This is not about “realistically or theoretically”, it is impossible.
Do you… not understand the point of a hypothetical question? Nobody cares if it’s possible. We are, for the sake of the question, positing that it IS, in fact, somehow, completely possible, and asking what you would do in that situation. In THIS pretend scenario, it IS the real you, so it is irrelevant if it’s not possible IRL.
Do you… not understand the point of a hypothetical question? Nobody cares if it’s possible.
Do you not understand this is not about being possible? I also didn’t know that I had to ask you how to answer the question. The question doesn’t make sense and I explained it enough. Nobody can live forever in an infinite game, not because its not possible, because it makes no sense.
The question makes perfect sense to literally everyone else here (as seen by the dozen answers already given), that you’re not able or willing to engage beyond your assumption that it isn’t is on you.
I don’t understand what you’re so held up by. Is it the infinite time thing? Okay, then the “game” goes on until the heat death of the universe. This is effectively the same question, as a period of time that long may as well be infinite to us.
Is it the copying thing you were going on about in another comment? Okay, add another hypothetical to circumvent this. Our universe is a perfect simulation being run by a Superintelligence beyond our comprehension (a real one, not some chatbot the annoying orange wants to rename). We are already code in a machine, “death” just means having your code moved out of the main simulation and into a separate afterlife simulation. No copying is needed, this is the original “you” code being moved over. Would you be okay with/like this?
This is the exact same question but with an unnecessary added layer of philosophical baggage that you wont engage without for some reason.
No, it does not, and I explained it multiple times and even made comparisons to help understanding the issue.
This is effectively the same question, as a period of time that long may as well be infinite to us.
No it’s. This reply is proof you didn’t understand the issue I brought up. Even if the universe exists for an infinite time, that has nothing to do with the issue I was talking about.
Okay, add another hypothetical to circumvent this.
You changed the question. That is not what the question in the original post and the article is about.
This is the exact same question
It’s not. You crafted a new question with new rules, just to justify for you to have right in a discussion you do not understand.
an unnecessary added layer of philosophical baggage that you wont engage without for some reason
The issue I brought up is not unnecessary and this is not just philosophical. It is core to the logic and thought process.
I explained it multiple times and even made comparisons to help understanding the issue.
Right, you mean the multiple explanations and comparisons for why it makes no sense that nobody here has agreed with.
You changed the question. That is not what the question in the original post and the article is about. You crafted a new question with new rules, just to justify for you to have right in a discussion you do not understand.
Alright, I’ll admit it’s not the exact same question. But living in an imperceptible simulation would change nothing about our lives or the way we perceive it. In that sense, it doesn’t change anything about the actual meat of the question. From our perspective it would still be our one and only true reality, a true afterlife, yada yada. All this does it give another potential mechanism for how it could happen.
Right, you mean the multiple explanations and comparisons for why it makes no sense that nobody here has agreed with.
No. I think I explained it enough, that you just can go back and read and take your time. No need to be sarcastic.
In that sense, it doesn’t change anything about the actual meat of the question. From our perspective it would still be our one and only true reality, a true afterlife,
It does. And no, it would not be your afterlife. You are dead. It’s a new life form based on your memories, but its not you. Think of you create a robot and you give a backup of your memory after you die. The new robot is not you. But I guess you don’t understand the issue here, no matter how often I explain it.
You cannot live in an afterlife, after your death. A copy of you is not you. That’s why the initial question doesn’t make sense to answer and I tried to explain why. It’s not my problem that most people ignore or don’t care about this.
I understand the “issue”. I don’t even disagree with you, at least so far as an afterlife is concerned—according to everything we know, an afterlife is not possible. I do disagree wholeheartedly that a copy of you is not you, at least in a broad, all-encompassing sense, but I find the whole thing irrelevant regardless. The problem is your inability to engage with the hypothetical that it is somehow, magically perhaps, the real you and an afterlife is real… your unwillingness to do so is not thought provoking, just irritating.
It’s fine if you find the answer irritating and not acceptable. I answered the question as I like and think is the correct way. Nobody said has to agree with me. I expressed my opinion and reasoning why the questions is nonsense and cannot be answered in any other way that I do. Nobody said I have to answer it in a way you personally find it acceptable. It’s not my problem that you ignore the core issue.
Do you… not understand the point of a hypothetical question? Nobody cares if it’s possible. We are, for the sake of the question, positing that it IS, in fact, somehow, completely possible, and asking what you would do in that situation. In THIS pretend scenario, it IS the real you, so it is irrelevant if it’s not possible IRL.
Do you not understand this is not about being possible? I also didn’t know that I had to ask you how to answer the question. The question doesn’t make sense and I explained it enough. Nobody can live forever in an infinite game, not because its not possible, because it makes no sense.
The question makes perfect sense to literally everyone else here (as seen by the dozen answers already given), that you’re not able or willing to engage beyond your assumption that it isn’t is on you.
I don’t understand what you’re so held up by. Is it the infinite time thing? Okay, then the “game” goes on until the heat death of the universe. This is effectively the same question, as a period of time that long may as well be infinite to us.
Is it the copying thing you were going on about in another comment? Okay, add another hypothetical to circumvent this. Our universe is a perfect simulation being run by a Superintelligence beyond our comprehension (a real one, not some chatbot the annoying orange wants to rename). We are already code in a machine, “death” just means having your code moved out of the main simulation and into a separate afterlife simulation. No copying is needed, this is the original “you” code being moved over. Would you be okay with/like this?
This is the exact same question but with an unnecessary added layer of philosophical baggage that you wont engage without for some reason.
No, it does not, and I explained it multiple times and even made comparisons to help understanding the issue.
No it’s. This reply is proof you didn’t understand the issue I brought up. Even if the universe exists for an infinite time, that has nothing to do with the issue I was talking about.
You changed the question. That is not what the question in the original post and the article is about.
It’s not. You crafted a new question with new rules, just to justify for you to have right in a discussion you do not understand.
The issue I brought up is not unnecessary and this is not just philosophical. It is core to the logic and thought process.
Right, you mean the multiple explanations and comparisons for why it makes no sense that nobody here has agreed with.
Alright, I’ll admit it’s not the exact same question. But living in an imperceptible simulation would change nothing about our lives or the way we perceive it. In that sense, it doesn’t change anything about the actual meat of the question. From our perspective it would still be our one and only true reality, a true afterlife, yada yada. All this does it give another potential mechanism for how it could happen.
No. I think I explained it enough, that you just can go back and read and take your time. No need to be sarcastic.
It does. And no, it would not be your afterlife. You are dead. It’s a new life form based on your memories, but its not you. Think of you create a robot and you give a backup of your memory after you die. The new robot is not you. But I guess you don’t understand the issue here, no matter how often I explain it.
You cannot live in an afterlife, after your death. A copy of you is not you. That’s why the initial question doesn’t make sense to answer and I tried to explain why. It’s not my problem that most people ignore or don’t care about this.
I understand the “issue”. I don’t even disagree with you, at least so far as an afterlife is concerned—according to everything we know, an afterlife is not possible. I do disagree wholeheartedly that a copy of you is not you, at least in a broad, all-encompassing sense, but I find the whole thing irrelevant regardless. The problem is your inability to engage with the hypothetical that it is somehow, magically perhaps, the real you and an afterlife is real… your unwillingness to do so is not thought provoking, just irritating.
It’s fine if you find the answer irritating and not acceptable. I answered the question as I like and think is the correct way. Nobody said has to agree with me. I expressed my opinion and reasoning why the questions is nonsense and cannot be answered in any other way that I do. Nobody said I have to answer it in a way you personally find it acceptable. It’s not my problem that you ignore the core issue.