his own words, attempting to communicate with other people.
For me, it is always an attempt to communicate - else, why would I learn the intricacies of a shared language?
Painting is somewhat the same way. Artists often say they're just doing it for themselves - and for some of them, like Frida Kahlo, their work is intensely self-reflective, self-involved. And yet they are eager to show the pictures in public. I believe we are all lonely; that we all hope to communicate and be understood.

Which country do you think has a superior system? — RogueAI

I haven't been keeping track. According to this site, Luxembourg must, since it's rated highest for quality of life. But we're all caught in the web of global capitalism; no individual country is free to or able to enact a radically different system of governance or economy.

I don't want to build my own hut, farm 40 acres with a mule, operate my own windmill and solar panels, and everything else. Whatever happened to cooperative, collective systems? — BC

Your controlling a part of that co-op doesn't prevent anyone else from having the same degree of control; you can all agree to pool land and resources, so long as every adult has an equal say. Owning the solar panels on your roof doesn't impede anyone's access to the electric mill; autonomous use of your share without interference doesn't preclude helping to build the communal infrastructure. And you shouldn't need a mule when a very efficient solar tractor is available to anyone in the community.

I want a society where we work together to provide what we need -- from each as they are able, to each as they require. — BC

Isn't that what I said?

Home ownership, under capitalism, has been something of a scam. — BC

Let's paraphrase that more succinctly: capitalism, has been a scam

Starvation would be much more common if we all had to raise our own food. — BC

Not if we did intelligently.
https://www.aftaweb.org/about/what-is-agroforestry/forest-farming.html
https://www.permaculturenews.org/what-is-permaculture/
https://www.greenhousecanada.com/cold-growth-in-northern-climates-32606/
https://www.freightfarms.com/urban-farming
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-rise-of-vertical-farms/

With the current numbers, nothing will survive for very long.
With current mind-set, neither will we.

My claim is simply that without some unnecessary, perhaps even gross and offensive to the enlightened mind, idea, concept, or "dream" even, the majority would not be as eager as they should be knowing the full value of their efforts, despite being unable at the present. — Outlander

Sure. They can all vie for the title of Who Acquired More Stuff for Their Heirs to Sue Over.
Within the admittedly poor limits of my knowledge, the majority is neither eager to contend nor able to attain anything like the full value of their efforts. Is that fair? I don't think so. But, as you say, opinions are cheap.

Opinions and perspective, be they internal or external, are cheap, — Outlander

As we here all attest.

From where does a man strive toward then? — Outlander

From birth to dotage, for self-esteem, the love of a happy family, the respect of his fellow citizens, the satisfaction of contribution to the common weal.

What purpose does he have to excel, — Outlander

self-fulfillment, the attainment of skill in his craft and the privilege of passing on hard-earned wisdom to the next generation.

to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? — Outlander

Why defeat? Why not simply improve upon, day by day?

This sounds nice, but never works in practice. — RogueAI

The question was:

How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society? — Captain Homicide

Not "What would work in our terminally ill civilization?"

Wealth being an "evil" concept is merely a reflection of your own hate and resentment towards those who hold it. — Vaskane

No; it's not about them: some of them are benevolent, some malevolent, some are unintentionally destructive others do it on purpose; some wield the power invested in them by the control of wealth less harmfully than others.
It's about the very notion of dividing the resources of a community or society unevenly, giving some people - more or less at random - the ability to control the lives of many other people. That's simply wrong. There no "noble" qualities that can be identified at birth, to determine which few babies ought to receive high quality nurturing and training and which millions should be forced to fight over their leavings.

It is like a sword, a firearm, an instrument, something that can be utilized for an effect which people see as good or as bad. — Vaskane

Show me the "good" uses of an instrument designed explicitly to inflict pain, damage and death.

I believe this about leftism: whatever its merits may be, it lost. — frank

Of course.
Evil always triumphs, because it's not hampered by principles, fairness, compassion or shame.

I live near a town called Durham (there are 24 of them in North America). This one is pronounced Durram. I guess nobody has much regard for a central h.

How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society? — Captain Homicide

Exactly as wealthy as the poorest. They would both own their homes and control enough land to cultivate food for their family and community, have their own source of energy, transport and communication devices, share in recreational facilities and health services, contribute to those services and practice a useful trade the product of which is distributed in the community - from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Wealth is an evil concept.

Exactly. Being is a verb. Honest isn't.

Jack's actions had an honest quality. — hypericin

ie adjective describing an action
Never "Jack honested to Jill about his gambling addiction.", but rather 'confessed' or 'admitted' or ' revealed' Those are words that generally denote honesty without specifically naming it, since to deserve the description 'honest', similar actions would have to be habitual.

Or can the same concept encompass all three? — hypericin

You can encompass a concept or several concepts in many ways, just as you can obfuscate them by misapplying language.