What's new

This Person Does Not Exist - but do YOU?

Wow, this thread has moved from pure innocent fun, to metaphysics and now to ethics and esthetics! :)

I'm of the opinion that any piece of art should be judged on its own merits, regardless of the creator's behavior or lack of moral sense according to our beliefs. The problem is the tendency to idolize or even venerate talented people (nowadays even any public figure!) and then, when they inevitably fall short of expectations, it might even turn to vilification of their person and their art.

Many great artists, in all fields, have some quirks, some mental disease, something "special" from the start. That's what make them different and create art which is also different in the first place. Some become "different" after fame for a number of reasons. This does not change the value of their art in my eyes.

Who would dare to think less of Einstein's brilliant work just because of his multiple affairs? Some tried to to do it because of the fact he was Jewish! We now have a name for them.
 
Wow, this thread has moved from pure innocent fun, to metaphysics and now to ethics and esthetics! :)

I'm of the opinion that any piece of art should be judged on its own merits, regardless of the creator's behavior or lack of moral sense according to our beliefs. The problem is the tendency to idolize or even venerate talented people (nowadays even any public figure!) and then, when they inevitably fall short of expectations, it might even turn to vilification of their person and their art.

Many great artists, in all fields, have some quirks, some mental disease, something "special" from the start. That's what make them different and create art which is also different in the first place. Some become "different" after fame for a number of reasons. This does not change the value of their art in my eyes.

Who would dare to think less of Einstein's brilliant work just because of his multiple affairs? Some tried to to do it because of the fact he was Jewish! We now have a name for them.
At least on the subject of how to approach a creative work aesthetically or critically, we agree 100%.
 
And again, rules are made to be broken. To paraphrase Dr Venkman, they’re more like guidelines… Cases in point, on one hand you have Woody Allen, Einstein, Picasso, and the other, say, Leni Riefenstahl, Ayn Rand. Certainly not putting those two in the company of the first three in terms of talent, but there are cases where real world context does make a difference in my view of the work…
 
And now this :eek::geek:
Details:
 
Yes, that and hundreds (thousands?) of articles since 2003, not even counting people who confuse this with the Matrix movies. The idea is even seriously discussed by Nobel physicists (I'm not talking about Elon Musk here :roflmao:).

The problem is that if we are living in a simulation how would we be able to know it (and forget glitches in the matrix type of things!).
Cruise ships and skyscrapers. Dead giveaways. No way they obey any laws of physics.
 
Now, that's an interesting topic!

I can't tell for sure if we're living in the original universe. The uncertainty principle makes me think that our universe has optimization systems. A particle has no state unless it's being measured? Are we trying to save computing power here? The Fermi paradox also. We're alone in this gigantic thing? We should have found life elsewhere already. Our universe also has an obvious beginning and an end. Does it makes sense for the original universe to have a beginning or would it make more sense to think that the original universe had kind of always been there.
 
Now, that's an interesting topic!
Indeed! What part of it do you find most interesting? The simulation aspect?
I can't tell for sure if we're living in the original universe.
If you mean in the context of simulation theory then nobody can :) even though Dr Campbell is trying. My husband suggests this article but he's not convinced:
The uncertainty principle makes me think that our universe has optimization systems. A particle has no state unless it's being measured? Are we trying to save computing power here?
Here I had to ask my physicist husband... He says that the "observer" can be any other field or particle. He refers here to "decoherence" (that's why he has a hard time understanding Dr Campbell's "test").
The Fermi paradox also. We're alone in this gigantic thing? We should have found life elsewhere already.
Our universe is big. Our existence in it (with technology) has been recent and is still short. Other intelligent beings might be the same, far and living at different times.
Our universe also has an obvious beginning and an end. Does it makes sense for the original universe to have a beginning or would it make more sense to think that the original universe had kind of always been there.
No one knows. Maybe it existed for an infinite time "before". Time before does not make sense as it was created with space. There's nothing north of the north pole as someone once said. :) There cannot be an infinite number of simulated universes. Must be a real one but no one knows how that became.

On the other hand the universe can be cyclic as in Nobel prize Penrose's Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC). But I cannot explain it. You would have to ask a physicist, not just his poor wife... :)

But I agree... All very cool subjects!... Many more philosophical or metaphysical than physical (i.e. testable).
 
Top Bottom