Careercow Scott Raymond Adams / @ScottAdamsSays / “Real Coffee With Scott Adams” - The Washed Up Cartoonist Behind “Dilbert”, Creator of “The Dilberito”, Professional Bullying Victim, Political Grifter, Terminally Online Narcissistic Boomer, Divorced Twice, Is (Not) Glad His Stepson Overdosed. This is Not a Racial Politics Debate Thread

[ditto]

Probably what I hate most about Scott Adams is his incessant schizo posting about how coincidences (frequently read into names or the breaking up of words) proves the simulation!

He's about 5 years away from becoming Francis E Dec esq.

Right now the simulation is portrayed as lawful neutral but it a little more paranoia will turn it "gangster".

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Those other guys lacked the persuasion mindset, Scott can clearly win!

TBF, they did. You ever hear of those guys? No, because their campaign was incredibly bad for people that can point to California problems.

But really, Scott would be better running as a Democrat like that tranny "Dem" and then immediately switched parties. The California Republicans are the most useless kind of Republicans.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

There's no reason to not run as a Democrat because California has the open primaries, the last two Senate elections were between two Democrats because no Republican could even crack 10% in the primary.

But I have no idea why Scott would think the Democrats would treat him as a legitimate candidate let alone not believe they're deliberately fucking him over because he's too "dangerous" and will win otherwise. California doesn't even do debates until the general because it's essentially impossible by typical standards to determine which candidates should be allowed to debate. Does he think he's going to be given airtime to expound his theories? That people will flock to his YouTube and Twitter?

Michael Shellenberger pretty much just ran as Governor with the same kind of campaign Scott would "ideally" run, only he's not a complete idiot, has written a book/done reporting/has a Substack, etc. on the problems in California, ran as an Independent rather than Republican, was pro-LGBTwhatever and so on. He got 4% in the open primary. The top Republican (of a shit load) got 18% so advanced to the general. A Green candidate got 2%. Newsom got 56% in the primary because the Democratic field had been cleared since he was in the incumbent. If there had been another serious Democrat in the field that Republican might not have even made it to the general.

Basically what I'm saying is that Scott absolutely has to do this. It's too important for him not to.

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

It's always good to remind yourself that the universe being a simulation is pretty much identical to thinking we exist in the imagination of God, and should be regarded identically to any other religious claim. Hell, at least a belief in Christianity suggests behaving in certain ways will benefit you. Simulationism doesn't even offer you that. Like, if we found out the universe was a simulation today, it'd change very little about how we actually live our lives, because from our perspective, the universe is exactly as real as it was yesterday, except maybe now religious cooks are painting mile long messages in the Sahara to try and get the computer-gods to send nudes.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

It's always good to remind yourself that the universe being a simulation is pretty much identical to thinking we exist in the imagination of God, and should be regarded identically to any other religious claim.

Scott honestly believes the simulation is more likely than any religion or scientific theory because of the odds. He cites the same fallacy of "If we make one simulation and it makes another that makes another that makes another, you have infinite simulated universes to 1 real universe (if there is one), which makes it a mathematical impossibility we're it!"

This overlooks that each layer of simulation would only have the processing power of the first computer, so we wouldn't even get 2 layers of simulation deep before the first one crashed. The only other argument is that one universe would make many simulations, even though there would be no practical use for one.

As you said about religion, Scott's other proof of the simulation are arguments for intelligent design/fine tuning wherein "Why would Earth be the right distance from the Sun? Why would Earth have a magnetic field? Why would our ecosystem be so exactly balanced?" but the issue with arguments of intelligent design has always been that EVERY religion takes it as proof that the universe was made by THEIR version of God. Nowhere can you point and say "The water cycle keeps us constantly supplied with fresh water, therefore, Allah inspired Muhammad to write the Koran!"

Things Scott cites as evidence of the simulation are actually evidence AGAINST it, like he there being different religions and cognitive dissonance in the world. He claims this would help the simulation because everyone having their own version how something happened saves the computer the strain of keeping things consistent? But it would put MORE strain on a computer to support millions of different views of reality instead of just one.

He also keeps blabbering on about what he calls "history on demand" by which he means that history changes with new discoveries because there is no real history in the simulation, it just generates it out of nothing when he dig. But once again that would take up MORE resources in the computer because its memory and processing would be supporting multiple versions of the past instead of one.

For someone who's an ex-engineer, his simulation babble always assumes computers have infinite storage and processing, and that it's more convenient for computers to store and process many many redundant files.

As for the schizo posts, he brings up names like "Gwen Singer, like Gwen Stefani the SINGER!" as if the simulation is written by an uncreative human writer, when a computer would just generate random names. Here, I just went on Random-name-generator.info and these are the 10 names it gave me in a second

1. June Haynes
2. Lucy George
3. Doug Garrett
4. Edith Holland
5. Alonzo Jenkins
6. Leslie Moss
7. Jordan Gill
8. Edwin Flowers
9. Olga Burgess
10. Phyllis Rhodes

None of them are "James Diggins, get it? Cause he was Digging into the penchant fund in the news story! Simulation alert!"

His most recent awful tweet of "Maybe placebos work because you're in the simulation!" doesn't make sense because we would want a simulation to tell us what medicines will ACTUALLY do, not what we would like them to. If we were a simulation, everything should be based on variables not belief!

 

[Pissmaster]

Scott honestly believes the simulation is more likely than any religion or scientific theory because of the odds. He cites the same fallacy of "If we make one simulation and it makes another that makes another that makes another, you have infinite simulated universes to 1 real universe (if there is one), which makes it a mathematical impossibility we're it!"

This overlooks that each layer of simulation would only have the processing power of the first computer, so we wouldn't even get 2 layers of simulation deep before the first one crashed. The only other argument is that one universe would make many simulations, even though there would be no practical use for one.

As you said about religion, Scott's other proof of the simulation are arguments for intelligent design/fine tuning wherein "Why would Earth be the right distance from the Sun? Why would Earth have a magnetic field? Why would our ecosystem be so exactly balanced?" but the issue with arguments of intelligent design has always been that EVERY religion takes it as proof that the universe was made by THEIR version of God. Nowhere can you point and say "The water cycle keeps us constantly supplied with fresh water, therefore, Allah inspired Muhammad to write the Koran!"

Things Scott cites as evidence of the simulation are actually evidence AGAINST it, like he there being different religions and cognitive dissonance in the world. He claims this would help the simulation because everyone having their own version how something happened saves the computer the strain of keeping things consistent? But it would put MORE strain on a computer to support millions of different views of reality instead of just one.

He also keeps blabbering on about what he calls "history on demand" by which he means that history changes with new discoveries because there is no real history in the simulation, it just generates it out of nothing when he dig. But once again that would take up MORE resources in the computer because its memory and processing would be supporting multiple versions of the past instead of one.

For someone who's an ex-engineer, his simulation babble always assumes computers have infinite storage and processing, and that it's more convenient for computers to store and process many many redundant files.

As for the schizo posts, he brings up names like "Gwen Singer, like Gwen Stefani the SINGER!" as if the simulation is written by an uncreative human writer, when a computer would just generate random names. Here, I just went on Random-name-generator.info and these are the 10 names it gave me in a second

1. June Haynes
2. Lucy George
3. Doug Garrett
4. Edith Holland
5. Alonzo Jenkins
6. Leslie Moss
7. Jordan Gill
8. Edwin Flowers
9. Olga Burgess
10. Phyllis Rhodes

None of them are "James Diggins, get it? Cause he was Digging into the penchant fund in the news story! Simulation alert!"

His most recent awful tweet of "Maybe placebos work because you're in the simulation!" doesn't make sense because we would want a simulation to tell us what medicines will ACTUALLY do, not what we would like them to. If we were a simulation, everything should be based on variables not belief!

Hi, I’m Scott Adams. One of the names it generated was “Lucy George”, the first names of two sitcom characters, Lucille Ball and George Constanza, who were known for being comically whiny. Therefore, the simulation is telling you your argument is comedic and whiny. That’s THE SIMULATION BABY WOO!!! *crotch chop*

But no, for real, regarding randomization, I remember reading about how Apple had to update the way iTunes would randomly pick a song when set to shuffle, because true randomization didn’t feel random enough to a human with normal human pattern recognition. Since true randomization doesn’t exclude the likelihood of landing on the same artist twice in a row, or genres that go together, Apple had to give it criteria to disregard choices that went together a little too well, therefore making it feel less random.

edit: I bring up the iTunes randomization thing because true, full pseudorandomness (as in, the most random a computer is capable of, essentially as random as you can get as bound by how the computer generates random results) is rife with situations a human being couldn't help but see patterns in. So, ironically, you have to make things less random to make them seem more random. You have to account for that nature in human beings, and I'm sure Clott Adams doesn't account for that at all. Then you've got confirmation bias, you mix that in, and you've got patterns everywhere that line up with whatever preconceived notions you already want to believe. Maybe you had a crush at one point, and you started seeing that person's name everywhere. Is the simulation trying to encourage you to make a move, or is it taunting you? Well, you're noticing the name a lot because it's always on the top of your mind. Or maybe you noticed a person outside with a long face, sporting a red baseball hat and a goatee. Is the simulation trying to show itself to you? Or have you just been thinking about Sneed's Feed and Seed too much? Confirmation bias, baby, I love it.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Could the Simulation develop a Simulation that not even Scott Adams would be able to tell was a Simulation?

I've always thought there was a space for an Intelligent Design like theory where God created reality and lost interest and fucked off to do something else millions of years back. The God in Futurama is sorta like that.

 

[Dylan]

Scott's pattern of behavior reminds me someone having hangover after stimulating drugs. Does he have a history with substances?

 

[Needless]

Scott's pattern of behavior reminds me someone having hangover after stimulating drugs. Does he have a history with substances?

He claimed he had a life changing experience in college while doing shrooms. He also smokes weed, which you can see on his locals exclusive vids where he does simultaneous bong rips instead of simultaneous sips.

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

A big hand to Debbie for pointing out all the ways Scott's an idiot better than I ever could.

 

[Dude Snakes]

So did Scott walk back his statement that vaxxfree won? His delusions are are as strong as @Trombonista. Take the L faggots!

 

[Debbie Macomber]

Something else I found, Scott believes he's living the plot of Bruce Almighty

I guess we know who to blame for everything wrong with the world since 2015

Here's a conversation with Musky himself from a few years ago. Scott probably believes Elon only bought twitter because he affirmed it into happening

Is Sgod Adams doubting his divinity? Nah, just a rhetorical question

 

[waffle]

I'm hyped for the Scott gets Baker Acted ark. It seems like his weird mania has been spiraling up for the last few months.

 

[XYZpdq Jr.]

yeah this is getting like, "really crazy" not "i'm just big brain"

 

[Trombonista]

If reality is a simulation, wouldn't that mean that we are also code?

 

[Pissmaster]

If reality is a simulation, wouldn't that mean that we are also code?

We are all the creation of God The Simulation, and our earthly bodies are made from the dust of the earth computer code, and when we die crash we'll ascend to Heaven another simulation that's better where we'll be reborn into our heavenly bodies debugged and recompiled from source

 

[Captain_Twitch]

Something else I found, Scott believes he's living the plot of Bruce Almighty
View attachment 4372000
I guess we know who to blame for everything wrong with the world since 2015

Here's a conversation with Musky himself from a few years ago. Scott probably believes Elon only bought twitter because he affirmed it into happening
View attachment 4372016
Is Sgod Adams doubting his divinity? Nah, just a rhetorical question
View attachment 4372024

This is insane. This isn’t just grandiosity, this is a disconnect from reality. What’s wrong with him?

 

[Prince Vegeta]

His grandiose delusions are fascinating, but seriously, has he been tested for schizophrenia.

 

[Absurdity]

So am I to understand Scott Adams is the updated Matrix-lite Wayne Dyer? Neat. I'll stick around to see if he goes full Hale-Bopp.

 

[byuu]

If I was writing the Simulation I wouldn't make myself bald.