Flat Earth theory is generally triggering or cringe or weird or whatever, whereas Simulated Universe is something you'd feel comfortable bringing up at a dinner party.
I usually don't go to dinner parties. But you know what I mean. Pretty sure I'm painting an accurate picture there.
(People will usually receive the 2nd one okay and take it as an interesting idea or exercise to think about, but usually not the first.)
But it's actually strictly unreasonable that people react that way, I think.
Because if we're a part of someone's simulation, there has to be an edge or an end to their simulation. Or an edge to where they want to keep us within the simulation. So putting up an icy wall and training us to think differently about it and to not know this is the wall.. is a totally reasonable thing that maybe would be happening.
So accepting simulated universe seems like it should include accepting flat earth as a totally viable possibility.
When I hear people talk about flat earth, I assume they're talking about it in a seachange sort of way. Like, it includes a bunch of underlying variables and fabrics of what we assume right now all changing a bit.
And for whatever reasons, people usually take it this way when they hear about simulated universe. They don't say "huh, WUT? you think I'm not real, TOUCH ME it's hard bone don't u feel that u dummy?".
But with flat earth they look at it in a very Level-1 sort of way, and assume everything else is still true, and that you're trying to logjam flat earth into that set of beliefs.
Very fascinating.
Especially because if there's some alien enterprise or higher force or whatever who has tricked us, then they might just be tricking us with this too. It would probably be controlled opposition.
Like when the great Ron Paul preaches truths and non-violence
but in effect draws people who otherwise wouldn't into participating in the hierarchical government system, and then they register to vote and get jury duty and don't see the letter and get in trouble and have to talk on the phone to a city clerk and it's annoying.
Like when you blow up World Trade Center buildings
and don't want people to know exactly what happened, it isn't good enough to just create the official version of events. You also create your own conspiracy theories that confuse the landscape and lead people down dead-ends.
Unlikely that any specific flat earth model would be exactly right, imo.
(And its advocates, I think, don't generally claim a specific model or even to be 100% sure that it's flat. It's often more about questions and examination.)
But it wouldn't surprise me at all if what's actually out there is different somehow than what NASA portrays to us in school.
Tin foil hat? I mean, the shape of the cosmos and all that doesn't change the price of rice or what I watch on Netflix today.
What's actually crack-potted is to have fierce attachment to things you can't possibly know for sure, and that don't affect your daily life at all anyways.
When going and seeing it is affordable and accessible to everyone, then I'll care and have firm beliefs about what's out there.
Until then, worry about the problems here that we can see and touch. Worry about the hungry children.
As long as it's a few people who leech money off of the world at large to allegedly go explore for us, I regard it as story time. Even if they happen to be telling the truth, it's still just their story.
It's funny how some people of today's mind will often conflate science with the man in the nice suit told me so.
If you google the scientific method it won't say anything about people who call themselves scientists telling you things. It's science when you can observe and verify it.
And then they say "wahhhh, you're anti-science". No. You are, lol.
You're trying to bastardize science.
Stories aren't science. If I go to China and tell you there was a building shaped like a purple elephant, maybe you believe me. Maybe it's true. But it's not science.
When traveling to the moon and thru the cosmos and everything is accessible and you can see and test it, then you can call it science.
For now all you can say is that they say so, and you believe them.
