Gigged Up

Chapter 3 - Author's Notes (Part 2)

Chapter 3 - Author's Notes (Part 2)

Can an AI lie?

AI is able to mis-inform/dis-inform.

Are we living "inside a digital matrix"? What is the connection between quantum physics and the idea that we may be living in a computer simulation?

It depends on what you mean by the word "computer". If you mean an electronic computer device such as people's average Desktop Computer, even those can run a simulation but not as advanced, fast, nor as "similar to the non-fiction universe that we breathe air in" as we hope to be able to get said simulation to be in the future. Said simulation is digital when it comes to those kind of computers/"computer devices". Making said simulation "as "similar to the non-fiction universe that we breathe air in" as we hope to be able to get said simulation to be in the future" is where we would try to apply our knowledge of Quantum Physics. What we call "digital", according to "our own understanding" of our "current Reality", is "something that our consciousness" cannot be "converted into becoming". There is no way to transfer "anything digital" to a "different separate physical thing", but a copy can be made to the "different separate physical thing" and "the original" can't be "fully erased/destroyed" unless "the "physical thing" that "the original" is on" is ""physically destroyed" to the "required extent"" or "has its "data "in "binary digital form's" "1's and 0's""" overwritten". So "unless someone can "change into being digital"" somehow, I don't think anyone will "ever be capable" of "Matrix powers" unless "the person is "controlling the "version of himself/herself/etc" in a "virtual environment"" via ""technology that is physical", "outside of the "virtual environment" and connected to the "person's brain/etc"""". Then "the person is capable" of "what the technology "enables the person to do" in the "virtual environment"". But "outside of the "virtual environment"", when it comes to "the actual "non-virtual reality" that we live in", people can "only do" "what is possible within the confines of "what is "naturally possible""".

Claiming that "your "latest "human birth"" is "before the "human birth"" of the "human who birthed you"" is, in fact, a "baseless claim" that is ""illogical" and "can "neither be a hypothesis nor a theory""".

"Proving that a "baseless claim" can "neither be a hypothesis nor a theory"" and that a "baseless claim" can be illogical" proves that ""proof" (even if only by expressing logic) and/or "what is evident"" is an inescapable "requirement for logic/science".

This is the "only way" that "people's pretenses" are obvious.

Is ""someone who ""never got/gets any amnesia-related lost memories back" due to amnesia"" changing their sexual orientation even though they were always one particular sexual orientation before their amnesia" possible?

"Not being able to know if someone was "faking their sexual orientation prior to their amnesia"" results in at least two possibilities, the two possibilities being 1. that they were faking it or they were not, and 2. they were already secretly ""attracted to" before amnesia" what they changed to themselves openly being ""attracted to" after amnesia" or they actually never were ""attracted to" before amnesia" what they're ""attracted to" after amnesia".

Besides in a paradox, a fact is "not able to conflict" with any "other fact". If you disagree, why do you disagree?

The question is referring to a "paradox such as": If an "unstoppable force" uses "all of its force" to try to ""force through" or move" an "immovable object", "which one ("unstoppable force" or immovable object")" "remains fact" after "that meeting"?

Regarding "daylight and night time", People might "think it is a fact" that the sun is above us. But "it is a fact" that space knows no "above or beneath". The reason why we "think of the sun as "above"" is that "we, from the "surface of the planet", "look up" to see the sun". "That the sun is above" "seems like a fact" "only from our "collective perspective"". "It is not truly a fact" since "the sun exists in "space, where there is "no above""". So, technically, "only one" is "actually fact", but there is "logic regarding the "info provided" as to "why one would think "the other" is a fact"".