this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
366 points (96.0% liked)
Greentext
7394 readers
243 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That having true randomness in machines means the study is debunked?
If we're talking about the same thing, then afaik their whole claim is that we aren't in a simulation, because we have true randomness which can't be created in software. But it's not necessary to create true randomness in software to have it in said software.
Although I haven't read the full paper, and am going off what people wrote about it in comments.
If you haven't read it. Why should I trust your opinion?
Then don't trust it, what the fuck is it to me.
I love this answer, it tells me a lot of positive things about you.
It also tells me that like me you are oh so weary.
Btw, it's obvious from your questions that you haven't read the paper either, so this whole thread seems like pointless wankery.
I am also oh so weary