Hedgehogs in Space

[Naesala]

I'm guessing based on root's answer, the other going religion thread, and majofa's initial and later post, that this primarily shouldn't exist but if it must should be in humor.

Thanks majofa.

[majofa]

It's not a humor thread, but some of their responses were funny... lol

[Naesala]

Right, this thread was made with the purest of intentions...

Assuming maybe this -was- meant to be serious (if it was you should have gone ahead and put it in philosophy), there are several answers to the question depending on your point of view, of which many people have already covered.

1. It is a game, and a game must have some sense of progression or challenge to be enjoyable (in most cases).
2. Within the game, because you cannot yet afford proper means of propulsion to make it there so fast.
3. Within the game-world, because you do not have the propulsion to overcome gravity.

Not very philosophical I think. Just layered levels of thinking.

[Dm]

This thread is stupid and useless, I see.

[ZephyrPhantom]

I propose this thread gets a special section of its own. Its so awesome and meaningful it outranks Bunchie in terms of value and role modelism.

[majofa]

The answer was obviously: Simulated Gravity. We, as humans, can write a code for that. Couldn't someone else then? (I guess that's where the religous part comes in)

[Treldon]

The answer was obviously: Simulated Gravity. We, as humans, can write a code for that. Couldn't someone else then? (I guess that's where the religous part comes in)

So the real question is why would someone bother to create gravity (just to mess with us)?
Or if there is an intelligence that 'programmed' the world we live in?

[majofa]

For instance, infinite space might be a hard concept to wrap your head around, but think of how easily it could be programmed?

[RootRanger]

The answer was obviously: Simulated Gravity. We, as humans, can write a code for that. Couldn't someone else then? (I guess that's where the religous part comes in)

That's a really interesting question. I just wish it had been in the original post!

Now, let's assume the universe is essentially a computer simulation. Does this add any credibility to any religion? The omnipotent programmer behind the computer simulation has left essentially zero traces of his existence. Even if there's a god - if you would like to call it that - all of the human religions are still fabrications.

In other words, Deism is a reasonable philosophy. However, even if there is reason to believe there is a god, there is no evidence whatsoever that this god plays any role in the affairs of humans.

[farscape]

The answer was obviously: Simulated Gravity. We, as humans, can write a code for that. Couldn't someone else then? (I guess that's where the religous part comes in)

That's a really interesting question. I just wish it had been in the original post!

Now, let's assume the universe is essentially a computer simulation. Does this add any credibility to any religion? The omnipotent programmer behind the computer simulation has left essentially zero traces of his existence. Even if there's a god - if you would like to call it that - all of the human religions are still fabrications.

In other words, Deism is a reasonable philosophy. However, even if there is reason to believe there is a god, there is no evidence whatsoever that this god plays any role in the affairs of humans.

You are wrong about the highlighted statement! See this:
http://humansarefree.com/2013/01/science-strange-computer-code.html

"Science: Strange Computer Code Discovered Concealed In Superstring Equations

Physicist James Gates reveals why string theory stretches our imaginations about the nature of reality. Are we living inside a matrix? In other words, is our universe entirely virtual? (Skip intro 0:37)."

[majofa]

I was also thinking about the 'rock so heavy he can't lift it' from a programming standpoint.

[Treldon]

For instance, infinite space might be a hard concept to wrap your head around, but think of how easily it could be programmed?

'Infinite space' as in stars, planets, nebulae, etc, or just simple empty space?
The second one is significantly easier to do - and in that case infinity would also be pointless. If it is indeed empty, there is no real movement (nothing to compare your position to), so your space only needs to stretch beyond the range of visibility

A filled space, on the other hand, would need lots more programming, not to mention the hardware requirement of running the simulation - especially as you need to expand the space as the viewer explores more of it

I was also thinking about the 'rock so heavy he can't lift it' from a programming standpoint.

When you are the one who makes the rules, the only limitation is the one you place on yourself.
So it would be possible to create/program a 'rock that you cannot lift', simply by flagging the rock as 'unliftable'

(Also from a christian point: can God create a rock big enough that he cannot lift it?
The answer would be: No, as he does not do pointless things)