i'm dislexic, from the UK and work as a computer programmer.

A lot of what is being said here is cutting edge and by it's very nature is hard to prove one way or another but what we have over Darwin, Big Bang, God/Jesus bible stuff is that most of us know we are going to be producing simulations as complex as the one we possibly find ourselves in given a few more years.

Just now i'm confused when it comes to guessing if we are just entertainment in a type of movie where the viewer/user gets to decide the ending and can tweak events by 'Beam me in scotty' or some type of scientific experiment and if you follow were we are going today then machines will take over and it seems hard to understand why they would want entertainment themselves.

I suspect i might have a way to prove things one way or another but this would be just as dangerious as creating black holes using Cern and if anyone can guess what i'm saying then please keep it to yourselves.

We have to use physics from this world to describe what we are trying to put across and sometimes it's not a perfect match but one of my theorys is that black holes could be the nextwork connection that gets you out of this process/CPU/Machine and onto another program where the rules at totaly difrent but you need to be carefull in case this machine is running windows 7 and the other machine is a UNIX box unless you can keep a copy of your data here and only send copies into these holes.

I'm very logical in my thinking but was privilages to been shown that all is not as it seems about 20 years ago when in the middle of a boring day at work i happen to look down at a pieace ofelectrical metal conduit i was tapping to see the wing nut that held the die in to the stocks was undoing itself and this went on for about 15 seconds untill the nut fell on to the floor and not it was not the conduits resonating frequency that could produce this effect as far as i'm concerned and nor did it tuen a if invisible fingers were turning the nut since the nut turned at a constant speed.

Yes i know real boring, no blood, horror or much science but what ever i watched that day was not of this world and started me on a quest to learn more.

"In fact, as we are heading toward cybernetic entities in any case, I don't think that there is ultimately a distinction between biological and machine. "

Thats a good one and I would say Logic but we are merly at the beginning when it comes to computers and maybe these computers would get bored if they had total control over everything and it's a bit like winning a game every time you play.

most people don't want to hear or even contemplate what we are saying but i think that could be over come with a bit of effort if it was presented the correct way but before trying that we must prove it to ourselves but i'm dammed if i know how when the laws of physics could be any thing they want it to be and they can even move the goal posts as we get closer.

The double slit experiment seems to sugest that what we observer is made up on the fly but we need a lot more than that i think to even convince ourselfves 100%

I can not be the first to ask this question but if we are inside a simulation then are we.

1. Scientific experiment
2. Here to lean.
3. Being farmed in a way we can not understand.
4. Just part of one big shoot em up game or maybe second life.

Please add to the list.

Two sounds good but i suspect option 4 is closer to the truth.

Trying to interface with the program might get you deleted like a virus but then again if they didn't want to stop us then our users might be trying to hack the system and thats why we don't get stopped but then again they would not want this made public so why am i typing this ???????????????

will need to keep digging for any scraps we can get but we would need to decide what option we are in the above list before moving forwards.

Yes i was thinking along these line but would say its more a case of uesrs getting plugged in and not so much about the programmers being plugged in because the best thing in the world for wringhting programs is another program without getting into the argument that man alway need to tell the computer what to do.

I still think we need to decide where we fit in (1-5) else we will be looking in the dark when it comes to getting answers.

Having to sleep must give us a clue so must dreams but i'm dammed if i know what the connection is unless our users are going to work whilst we go to sleep.

Logic must dictate the role we server IMHO

Oh yeah,
"HELLO THERE"
:)

-- It is best that man not have an over stimulation about the "programmers" because it could stifle the imagination -- which is what actually feeds the program.

Some brilliant thinking there.

--I like 2 and 5, I'll say 2 (here to learn) and 5 (we are the programmers) add up to 6.
6) Experience, evolve, create.

Have to say: this is where I'm leaning, too.

I believe 6), but I'll toss this one out:
7) The Architect(s) created it all out of boredom.

Which would be like 4.

8) We're all pc's in the old pen and paper RPG Lords Of Creation.

I still think 6.

"If there were no risistance to evolution, and it were easy, it would be pointless."
Tracy (The Nature Of Evolution - 2011)
(Don't tell anyone I plagiarized Max Planck)