/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous★

Eh, I guess I could believe the JFK assassination (say ~2%). Government being negligent about 9/11 seems almost tautological.

Here's a conspiracy theory I made up all by myself the other day: the Hillary/Syphilis thing (http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-used-model-from-syphilis-psa/) was deliberately engineered by someone in order to make the "man enough to vote for a woman" poster go viral. The poster superficially looks pro-Hillary, but you see, actually it's there to make gender issues more salient (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-2016-idea-of-earning-less-than-wives-makes-men-change-vote-from-hillary-clinton-to-a6992396.html). It's all a Scott Adams-inspired psyop. Wheels within wheels.

>Moon landing being faked?

1%

>JFK assassination being done by the CIA

by cia? 5%

more generally, oswald not acting by himself? 20%

>Aliens in government/Extraterrestrial cover-ups of any kind.

less than 1%

>9/11 inside job (demolition, negligence or whatever)

demolition? 1%

negligence is broad, i don't know

>Simulation hypothesis (not really a conspiracy but related)

15% (this is the one i am least confident about)

Moon landing being faked is crazy, <0.01%. NASA is too big, someone would have talked, we have satellites and shit so we obviously have a developed space program that wasn't faked. Soviets would have loved to prove that it was fake and they had spies all up in our business too.

Lone gunman hypothesis is honestly harder to believe than its negation, and rogue elements of the government staging a conspiracy is the most plausible alternative. Actual official action of the CIA seems pretty unlikely, they were buckwild but not an organized treason machine. Call it 30% for lone gunman, 15% or 1% for CIA depending on whether elements within the CIA count as "done by the CIA" or if it has to come from the top.

Aliens in government is another nutso thing. If alien life existed close enough to bother with us, we would have seen it. Any extraterrestrial coverup would be like, SETI finds something disturbing and we hush it up because… why? <0.01%

9/11 inside job doesn't make much sense. If you know that a plane isn't going to bring down a building, and you really really need to bring down a building with your false flag, it makes more sense to try a different avenue of attack than to set up a controlled demolition that people could find out about. Plus we have a really compelling counter-hypothesis. <0.01%. Negligence is more plausible, they definitely accused the intelligence community of negligence on the news. Maybe 70% because the liberal media likes to exaggerate and you'd be a fool to trust their interpretations totally.

Simulation hypothesis isn't even a real question. NaN%

>>6269

The only way fake moon landing makes sense is if we postulate that the entire cold war is fake and the illuminati control both the USSR and the US. P(fakeLanding | illuminati) > P (fakeLanding | noIlluminati), but P(illuminati) < P(fakeLanding | noIlluminati), and that's even with P(fakeLanding | noIlluminati) being extremely low to begin with.

Kennedy assassination a ND I could believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error

Trigger discipline, kids.

>>6266 (OP)

>Moon landing being faked?

I've heard that the first moon landing was faked, while subsequent ones were real. The guy I heard it from was a former member of the intelligence community, who heard it from another member. This was before it was a plot point in Arrested Development. That said, I still don't buy it. I'll give it 3% (rather than epsilon) because I don't know enough about the subject to be more sure.

> JFK assassination being done by the CIA

epsilon%. The idea is retarded. FWIW, I give "JFK assassinated by KGB" (3^^^3)*epsilon%. The idea of him being accidentally shot by a secret service man is much more sensible. It's definitely the best JFK "conspiracy" theory I've ever heard. I'll go 5% for it.

> Aliens in government/Extraterrestrial cover-ups of any kind.

epsilon%. Area 51 is for testing U-2's and MiG's, not flying saucers. Fun fact: if there were any flying saucers, it's more likely that they were built by the nazis than by aliens.

> Simulation hypothesis (not really a conspiracy but related)

Discussion question: How many "rationalists" assign a higher probability to this than to the existence of God? Is this an example of the conjunction fallacy? Show your work.

Yeah, this is a dumb one tho.

>>6273

>>6273

>

>> Simulation hypothesis (not really a conspiracy but related)

>Discussion question: How many "rationalists" assign a higher probability to this than to the existence of God? Is this an example of the conjunction fallacy? Show your work.

I have a hard time with this because if you believe God is real then you could say that simulation is the method of creation by this God. I fail to understand a meaningful difference between a God and a thing with root access to the uni-server.

>>6273

>>6274

To my mind, a god is by definition supernatural (by the "ontologically basic mental entities" definition), while "some guy with root access to our universe's server" is the ultimate in mundane non-supernatural explanations for things.

To people who assign a high prob to simulation: why? Wouldn't you expect time to be quantized if this was a simulation?

>>6276

How do you know that it isn't?

>>6277

I wrote the simulation. Non-quantized time was an early design goal.

>>6278

What model of computation is your simulator running in that allows for real numbers with infinitely many digits of precision?

>>6279

Maybe you can get away with adaptive precision, when someone tries to measure more acurately you refine the simulation-grid, so nobody observes any quantization?

>>6280

That sounds to me like it still is quantized, but with a variable amount of quantization that changes in a way so that it is very hard for beings in the simulation to notice.

>>6281

It's a simulation of unquantized time. There is no real truth to whether it's quantized or not, it's a simulation. If it's indistinguishable, it's indistinguishable, and you don't get any better than that.

>>6269

>SETI finds something disturbing and we hush it up because… why?

Plenty of folks have spoken about how SETI is not even using the right coordinates