Mark Sargent

Apparently Mark Sargent isn't required to explain how he knows we likely live in a Truman Show enclosed world (a simulation). Mark Sargent doesn't prove to us how it is a simulation. He says it is his model and describes his model. But that model has not been shown to reflect reality anywhere other than in the imagination.

Shouldn't we be given a reference point for what is real, natural and genuine so that we could know if something is artificial?

We no longer have the natural world, with it's natural systems, as a reference point for the natural or genuine if our whole world is inside a simulation. So, what reference point is Mark using to judge between natural structures and "built" structures. Where is the proof of the world being "built"?

Please note, natural structures can be intelligently designed but that is not the same as being artificial or "built". Again, where is the proof this world was "built" rather than having intelligently design natural structures?

The only thing I have heard about is Mark's model. But as long as Mark's model isn't proven to map on to reality, than it is nothing more than an imaginary model, with imaginary answers, to questions about the model.

What is the reference point for the natural and genuine structures?

Where is the proof of a simulated, or "built", structure of our world.

You first need the reference point. Defining our whole world as a simulated enclosed world means that you no longer have the natural world as a reference point for what is natural to be contrasted from the artificial.

orderoverchaos

I desire to ask this publicly.

Secondly, a few weeks ago Humanastory asked for a stump question for Mark. I have been kind enough to rephrase this question a few times.

Even more importantly at this point in this discussion, is why would me asking such an elementary question, the very basic question needed to add any further questions and answers to Mark's model, cause such silence? Or caused what has happened with you here, in all these posts?

"I am addressing Mark's claims. I am asking for a reference point for the natural, authentic,genuine, that allows Mark to state our world is a Truman Show artificial enclosed world. I have asked questions that relate to Mark's theory about our world we all live in."

And in the other thread I said this, which would actually be on this topic, and not on the moral oughts, the panaptocon and metanoia that this thread was initially based on.

"What is the reference point for the natural and genuine structures?

Where is the proof of a simulated, or "built", structure of our world.

You first need the reference point. Defining our whole world as a simulated enclosed world means that you no longer have the natural world as a reference point for what is natural to be contrasted from the artificial."

This is pretty basic stuff here. His whole model rests on this ability to discern between the artificially built and natural structures.

At this point, I am in no mood to further this discussion with you on this topic as I have tried to do so in various posts already.

Mark is making the public claims of his model. I am asking the questions in public.

Now this topic isn't even on the initial topic of this thread.

Jeff Frazier

+orderoverchaos I desire world peace, but it won't happen because I desire it. You've been told repeatedly how to connect with Mr. Sargent, by him and I have repeated it. If you want to know the answer to your questions, you'll have to email him. He does entire shows where all he does is answer emails. He has answered every one I've sent and others that had tougher questions than yours.

But hey, go ahead and waste your time posting here if you want. My guess is that no answer he provides would be satisfactory because you simply want to spew sarcasm and then later pretend it was actually the framework for your Jack Handy-dandy deep thoughts.

Enough is enough. It's time to pull the plug on this one and let it take a fast spin down the crapper where it belongs. Never in my life have I met someone who throws out big words, yet cannot understand simple ones.

orderoverchaos

"OK, well, you have thrown out many insults against me when I have stated it is more logical to argue against the topic rather than the human.

You have never once addressed my questions concerning the model but you have taken a lot of time responding and adding nothing to the topic.

I am asking these questions publicly. I don't need to explain or justify it.

I think that Mark's answer for what are asteroids is the insult to our intelligence. I put Mark's answer in the framework of a father explaining what asteroids are to his son in the vein that Mark explained them to us. You took offense by me doing that than actually looking at what answer was given to us. You then brought this to another video in another discussion on an entirely different topic."

thesekininja
Fantastic. I'd like to see @andrea Cenci with the cojones to do something like this !! ;)