Please help!

[EquALLity]

I am afraid that will make me even worse off.

I guess you have to wait then, sorry. You can vent here whenever you want.

I will start to believe that because of the backfire effect. I think you shouldn't argue like that on forums.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

I don't understand. You will start to believe what, and how is it related to the backfire effect?

The backfire effect is when critiquing someone's ideas leads to the person to be closed-minded and stubborn about it.

And I don't really understand why the suicide is so bad. I think I will do it. Just not now. Now my life probably brings me more pleasure than suffering. But, when I grow old, that won't be the case any more. So, why not to kill myself then?

Why won't that be the case when you get older? And how old?
There's no reason why you can't be happy as an old person. Old people are great, just look at Bernie Sanders.

You shouldn't commit suicide because it prevents you from helping the world.

Well, I don't know who is a part of the computer simulation and who just happened to be stuck in it like I am, do I?

What?

Turing complete cellular automata, for example, arise naturally all the time. And, at least for someone who wants to believe that, there is compelling evidence that the universe itself is a cellular automaton. Maybe they aren't RAM machines, but they are still computers in the broader sense of the word.

I don't understand.

[brimstoneSalad]

Turing complete cellular automata, for example, arise naturally all the time.

That's fine.

And, at least for someone who wants to believe that, there is compelling evidence that the universe itself is a cellular automaton.

It appears so on the macro-level, but to the contrary, there is proof that it is not. The universe is not digital, but based on quantum mechanics, and can only be simulated by a quantum computer. Because it is not digital, in order to thus simulate the universe, the computer would have to be as large and complex as the universe, which defeats the purpose; that's not a simulation, that's 'real'.

Again, you should read this thread: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1571

[teo123]

I don't have enough knowledge to even analyze the brimstoneSalad's argument. I didn't even notice it when I was making my last post, sorry.
Look, the main guy who theorizes the universe being a computer simulation, called Stephen Wolfram, is a theoretical physicist. That's the best counter-argument I could think of.

You can vent here whenever you want.

Thanks! You can't help me a lot, but it's still interesting to see what you think.

You will start to believe what, and how is it related to the backfire effect?

I thought that the backfire effect is that when one sees the contrary evidence, he doesn't make his position milder, but stronger. If you show me the evidence in form of me not truly believing what I am saying, I will start to truly believe that and therefore take a stronger position.

There's no reason why you can't be happy as an old person.

I was thinking about my sick and old grandparents before they died. My grandfather had lung cancer and was suffering for years and years, not being able to breathe well and having almost constant chest pain, before he finally died. My grandmother was mentally ill and was constantly afraid of everything and everyone because of that. Do you think that their lives then gave them more pleasure than pain? I don't think so.

Old people are great, just look at Bernie Sanders.

I think that most of them aren't and that you are just taking a biased sample.

You shouldn't commit suicide because it prevents you from helping the world.

Seriously?! I can't even fix the problem with my parents and you are telling me I can help the world?

What?

You said that me being stuck in a computer simulation justifies any behavior because, well, it's just a computer simulation. I said that it doesn't, because I don't know who, of those who I perceive, are a programmed part of a computer simulation and who is a real person that happens to be stuck in that computer simulation, just like I happen to be. What's so unclear there?

I don't understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton#Biology

[EquALLity]

Thanks! You can't help me a lot, but it's still interesting to see what you think.

No problem. Unfortunately, obviously, I can't really do anything to get you out of the situation. It can help to vent though, albeit not as helpful on a computer, but still.

I thought that the backfire effect is that when one sees the contrary evidence, he doesn't make his position milder, but stronger. If you show me the evidence in form of me not truly believing what I am saying, I will start to truly believe that and therefore take a stronger position.

I don't understand. If you're aware that this isn't valid reasoning, then it's completely within your ability to think differently.

You're choosing to believe something regardless of evidence, and when the evidence favors the other side, it's just closed-minded to become stronger in your original belief. No offense, I'm not saying you're closed-minded, but that kind of thinking is just stubborn.

I was thinking about my sick and old grandparents before they died. My grandfather had lung cancer and was suffering for years and years, not being able to breathe well and having almost constant chest pain, before he finally died. My grandmother was mentally ill and was constantly afraid of everything and everyone because of that. Do you think that their lives then gave them more pleasure than pain? I don't think so.

Well... Ok, maybe not. I guess at that point then I can't really tell you not to do it. But that's being old AND sick. Just being old isn't necessarily that bad.

I think that most of them aren't and that you are just taking a biased sample.

Haha. I just really like Bernie Sanders.

But seriously, being old doesn't have to be bad.

Seriously?! I can't even fix the problem with my parents and you are telling me I can help the world?

Of course you can help the world. Just by not eating meat, you're already helping the world.

And when you grow up, you can join a career that helps the world. You're really interested in computer science, right? I'm sure you could use that to help the world.
Obviously you're somewhat limited as a teenager, but that doesn't mean you can't help the world.

You said that me being stuck in a computer simulation justifies any behavior because, well, it's just a computer simulation. I said that it doesn't, because I don't know who, of those who I perceive, are a programmed part of a computer simulation and who is a real person that happens to be stuck in that computer simulation, just like I happen to be. What's so unclear there?

That's not what it sounded like you were saying. But I don't understand that either.

How do you know you're real and not apart of the simulation? Why would it be mixed? And how is this helping you with the situation with your mom? You'd rather have her be a simulation than in jail? And she is in jail, simulated jail. Or do you think there's another mom you never met? How is that better? What connection could you have with a mom you never met?
Again, no offense, I'm just confused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_ ... on#Biology

That doesn't have anything to do with computers.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't have enough knowledge to even analyze the brimstoneSalad's argument. I didn't even notice it when I was making my last post, sorry.

That's OK, but please take the time to read my arguments to the best of your ability.

Look, the main guy who theorizes the universe being a computer simulation, called Stephen Wolfram, is a theoretical physicist. That's the best counter-argument I could think of.

It's bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science#Reception
You can read more extensive criticism on it if you're interested.

Wolfram's speculations of a direction towards a fundamental theory of physics have been criticized as vague and obsolete. Scott Aaronson, Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, also claims that Wolfram's methods cannot be compatible with both special relativity and Bell's theorem violations, and hence cannot explain the observed results of Bell test experiments.[28]

This is critical, and is something I have explained at length (I believe in the other thread, and elsewhere).
Wolfram's hypothesis is a failure in its very conjecture; it's impossible in light of quantum mechanics.

The fascinating thing to me is that he seems to be the best educated person in particle physics to have made this mistake, which suggests that he is either lying for profit, or delusional.

In a 2002 review of NKS, the Nobel laureate and elementary particle physicist Steven Weinberg wrote, "Wolfram himself is a lapsed elementary particle physicist, and I suppose he can't resist trying to apply his experience with digital computer programs to the laws of nature. This has led him to the view (also considered in a 1981 paper by Richard Feynman) that nature is discrete rather than continuous. He suggests that space consists of a set of isolated points, like cells in a cellular automaton, and that even time flows in discrete steps. Following an idea of Edward Fredkin, he concludes that the universe itself would then be an automaton, like a giant computer. It's possible, but I can't see any motivation for these speculations, except that this is the sort of system that Wolfram and others have become used to in their work on computers. So might a carpenter, looking at the moon, suppose that it is made of wood."[31]

I disagree with Weinberg's suggestion that it's "possible"; he may not have examined it enough to realize it conflicts with Bell's inequality, but aside from that he makes a good point.

Disappointingly, Wolfram appears to be a quack.

I thought that the backfire effect is that when one sees the contrary evidence, he doesn't make his position milder, but stronger.

A lot of that comes down more to how the evidence is presented. Street epistemology methods (lots of questioning) seem more effective.

I was thinking about my sick and old grandparents before they died.

You're less likely to suffer from age related illness if you don't smoke or eat meat. Vegans don't live much longer, but at least suffer much less in old age.

Old people are great, just look at Bernie Sanders.

I think that most of them aren't and that you are just taking a biased sample.

I agree.

You shouldn't commit suicide because it prevents you from helping the world.

Seriously?! I can't even fix the problem with my parents and you are telling me I can help the world?

Yes. Family problems from people who are kind of fucked up are much more difficult than influencing mentally sound strangers to be better people.
None of us can fix our families, but what we can do is have a positive influence on others.

[teo123]

Stephen Wolfram responded to that Bell's theorem argument on his blog:

My network-based model doesn’t have official quantum amplitudes in it. It’s more like (but not precisely like) a classical, if effectively probabilistic, model. And for 50 years people have almost universally assumed that there’s a crippling problem with models like that. Because there’s a theorem (Bell’s Theorem) that says that unless there’s instantaneous non-local propagation of information, no such “hidden variables” model can reproduce the quantum mechanical results that are observed experimentally.But there’s an important footnote. It’s pretty clear what “non-locality” means in ordinary space with a definite dimension. But what about in a network? Here it’s a different story. Because everything is just defined by connections. And even though the network may mostly correspond on a large scale to 3D space, it’s perfectly possible for there to be “threads” that join what would otherwise be quite separated regions. And the tantalizing thing is that there are indications that exactly such threads can be generated by particle-like structures propagating in the network.

http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/ ... me-really/

No offense, I'm not saying you're closed-minded, but that kind of thinking is just stubborn.

Well, it's simply the human psychology that makes me do that.

Just by not eating meat, you're already helping the world. 

You know, I don't really feel like I am. If I were, wouldn't I receive some support in real life, at least from my family? Yet it's exactly the opposite.

You're really interested in computer science, right? 

If I stop believing that I am stuck in a computer simulation, I won't be interested in computer science any more.

How do you know you're real and not apart of the simulation?

I think, therefore I am.

Again, no offense, I'm just confused.

Well, before I thought I got stuck in a computer simulation when the world I saw stopped making that little sense it used to make, about the time when my mother started to think we were attacked by Satan. That is, that before that I used to live in the real world. Now I think that the outside world may be even more sensical. Perhaps there is no time there, because the time itself doesn't make any sense once you take Zenon's paradoxes into account. Perhaps there are no airplanes or jails there, because something as nonsensical and complicated as that could only exist in a computer simulation, don't you think? But maybe you are right, maybe thinking that you are stuck in a computer simulation isn't any better than thinking innocent people are in jail. I would have to think about it more.

That doesn't have anything to do with computers.

Yes, it does. Turing-complete cellular automata are the simplest known computers.

Vegans don't live much longer, but at least suffer much less in old age.

You are trying to get me in a cult while I am most vulnerable, right?

[EquALLity]

^Excuse me? What do you mean 'a cult'?