Important If True 28: It Will Not Be Reused

[Fingus]

So what is "it will not be reused" a reference to? They commented on it being a deep cut, and now I can't stop thinking about it. 

 

Also. The ketchup/catsup distinction and etymology discussion reminds me of how Peking is just a different spelling of Beijing. I used to think Peking was a region or city in China (or, well, a method of preparing duck) so I was surprised when I learned it was in fact an antiquated western spelling of Beijing. 

[Chris]

4 hours ago, Fingus said:

So what is "it will not be reused" a reference to? They commented on it being a deep cut, and now I can't stop thinking about it. 

 

Also. The ketchup/catsup distinction and etymology discussion reminds me of how Peking is just a different spelling of Beijing. I used to think Peking was a region or city in China (or, well, a method of preparing duck) so I was surprised when I learned it was in fact an antiquated western spelling of Beijing. 

 

It's a reference to a line from that Chuck E. Cheese video that Jake quoted in this episode--it's just a reference to Jake saying it from earlier in the episode. I haven't even watched the video, I just thought that phrase Jake quoted from it was hilarious.

[unimural]

On 08/09/2017 at 12:15 PM, SgtWhistlebotom said:

The question about about "unlimited magic but only in the context of a stage magic show advertised as such" got me thinking about how you could do the most good with that power. I guess you'd have to focus on giving charity shows to folks with terminal illnesses, but what happens when someone notices the sick are healed after your appearances? Will this power stop working if people don't think of you only as a stage magician? Does faith healing count as a magic show? If we're going the 'terrible outcomes' route, would this lead to you having to strategically pick who gets to live so you can keep the illusion going? Could you include as part of your magic show the effect that no one will connect the dots to your appearances and the healing?

 

When I was a teenager I had devised a thought experiment that bothered me a great deal. You have the power to heal people by physically harming them. Specifically, whatever you damage, will be healed perfectly. So to heal someone of lung cancer you have to physically damage their lungs. However, if anyone ever comes to believe that this is what you do, you loose the power for good. What, if any, would be an ethical way of using this power?

 

With regards to simulations, perfect simulation seem so impossible it's a bit scary. Fundamentally the question seems to be whether a recursive series of perfect simulations will converge or not. I always feel any perfect simulation should resolve any task to it's simplest stable, logical state, without actually iterating on any of the steps. If you have access to a perfect simulation and want to open a pin code lock, you will simple get the correct pin code. There are other stable states, naturally. The simplest of which is probably the one where the simulation will not provide you with any data. Similarly my gut feeling is that time travel can not be a perfect simulation, because the time travel is an anomaly in the simulation. I.e. I feel it isn't possible to travel back in time to the original timeline, but instead time travel always takes you to a new timeline.

[nelmis]

6 hours ago, unimural said:

 

When I was a teenager I had devised a thought experiment that bothered me a great deal. You have the power to heal people by physically harming them. Specifically, whatever you damage, will be healed perfectly. So to heal someone of lung cancer you have to physically damage their lungs. However, if anyone ever comes to believe that this is what you do, you loose the power for good. What, if any, would be an ethical way of using this power?

 

Be McDonald's