If a simulation leaves anything that affects ones observations in any way irregardless of how indirect not processed, then that could be observed and differentiated by us since our observations would not be exactly the same as they would be in a non-simulated world. And the existence of things that do not affect our observations in any way is highly controversial. — Qmeri

This assumes hardcore causality though. We already know that prediction is epistemically not always possible, which means that for certain processes we predict outcomes in terms of probability. This is an issue for things such as complex systems, chaos theory and quantum indeterminancy. I was not primarily suggesting anything about things that do not affect our observations but things not being relevant for our observations as they fall within the scope of probabilities. We'd never notice the absence of simulation of such objects.

Second, I don't think it's about "things" either but about qualities. How does the quality "weight" influence lenght and width of an object? How does smell do that? What I'm suggesting is that when I look at something from a distance, the simulation would not have to render weight or smell. The tree falling in the forest where there's no one to hear it, doesn't need to make a sound. It does not need to render completely anything happening beyond my field of observation. In more general terms, anything outside my reference frame doesn't need to be fully rendered.

Another point I'd like to raise is when I look at Pfhorrest summary:

If I may sum up your argument in my own way: there may be more worlds the deeper you go in the stack of simulations, but there is more time per world higher in the stack, so if our 14 billion year old universe is a deep simulation as some say is probable, then the real world is much, much older than 14 billion years old, and so probably has (had) far more observers in it than in any simulated world, making us more likely to find ourselves one of those real observers than a simulated observer. — Pfhorrest

The simulation doesn't have to have a history of actual 14 billion years and it certainly doesn't have to provide qualities for that history that couldn't be observed at the time or afterwards. So you're left with light, radiation, gravity and such and the rest can be ignored. Second, the world simulating ours doesn't have to answer to our physical laws and as such claims about the behaviour of time or the ability of computers in such a world or any other physical law is basically guesswork.

In the final analysis though the question is moot. We cannot talk about the really real (eg. the non-simulated world), only the real (eg. a simulated world if it were true). We will always end up with a contradiction. Either we live in a real non-simulated world and a cup means a non-simulated cup, or we live in a simulated world and cup means a simulated cup. Depending on the world we live in, we mean different things. To see what I mean, go to 0:52 in this clip:

Influence over and acces to oil and gas.

See for instance: the geopolitics of oil and gas pipelines

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning entirely. Would a simulation require to calculate everything that was and is? Would the fact that it only needs to render observations make it easy enough? Or did you take that already into account?

Capitalism with a human face doesn't require democracy. There's no meaningful difference voting for a centrist or republican where it concerns the slow but certain erosion of people's agency. I mean, the last time every government across the world agreed on something it was an economic crisis. Trillions were spent, not for a clear goal, but to improve people's trust in the financial system at the expense of taxpayers for the benefit of the rich capitalist. No vested power offers an alternative to that sort of injustice. Risks have been socialised but profit is still private. Under the guise of capitalism we have a really fucked up form of socialism.

What's the point of voting for a centrist knowing nothing will change then? Might as well vote Republican then... Same difference.

@Hanover The link about executive privilige mentions the US vs. Nixon case and that holds:

The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the president of the United States, is completely above the law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial."

So Nixon was also prosecuted under criminal law? How does that work? And why, since obstruction of justice carries a criminal penalty, wouldn't the Democrats use the regular criminal process, which avoids the possible political blow back.

Also, and not related to you I think, but the idea the Democrats are doing this to overturn the 2016 election results is silly because the vice president, also a republican, gets to replace him. Nevertheless, I see that argument continuously repeated but it's nonsensical.

Suggestive quote. Here it is with the rather relevant last sentence:

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions.

no. Context. If you have a problem with dark money, then that sword cuts both parties.

from that article :

“These kinds of totals aren’t unheard of,” Maguire added. “I do think they’re unheard of on the liberal side. I think that’s what’s so striking about this.”

So before pointing out this dark money, let's remember the republicans have been responsible for 70% of dark money in every election cycle since Citizens United.

I haven't insulted you. I've called you out on nonsense statements and if you feel insulted... well, permit me to shed some crocodile tears for you.

I always wanted to quote Bart Simpson and your "science solves everything" skit was asking for a science joke. You're welcome. Grow a sense of humour.

Scientism.

I didn't know it was physically possible to both suck and blow at the same time but well done.

I was saying I'd rather not be the canary for the rest of the world, if you don't mind.

You and your kind, like Greta, would rather find a group to hate, than find a solution.

I am on the solution party. Go out, hate with Greta. — god must be atheist

Sanctimonious nonsense. There still is no political will to solve this problem. Greta is doing a lot more in getting political interests aligned to actually do something about it than you ever will. The hubris to suggest your ostrich politics of denialism are part of the solution is simply laughable.

This is very true. But what we forget, is that we have ALL soiled ourselves. There are no humans who form any exception there. Greta included.

She's the typical person whose basic attitude is, "I soiled myself, too, but my shit don't smell". — god must be atheist

On the one hand there are those who are to blame for political inaction, intransigence, obfuscation, misdirection, absence of policy and forwarding lies and then there's Greta. Are you seriously suggesting her "shit" is in any way comparable to the people who are to blame? She was addressing UN politicians when she told them. Not you, or me.

We're all to blame means what exactly? We're all to blame so nobody is? Are you suggesting we're all equally involved in this farce?

Of course the extractive and energy industries are to blame for burying their own research from the 70's, influencing politicians and generally acting in a way so most of the costs will now be borne by future generations. Of course politicians are to blame for listening to people who were so obviously conflicted that it was morbidly obtuse of them to ignore it and shape government policy and political debate in line with those established economic interests. I was 4 years old, 4, when I already realised pollution was an issue. My dad worked for Shell and every day he worked late and my mum complained I said: "it's a good thing, because he's inventing things so there will be less pollution". That's 1982 for you.

Greta is taking up a cause because for some reason people are now actually paying attention. Unfortunately for her she's been catapulted to the forefront of a movement because the usual politics don't apply to her and politicians have been more or less forced to listen. And righfully so. But let's not pretend it's normal a girl her age is the face of climate action out of necessity. She should be in school and at most worry about her clothes, getting to school on time and her homework and maybe start thinking about what she'd like to be when she's older. Not this. In that respect it's a rather performative statement about the status of our political establishment.

that's 2017...

Well, I live in the Netherlands, so in a sense I am the canary in the mineshaft, since sea level rise should have put half the country underwater. But so far, nothing. — Tzeentch

Waiting for the Netherlands to down isn't being a canary but a miner, that canary already died. Sea level rises are not projected to drown the Netherlands any time soon : https://www.uu.nl/en/news/the-question-is-not-if-the-netherlands-will-disappear-below-sea-level-but-when

From what I've seen happen is that the economy has boomed, with unemployment at record lows, and a regained confidence in the system, notwithstanding the massive blow back from Marxist Dutch academics who are so critical to worldwide economic policy. — Hanover

Which metric are you using to say the economy has boomed?

Second, inequality has risen, so full time jobs but lower living standards especially for manual labour.

Third, full employment is a Keynesian metric and goal which is debatable as a measure for an economy's health. Quite a few argue we should be concerned with full production.

Except that didn't happen following the Great Recession. — Hanover

What didn't happen? The pick up in interest in heterogenuous economics and Marx and works from the likes of Pickety since 2008 clearly indicate a shift in economic thinking. At least in the Netherlands.

My point is that real change is very difficult to bring about in the American system, and it seems the same in the UK, where they've been bickering about Brexit long after they supposedly decided to exit. — Hanover

I'd say real change would be very much possible in the US if there would be a meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans. The system doesn't provide any protections for the losing party accept a filibuster. In other words, any 60% majority means you're scotfree to do whatever you like.

I'm not sure I completely understand this comment, but I think you're saying I want to kill the minority. I deny that charge. — Hanover

No, I'm saying that in a winner takes all system like the US and UK there is no protection for the losing side at all. The UK people were hopelessly split over Brexit in 2016 that one side "won" over the other didn't represent the facts on the ground back then and the general election vote wasn't just about Brexit either.

And if the argument is that it was, I still fail to see a political mandate for Brexit with the Scots overwhelmingly voting for SNP. Together with the LibDems, who were pro-Remain as well, 52 of the Scottish 59 seats (88%) are against Brexit. 75% of voters voted for parties who campaigned on remain. So the Scottish minority is getting shafted.

Where exactly are those rules you mentioned to protect minorities then?

Regardless, I'm fine with the current system of both countries, and do believe the decisions of elections represent the will of the people, controlled by various rules designed to protect minority interests or whatnot. — Hanover

Ah, you mean how that significant remain minority doesn't get to remain?

I have had a horrible thought about Trump - that the impeachment will turn out to be the Coronation of the Emperor. Meaning that, if/when the supine Senate Republicans absolve him of sin, then he has completely untrammelled reign, of the kind that he's behaved as if he's had since elected. I think if that happens we will begin to see the real Trump for the first time. — Wayfarer

@Maw and I had talked about this in this thread and this is my gut feeling as well. Maw is convinced the support for impeachment with voters is such that if the republicans acquit it will cost them dearly in the election, leading to an extensive win for the Democrats. I'm not so sure because Trump's character was quite clear during the previous election and it didn't make a difference.

And Democrats in power will only be meaningful if Bernie wins. Otherwise you get more of the same minus the dickishness.

Of course I never asked what the SNP ran on. And I know you don’t have magical powers — NOS4A2

So not knowing that you can then perhaps start to see why your "question" is the wrong one.

Or alternatively you could have paid attention to the SNP, which you didn't, which is why you now think I have magical powers.

That's a pretty clueless comment if you knew what platform SNP was running on.

Cultural Marxists — ssu

I'm a cultured Marxist. Not a typo.

You mean they don't see themselves acting irrationally. Of course. If they did, would they act that way? When I say that people act irrationally, that's my judgment, not theirs. (Actually, sometimes we do realize on some level that we are acting irrationally and self-destructively, but just can't help it. But most of the time the realization comes afterwards.) — SophistiCat

That's one way to define it.

I look at it differently but we might be meaning the same thing. I think often it's a matter of different values leading to different conclusions. I'm more of a collectivist than most people and have voted against my interest because I think the result would be better for society as a whole. Case in point is the mortgage rent tax deduction available in the Netherlands. I'm in the highest income bracket so I could deduct my mortgage rent from my income and avoid paying 52% over that amount. People in lower incomes can only benefit up to 28% more or less. So it's typically a tax deduction that favours the rich who already don't have a problem financing mortgages to begin with. Not to mention that it really just drives up prices, thus higher mortgages and in the end is macro-economically nothing more than a subsidy to banks. I voted for ending the deduction, which obviously goes against my direct economic interests. To more individualist inclined people, that vote is probably considered a stupid vote. But it's still rational.

They're not even less intelligent. I can disagree on a multitude of policies with @Hanover and he's not much less intelligent than I am. :yum:

What this and other recent and not-so-recent events show, I think, is that in times of stress people often act irrationally; self-destructive forces prevail, and when it comes to voting, people end up voting against their self-interest. In this, collectives act not unlike individuals: they lash out, become dysfunctional, and end up digging themselves even deeper. — SophistiCat

I don't think voters act irrational actually. We don't see it because we're to removed from them.

And so it starts:



Wales is less clear. Labour majority and significant amount of greens but also Conservatives in the north.

So clarify for me. — Brett

I already did. Instead of attempting to understand me you prefer to cherrypick sentences to fit your narrative to box in people who disagree with whatever you think you need to disagree with me on. Apparently that I blame voters but you don't. Newsflash: I don't blame voters. I generally think most people are good people where it concerns their immediate surroundings. Voters are cynical. Why else vote into power a party that has a documented, total disregard for the truth since 2016? And this doesn't disqualify politicians because we expect politicians to lie. If that isn't cynical I don't know what is.

You equivocate that assessment of voters being cynical with blame. I don't blame voters for being cynical as little as I blame people for not spending the time to be politically informed when it's boring and an act of futility when politicians don't listen anyway. The people have spoken but the body politic is deaf.

And I don't blame politically informed people chosing personal gain over the greater good, as I see it. I can disagree with it but that's something different then blaming them for a specific outcome.

There are a multitude of causes as to why the system has developed the way it has, with a political elite removed from the common man, the rise of populism despite macro-economic figures being up. That's historically quite new and speaks about inequality and the lack of shared progress when economies are doing well. Bureacracy, centralisation, 24/7 news with so much less analysis as before, etc. etc.

There's no easy fix but I do think systems that result in compulsive liars being at the helm are broken. I want leaders that inspire, that bring out the best in people and that starts, as in any (sub)culture, with the tone at the top. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_at_the_top

It's more an issue of the system not fitting our moral and behavioural constitution. — Benkei

That is not this:

It’s because you keep blaming the people who voted in an election, as if they’re incompetent. Why? That’s how a Democracy works. — Brett

I gave a considered response. Your attempts to reduce it to a one liner either means you're being obtuse or don't understand the difference between your one liner and my actual reasoning.

I don't trust people to be decent if things get too abstract. And centralised politics is very abstract. It's more an issue of the system not fitting our moral and behavioural constitution. It requires an inordinate amount of time to think through the implications of centralised policy and what a person thinks is morally right and any personal consequences. I then certainly do not expect people to regularly choose morality over negative (usually financial) consequence for themselves.

As much as we'd like, I think it's clear now that character is not a prequisite to win and lies no longer disqualify you. That's how cynical the view of voters apparently is of politics that the things that normally matter in any relationship, have no meaning in our relationship to society as a whole as mediated through the political process.

The problem with the BBC (With whom I have made a complaint about this), is that they try to give equal weight to what is said by each side in the debate, with very little in the way of challenge and they are very slow in adapting that approach to its exploitation by the Tory's. — Punshhh

This is a real problem and a consequence of the 24/7 media coverage of every event. Typically, nowadays it's news when a politicians opens his mouth. So the news is "Boris said: "[insert quote]"", brought to you first by [insert media outlet]. I have newspaper headlines that are direct quotes from someone or other with little to no analysis into the veracity of whatever is claimed.

It would be news and not at all partisan if you'd do this: https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

From the horse’s mouth. more fantasy. — NOS4A2

Which is a non sequitur as I explained. It doesn't follow that because the primary hasn't occured that therefore asking Ukraine to investigate Biden had nothing to do with the 2020 election.

So what, from the horse's ass now?

I never drew from it the conclusion you pretend I did. I’m only saying that it isn’t true Biden is Trump’s opponent in 2020, so why keep saying it? — NOS4A2

You concluded that Trump couldn't ask for the investigation for the 2020 election because the primary hadn't occured yet. I'm not pretending anything, you're just terrible at admitting mistakes. Here's a refresher.

I use the term “fantasy” because the idea he is using it for political benefit for the purpose of winning the 2020 election is imagined, made up, presumption without evidence, and contrary to the explicit reasoning of all parties involved.

I’ve been consistent on this argument to no avail. — NOS4A2

Second, the primary hasn’t even occurred yet, so unless Biden is a foregone conclusion (which is often how the DNC operates) he is not yet Trump’s opponent in 2020. — NOS4A2

QED

Now stop being a partisan ass and use your brain for a change.

I'm not disputing the fact, I'm disputing the conclusion you seem to draw from it which simply doesn't follow. If it's possible Biden could win the primary it makes sense to plan for that eventuality ahead of it happening. In fact, if Trump would consider him the strongest competitor frustrating his chances during the primary is even smarter. I suspect it's even simpler than that, and that Trump had heard of the conspiracy theory regarding Hunter Biden and went with that as I have trouble attributing anything thoughtful to Trump.

Also, once again, whatever Trump et al. says isn't remotely relevant as to what their actual motives are. Believing Trump is like believing the alleged murder didn't commit the murder because he went out of his way to deny it. Nobody would give the murderer's word any weight. Whenever Trump opens his mouth about any investigation into him, his words (and that of his cronies) carry no weight.

Second, the primary hasn’t even occurred yet, so unless Biden is a foregone conclusion (which is often how the DNC operates) he is not yet Trump’s opponent in 2020. — NOS4A2

Non sequitur, as if you've never hedged a bet.