Proposal: The Super Bowl as an Opportunity to Examine the Simulation Hypothesis
&gt; I would PLEASE ask you to first use your logical programmer minds to go through the reasoning presented step-by-step to try to find a flaw<p>My first response to this is &quot;Nope.&quot; Why? Because you waved a red flag right in front of my face, metaphorically speaking.<p>This is the conceit of all subjective logic: If there&#x27;s not a flaw in the subjective logic as presented, then it must be _more_ objectively worthwhile &#x2F; true &#x2F; etc.<p>Unfortunately it is a really commonly-abused fallacy. It&#x27;s used to perpetuate all kinds of proposals which, while &quot;logical&quot; as expressed, end up being objectively unreliable at best.<p>We went through a hell of a lot of this kind of stuff while Trump was in the headlines.[1][2][3]<p>While the general topic is interesting, I really hesitated to read the rest of the PDF because it&#x27;s like someone is reinventing that particular wheel.<p>But I did anyway &amp; you&#x27;re welcome I guess!<p>&gt; &quot;Schizophrenia&quot;, besides being a similar but more elaborate puzzle that (among quite a few things) yields the phrases &quot;I&#x27;m sane&quot; and &quot;Drs. are very crazy&quot;, is an anagram of:<p>What this write-up demonstrates (repeatedly) is a deep interest in one&#x27;s own personal life &amp; logic. Almost to a sort of stuck-ness. Do you see that here? The writing continually comes back to the same general method, the way of developing judgments on things.<p>I always wonder after reading write-ups written from this particular perspective--emphasizing similar approaches again and again--do you feel like you are amenable to specific, outside feedback?<p>Do you notice a tendency to shoot the feedback-carrier&#x2F;messenger, when you get outside feedback?<p>Do you search out counter-logic? Or related countering phenonena?<p>I&#x27;m curious to know your thoughts &amp; respect your need to express yourself.<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=qs6mBh2uXRM&amp;t=281s">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=qs6mBh2uXRM&amp;t=281s</a><p>2. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gematria" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Gematria</a><p>3. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Isopsephy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Isopsephy</a><p>(If you&#x27;ve ever been in a cult, maybe specifically as a leader, you may have learned: Gematria seems like a &quot;fixed deritative&quot; method to the uninitiated, but is in fact a knob you can turn to get any answer you want in order to control the narrative--it just takes a little creativity.<p>Oh and btw. Seems there are plenty of Gematria fans interested in A) popular social events where B) numerical statistics for subjective leverage purposes are found in abundance. I wonder why that combination is so helpful in making Gematria interesting? :-) The Superbowl is a great example. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;Gematria&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;Gematria&#x2F;</a>