Porky Gorky

LillyBeth Filth wrote: EDIT - Actually... "SL is full of certified nutcases cloaked behind alias user names and pixelated avatars" would be a good slogan on the official website I think this is exactly how LInden Lab employees regard the general userbase of SL, i.e. nutcases and wack-jobs, which is why they don't interact with us in-world anywhere near as much as they used to. Having personally carried out customer service here for 8 years to support my businesses, I completely share their sentiment. Every new contact with a potential customer is like a roll of the dice. Am I going to get a normal one? a roleplaying one? a village idiot one? a nutjob one? a griefer one or is it just someone doing recon before they rip me off. I guess the plus side is there is never really a dull day running a business in SL.

I believe our biggest achievement in the next 200 years will be transhumanism. WIth the ability to transfer our human consciousness into a machine, we can in effect. become immortal. We will be masters of our own intellectual evolution with the ability to enhance and expand our intelligence through technology. We will be able to download our consciousness into avatars such as robots and spacecraft or even genetically grown human bodies or a host of other life-forms. I'll be ordering a T-rex avatar as soon as they hit the market. Transhumanism is essential in our quest to explore the universe. Human bodies evolved to survive on Earth. To get a living human to another planet in another solar system is a stupid idea in my opinion. Numerous technologies would need to be developed just to protect the human body on the journey and more technologies would need to be developed to allow the human body to land and survivie on the new planet. Allot of wasted development there just to protect a human body that was never "designed" to leave the planet Earth. Sending a living human to a planet in another solar system is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Why should we bother? It will be much easier to just make ourselves (the peg), round. Most likely I believe we will store our consciousness/intelligence in central hubs on spaceships, and then travel to another planet. Upon arrival we will then download our consciousness into a newly created artificial avatar ideally suited to the conditions that exist on the planet.

Is there a set date when we will be forced to abandon Magic Boxes and migrate to Direct Delivery? Cheers

Maryanne Solo wrote: At what point does the wheel stop turning? That would be a very sad day indeed. I wonder this too. Is there a tipping point? How many sims do we need to get down to before the share holders decide enough is enough?

Phil Deakins wrote: It's run by Linden Lab. That's what's wrong with it. This will make a marvelous headstone epitath when SL finally bites the dust. Well done.

It's just Dell in fancy dress.

DONT BUY ALIENWARE!!! Google can explain allot better why than I can.

PeterCanessa Oh wrote: No, doing a job would not be something fun to do. It means is that you are tied to a times and places someone else chooses. What makes SL special is the range of things you can create. Remember, everything you see in SL was made by residents. Not everything is resident created, Back in the old days there were quite a few LInden created freebies floating about and a lot of Linden created buildings, a couple of which as still in place today. So, yeah, I am being pedantic, but almost everything you see in SL was created by residents. :matte-motes-big-grin-evil:

Regarding infinity - Einstein theory of relativity dictates that a singularity (or big bang) does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that move mathematically towards infinity. I think somewhere back in the thread I was trying to establish if infinity is possible for anything other than abstract concepts such mathematics and time. I think it was a key in my journey to obtaining omnipotence but I've forgotten why now :matte-motes-asleep-2: Regarding Einstein's discovery of Quantum Mechanics, that is not in any doubt, however he did reject certain aspects of the theory that were later proved to be correct through experimentation. Here is more on this if you are interested. I suddenly feel like I am coming across as anti-Einstein, I am not, I Hero worship the man. It's just, despite his genius, his theories are not infalable and as far I am concerned. All of his amazing theories, observations and calculations are just sitting there waiting to be disproved. That is what is so great about science and our insatiable thirst for knowledge and understanding. Nothing is set in stone, our fundamental understanding of the universe could change in an instance through one simple experimental discovery such as those taking place at CERN.

On my tax return this year, where I had to list my job title related to SL, I put in "Primitive Manipulator". It's not particularly witty or funny but it still amused me to think of some hapless sap in the tax office asking their colleague at the next desk "WTF is a primitive manipulator?" See, I'm still smiling about it now, 3 months later, it's the gift that keeps on giving :smileyhappy:

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Yes, we posted at the same time, but they are supposed to be retesting soon, so Mr Gorky may have hope yet! I got really excited about this last year, it was such an anti-climax to realise it may be faulty cabling. Still, no big deal, some of Einstein's theories have already been proved to be wrong in the past especially relating to quantum mechanics. So I am still hopefully we can still disprove his assumptions about infinity.

Anaiya Arnold wrote: Omnipotence is a long shot in my opinion. It might be the case that the limits of our human minds prevent us from comprehending it and hence it merely appears paradoxical to (at least some of) us, but it's at least as likely and probably more likely, that the potential of our human minds allow us to conceptualize this impossibility despite the fact that it cannot exist in any form outside our minds and their imaginings. You are most probably right, but I cannot accept such a theory absolutely. In a multi-verse that could potential contain an infinite amount of universe, the odds are that there should a universe out there that has suitable conditions to facilitate human omnipotence. Given an infinite amount of time, it is feasible that we should be able to replicate such a universe ourselves. I guess all I need to do to prove my theory, is to prove that infinity is real. RIght now infinity is only workable with abstract concepts such as Time and Mathematics, we cannot prove that anything with real substance can be infinite. I need to prove that the multi-verse (which I am assuming exists) is infinite and can spawn an infinite amount of universes. Einstein's theory of relativity dictates that a singularity (or big bang) does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that move mathematically towards infinity. So, the first step in my journey to omnipotence is to prove Einstein wrong. No big deal :smileyhappy:

My best friend bought me a 1 month subscrption for my birthday in May 2004. I had never heard of SL. He told me to try it out because he thought I would love it.. I did, and he was not wrong.

I saw a cool article on my newsfeed a couple of days ago about the possibility of there being being more than one type of Dark Matter. HAve a read if you haven't seen it, it's very interesting. Dark Matter Blob Should Not Exist, But There It Is

Anaiya Arnold wrote: Ok, that makes more sense, however, it's a huge leap. If we create a universe there's no certainty that this will simultaneously grant us limitless control over everything within its bounds. It's not necessarily the case that if we can create a universe that we can design it to facilitate omnipotence within it. Omnipotence is not necessarily possible, and if it is possible that does not mean it is or ever will be attainable to just any old body who happens to be able to create universes. Just because I can create a cake, does not mean I can create a cake designed to turn into a unicorn at midnight or to hold elf-attended discos inside itself. In fact it may be the case that we not only would be unable to exert omnipotence within the universe created, but that we might be unable to exert any influence of any kind, or even observe what occurs within that universe. It may be completely bounded so that we are entirely shut out from transferring information to it or extracting any from it. Ask any parent whether or not creating something grants one limitless control over it. There may be rules in place that prevent us from becoming omnipotent, they may even stop us from being able to create an artificial universe. However if we can create an artificial universe, then we can design it to facilitate our omnipotence. To do so may result in a universe that is vastly different to ours. i.e. Maybe we need to introduce new chemicals and materials and laws of nature to allow us to take control. Regarding your cake analogy, if there was a recipe clearing describing how to bake a cake that could transform into a unicorn that could host an elf disco, then it should be possible for anybody to follow the recipe and create their own Unicorn Disco Party Cake given the right tools and ingredients. nom nom I want cake now. It may be that we can create a new universe, but never see it or interact with it. That of course would put a spanner in the works in the plan to become omnipotent. I guess if we could not design some sort of network to allow us to take control or even viewing rights over an artificially created universe then it would seriously devalue the purpose of creating our own universes in the first place. So I would guess that there are a key factors required for us to become omnipotent. We need absolute understanding over our universe. We need absolute understanding of how to design and create an artificial universe that allows humans to be omnipotent and we need to find a way to oversee and interact with our new universe to fully exploit our omnipotence. That is quite a to-do list!

Charolotte Caxton wrote: If we were able to create a universe, that in itself would not make us all powerful. We would be the creators of that particular universe and could possibly affect it by applying outside forces and pressures, but that would be the extent of it. Until we could control every single occurrence that happens in that universe, we could not be called omnipotent. If we could not control every action, thought, or decision of our mini peeps, then how could we call ourselves gods? A true omnipotent god would by definition be able to control everything, not most things or a large number of things, but everything. Granted, the first few dozen or hundred or even thousand universes that we create, would almost definitely have uncontrollable elements. But there is no reason to assume that we will not be able to master every element of a universe one day. It may take tens of thousands of years and involve a lot of trial and error. But given enough time it should be theoretically possible for us to create a universe that is 100% within our control. That includes having control over any life forms that exists within. It's hard to fathom based on our current understanding of the electrochemical process in the brain that results in thought, but it is just a chemical process after all. Through better understanding and technology, it should be possible to manipulate and control any life forms by design. If you limit your imagination to the boundaries that currently exists in science today it's hard to contemplate such theories as you are constantly confronted by the limitations of our current understanding. You need to assume that we will one day understand everything about our own universe and with that knowledge we will be able to create an artificial universe that is fully within our control thus rendering us omnipotent. In my mind there are only 2 factors that could stop us achieving this First is the Human Race’s long term survival and development, We need to avoid being wiped out and we need to maintain the comfortable conditions required to support our on-going learning and development Secondly, if our universe was created by intelligent design, it’s possible that there are rules in place that will prevent us from leaving this universe, creating a new universe, or obtaining omnipotence.

Anaiya Arnold wrote: I'm not sure why in your later post you claim that if we create a universe this is proof that a creator or other omnipotent entity could actually exist. We're not omnipotent, so while the potential for a universe to be created through intentional design would be confirmed, the possibility of omnipotence would not be. We are not omnipotent in our own universe, however if we manage to create an artificial universe along with the ability to control it, we could have unlimited and universal power and authority over that universe, thus rendering us omnipotent within our artificial universe. We would be the creators after all. The universe could be specifically design to facilitate our omnipitance. Any intelligent life forms that exists within it may look upon us the same way we look upon our own omnipotent gods and creators found through-out our religions. If we could pull it off we could effectively become Gods.

Indeed. If you look upon life as a game, then for religious poeple with faith, the game is already in play, the rules are clearly defined, play by the rules and you win i.e. heaven, reincarnation or whatever For the rest of us we don't even know what game we are playing half the time. We start playing a game based on a certain set of rules, then the rules change and the game becomes unplayable so we need to find a new game with new rules. That's my game analogy :matte-motes-big-grin:

Cinnamon Mistwood wrote: Porky Gorky wrote: RIGHT!! This thread is nowhere near as funny or entertaining as It should have been. As the OP I am changing the rules. Taking the power back as it were. Here are the new rules. Each day I will post a top 5 category. You will list your top 5 in that category. And they better bloody well be interesting, funny or entertaining answers or there will be trouble, make no mistake. No deviating from the daily chosen category. Here is today's category. TOP 5 MOST EMBARRASSING MOMENTS (either in RL or SL, you choose.) Commence Top 5 thread pet peeves: 1. People who tell me how to post 2. People who make arbitrary rules on what I should post about 3. People who try to narrow my options for posting (attempted censorship) 4. People who tell me my opinions are wrong (not misinformed, but wrong) in a post 5. People who expect me to adhere to what THEY think is interesting, funny or entertaining And in getting/feigning annoyed and posting your comment, you have entertained me and even slightly amused me too. Which is ironic. ooh that could be tomorrows topic. Top 5 most annoying Alanis Morrissette songs. Or maybe i should save that for my planned top 50 thread?

I don't know if this is my top 5 as I have too many, but it is 5. I am shameless. 1. Over zealous dog. I was at a friends house as a teenager. His dog kept dry humping my leg. Lets just say that after an hour of this, the dog went from dry humping my leg, to wet humping my leg..... and ruined a perfectly good pair of corduroy flared trousers. 2 Sick on a girls legs. In a nightclub, very drunk. Too drunk. Needed to be sick. Headed towards the door. Not gonna make it, try to find a place to be sick, Seem to choose a very attractive woman's bare legs. Yum 3. Karaoke fail. Very drunk in the Trocadero in London. In a karaoke bar, Big mistake. I can't sing. Didn't let a silly thing like that stop me. Got up and sung Total Eclipse of the Heart by Bonnie Tyler very badly. That's not the worst bit. For some reason I have taken my trousers off and had one testicle accidental hanging out the side of my underpants through out the performance. My friend was kind enough to record it and put it on you tube, It got over 4000 hits before I bribed him enough to take it down. 4. Drunk at a party, eating a portion of chips (as in chunky French fries). So I was chatting up this girl, I put a giant chip in my mouth and suddenly started to choke on it. I tried to swallow more, didn't help, started retching, needed to to be sick but didn't want to be sick in front of the girl, so put my hand over my mouth and somehow managed to puke the whole chip out of my nose. 5. Caught short. I was at a football matchh, 25000 fans. I was ill, I should not have gone, but I was a die hard fan so went anyway, To cut a long story short, I basically voided my bowels in a runny fashion whilst stood on the terrace of a football stadium surrounded by thousands of fans. It became pretty evident by the smell and the trouser staining that it was me. A large circle formed around me and I had the privilege of listening to a few hundreds fans chants "He's **bleep** in his pants" at me as I made my way out of the stadium.

Think you are a funny girl eh? Showing off in front of your friends are ya? Trying to make old Porky look like a plonker are ya? Well keep it up young lady, you are on the rocky road to failure with that attitude. Today you are bucking the system by breaking my thread rules, but that's just the first step, tomorrow you'll be out breaking the laws in the real world selling crack and pimping ho's and what not. So take a good hard look at yourself and start behaving now, follow my rules or you will end up in prison or dead or worse. There, A serious life lesson for you. No need to thank me. :matte-motes-big-grin-evil:

RIGHT!! This thread is nowhere near as funny or entertaining as It should have been. As the OP I am changing the rules. Taking the power back as it were. Here are the new rules. Each day I will post a top 5 category. You will list your top 5 in that category. And they better bloody well be interesting, funny or entertaining answers or there will be trouble, make no mistake. No deviating from the daily chosen category. Here is today's category. TOP 5 MOST EMBARRASSING MOMENTS (either in RL or SL, you choose.) Commence

You are right, it's been a cool thread Phil. I think only a couple of people are following it now though looking at our Reply / View ratio. I guess I was hoping for more traditional religious contributors to debate against when I started the thread, but they seem to be hiding which is fair enough and understandable.

16 wrote: yes true. as the created universe would be inside this/our one. so does this mean that it could be considered a model of a universe? I don't think it would be a very good idea to create a universe inside our own universe. I think it will need to be attached to ours in some way but it would need to exist within it's own dimension and not within ours. I don't know what my opinion is based on but seems the logical thing to do, When I think about the multi-verse, I see the universes existing independently of each other, but attached in some ways through strings or black holes or whatever. I've never really thought about universes within other universe. That could go on forever like an infinite Russian Doll. I'll have to think about that concept more, it's interesting.

Ceka Cianci wrote: that's actually what fermi lab had been trying to do for some time..and now they have this bigger ring out in france or some other country .. colliding sub atomic particles to try to create matter.. a lot of doors are gonna open up if they ever can do that.. Yep, I think the LHC can be seen as a significant stepping stone towards the creation of an artificial universe. We need to understand all the elements that were present immediately after the big bang happened. This will allow us to better understand our own universe and to backwards engineer an artificial big bang of our own. As Phil said the Higgs Bosson particle is extremely important. It's discovery will validly our current understanding of the universe. Higgs is believed to be an exchange particle and responsible for giving stuff mass. WIthout understanding it, it will be impossible for us to create our artificial universe based on our current understanding of physics. There are also big repercussions for not finding the Higgs particle Without the Higgs particle, the universe cannot exist, but if the Higgs particle isn't discovered by the LHC, it means our understanding of how the universe works is wrong. The non-discovery of the Higgs would be as profound as its discovery, potentially revolutionizing physics.