Donald Trump

Trump's Hate-Letters, Sonic Youthers Feels the Bern, and We're All Living in Elon Musk's Acid Trip: Matt Welch Does Red Eye

Tune into Fox News at 3 a.m.


I will be appearing tonight on the Fox News current events/humor program Red Eye w/ Tom Shillue at 3 a.m., along with comedians Kate Wolff and Nathan MacIntosh, plus regulars Joanne Nosuchinsky and TV's Andy Levy. Subjects are slated to include:

* Donald Trump's hand-written communications.

* Thurston Moore's new Bernie track.

* Cory Booker doing the impossible by making one feel sympathy for Bon Jovi's art.

* Elon Musk's we're-all-living-in-a-computer-simulation-dude theory.

* Ryan Gosling desperately trying to get in good graces with the ladies.

NEXT: LeBron James Has Evolved By Expressing Himself Through Humility, Humor, and Politics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Musk is actually correct about this, although he certainly is not the first person, or the 2nd, or the 3rd, or the 70,000th person to acknowledge this possibility. Call it a simulation or not, it is highly likely we are living in something created by a vastly superior intelligence. To not give any thought to this is to not think at all.

    1. Actually Nick Bostrom is the first person I heard talking about this theory, but I’ve thought for at least a decade, just through assessing the progress of current technology, that the inevitable path of technological development is to create other worlds and other life.

    2. To call it “highly likely”, despite not showing a single example of something like this in fact taking place somewhere, is pulling probabilities out of your arse.

      To say the odds that we are NOT in a simulation is less than one in billions, as Elon Musk is saying, is taking the retarded and doubling down on it over and over again.

      1. To clarify — it’s possible we’re in a simulation, but to confidently assign a probability is the stupid part.

        1. I don’t think anyone who takes this subject seriously is saying ‘we are living in a simulation’, they’re just giving a somewhat high probability that it might be so. I could write for hours on this, but I would invite anyone to just go research what is already available on the intertoobz. I have a hard time agreeing with philosophers and anthropologist on religion. To me, religion is such an abstract idea that I’ve always wondered how the hell hairless monkey ever came up with such a notion. That’s where this all started with me. Unless there is something embedded within our DNA code that gives us the notion of a creation, how the fuck could such an obscure notion be thought up by primitive peoples?

          1. We’re social organizers. Religion is a useful method for organizing. Religion and threats of violence.

            1. What does that have to do with metaphysics? You know, since after Aquinas.

              1. I think “primitive peoples” predates Aquinas. Unless we’re talking about Juggalos.

              2. Metaphysics? Is that like religion?

            2. Yeah. One day gorg, while he was washing his face at the river suddenly came up with the idea that ‘holy fuck, I’ve got it! I’ll take control of all my other primitive brothers who are managing to subsist on these roots and grubs, by telling them that there’s a great sky god, who only speaks to me! And if they don’t do what sky god says, he’ll send down the lightning to smite them!’.

              I can’t buy that, sorry.

              1. I doubt anything was spontaneous. People have a tendency to ascribe that which they don’t understand to unseen forces. We look for order where there is none. It’s a natural progression from that concept to developing a religion. It just takes time and lots of bullshit. It probably took quite a while before anyone realized they could use those beliefs for social advantage.

                1. Well, you could be right. Neither of us have proof for either view. I just find religion, that of a creation to be such an obscure thought that it’s highly unlikely anyone would have ever thought of it unless it was embedded in their DNA. And after all we are all just code, everything is code, at least in our universe. I mean, for instance, viruses aren’t even alive, they’re just programs.

                  I’m not religious, never have been. I think everything can be explained by science. Well, almost anything, and then it’s just turtles all the way down.

                  1. I’m agnostic myself. But even though I struggle with the concept of belief and faith, it is obvious to me that most people do not. They want to believe. There’s definitely something in our generic makeup that gives a predisposition to belief. I think it has to do with social organization as an evolutionary advantage.

                    Politics is probably as good an example of this as any. People believe in their candidates and parties regardless of all evidence to the contrary. Therefore the idiots will win the election.

                    1. There’s definitely something in our generic makeup that gives a predisposition to belief.

                      That you are going to cease to exist is a hard pill to swallow, for many. Religion alleviates that fear.

                      That you can use it to manipulate is just a bonus.

              2. throughout history, people in multiple cultures have subscribed to the notion of a higher power, be it the Greeks with the gods at Olympus or Indian and a Great Spirit or cultures who prayed to something for a successful hunt/harvest and so forth.

                In those times, certain things were much more difficult to explain and the unknown was much greater. A fishing expedition swamped by a storm wondered why it happened; there was no Doppler radar then to warn people, so they assumed something supernatural to help events make sense. I mean why that expedition in that place at that time when so many other expeditions had gone off without a hitch. Anyway, it’s called faith for a reason.

                1. And the most rational explanation was there are invisible sky gods controlling everything? Again, I don’t accept it. It’s just the only explanation scientists have if they reject any type of creationism, which has been the norm for quite a while now.

                  Either creationism is true for our universe or we’re likely the most advanced and ancient civilization that has ever existed.

              3. Even now we have primitives cohering around lunatics and forming cults of personality on the promise of salvation ever after, and we call it politics. What is difficult to believe that a primitive way back when wouldn’t project his own budding creative cogitation into the cosmos and imagine something in his image out there is responsible for all he sees around him? And then sold it to his people as a way to keep those villagers in the south from stealing our wimmenz.

            3. Human beings are rationalizing creatures, there’s always got to be a reason for things. They can’t accept that the governing principle of the universe might be “shit happens”. Before there was science there was religion – anything you couldn’t explain was fully explained by magic. Now stuff we can’t explain is fully explained by science – we don’t know the answer yet, but we’re working on it and we’re confident some day we will have the answer. Because we just can’t accept that maybe there is no reason and we’re never going to find an answer. For the big question of why we’re here, where we came from, where we’re going maybe science is just as useful as religion – which is to say religion is just as useful as science – in that it gives us the satisfaction of feeling we know the reason for something irrational and now we don’t have to think about the fact that it doesn’t make sense. And if anybody tries telling you that you don’t really have an answer, call them a foul temptress or an ignorant denier or a wicked blasphemer in a loud voice and get the hell away from them quickly lest some of their doubt gets on you.

              1. So, you’re saying that you completely reject the simulation theory or any other possibility involving creation. And when I say creation, let me be clear if I haven’t already been so, that I am not speaking of religion, but of technology.

                1. What would be the difference between a religious creation and a technological one? It seems to me to just be a question of knowledge.

                  1. To the point of “programming,” I think one of the best explanations for this from a simple evolution standpoint is that our supernatural beliefs are a spandrel of something else. If we hear wind blowing in the leaves and are willing to ascribe a cause like a lion that turns out to not be there, we are more likely to live to reproduce. In this case we are also more likely to believe in things we cannot directly prove.

                  2. What would be the difference between a religious creation and a technological one? It seems to me to just be a question of knowledge

                    You mean as perceived by the technologically created primitives? There wouldn’t be a difference. For me, it’s the difference between magic, which does not exists, and technology, which obviously does.

              2. I’ll defer to Agile.

                I saw you read Barzini’s ‘The Italians’. That book kick started my interest in exploring in depth that civilization. A fun read.

                You may want to check his ‘The Europeans’ as well.

                1. Directed at Jerseykids.

          2. The theory is basically “we can foresee a time where we have the computational ability to model the universe, and at that time, we most likely will. Inside our model, life may very well evolve, including intelligent life, especially if we select for conditions conducive to the evolution of intelligent life. This intelligent life will eventually develop the ability to model the universe, too, and they will, etc. So, statistically speaking, it is unlikely that we are the original universe.”
            I believe the speed of light and quanta are both used to support this theory, but I don’t remember how.

            1. So when do I get my own universe to toy with?

              1. You’re just going to use it to tell the virtual teenagers to keep off your lawn, aren’t you?

                1. I will be a benevolent yet remarkably petty God.

              2. Other schools of thought would tell you that you already have a universe to toy with. According to this theory, you are god of this universe, creating it without realizing that you doing so, and that, until you view something, it does not exist, you are creating Creation out of Chaos. Of course, that can’t be true, because I know I’m real. So you are something that I, insane god that I am, have created.
                You are welcome for your existence.

            2. we can foresee a time where we have the computational ability to model the universe

              That’s the part where I think science becomes a religion because I believe at some level there’s enough randomness that you’re never going to be able to create a model universe. That’s an old thought, that if you knew where every particle in the universe was and its velocity you could then know what exactly was going to happen next and next and next. It doesn’t work that way.

              Of course, it could be that we could only create a very simple model universe and we are the simple model of a much more complex universe. If the mice show up, we’ll know.

              1. We can’t model our own universe exactly. It would take more bits of information than there are atoms. We could only create a model of a simpler one.

                1. It would not take more bits of information than atoms. Think of file compression and how it works. So, for instance, you would not need to model every single hydrogen atom, you would only need one definition of a hydrogen atom, and then, every time you need a hydrogen atom, you already have the definition.
                  I’m not explaining it very well, because that’s not really my expertise. Any computer guys here want to try? I think one easy to understand the idea is to do a quick read about video cards.

                  1. Also, fractals tie in there somewhere.

                  2. By using models you are by definition simplifying. Simplification always results in divergence from reality.

                    I’ll put it this way. We effectively live in a massive quantum computer already. The interaction of atoms through the multiple forces, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, em, and gravity is constantly generating an output based on the previous state. There is no way to absolutely recreate that computer without using the same amount of computational bandwidth. It’s physically beyond our capabilities.

                    1. Hmmm like i said, not my field. The reading I have done on the subject did not indicate that, but again, I’m no expert.
                      If you are correct, how crazy must be the less-simple universe be?

              2. A quantum computer would not have this issue.

          3. Hyperion, every one of us begins life confronted with vastly more powerful beings possessed of powers we cannot comprehend and motives we do not understand, that impose a moral system on us and reward or punish us based on how we comply with it.

            We eventually learn that these creatures are called “our parents and siblings”.

            So it is pretty easy to see where the concept of a superior intelligence that watches over us and punishes us comes from. As for where the concept of “creation” comes from, humans create stuff. Animals create stuff — beaver dams, anthills, nests, etc. When confronted with the question “where did this stuff COME from”, the answer “something created it” is obviously going to occur to people.

            1. Good point. I had not thought of that.

            2. Exactly. “Gong” did not come up with a sky daddy out of thin air. He saw lightning strike and in trying to understand it, assumed there was some human-like action behind it. That superbeing was obviously more powerful than he and his tribe, they started pleading for its help, which bound them together and made them a stronger unit. It doesn’t take much for Gong the individual to become the authority on this deity, and for later individuals to take up such a position and exploit it.

          4. The issue is that you’re calling it a “high probability,” which suggests some sort of objective measures to calculate. But it’s still pretty much shrugging your shoulders and saying, “It’s hard to believe that’s wrong.”

            Musk and others have an interesting story. But don’t try to give it the Science Polish by throwing out the word probability.

            1. There are objective measures involved, MJG — the rapid proliferation of simulated worlds, the accelerating growth in the complexity and detail of those worlds, and the growing popularity of simulated worlds for entertainment and study.

        2. And I should clarify by saying that I shouldn’t have said that Musk is correct, but instead should have said he’s correct that this theory has some serious legitimacy.

          1. No, it really doesn’t.

            1. Do you disagree with his premise and/or one of the steps in his reasoning, or are you just rejecting the conclusion?

            2. It’s as good as aliens and certainly better than the Skydaddy.

            3. Ok, expert of all existence, if you say so.

      2. Musk is just parroting someone else’s ideas. You should read other sources to understand the logic.

        1. I think it’s much more likely that you’re just a figment of my imagination.

          1. That could be. It’s possible that when you are not observing me posting on Reason, that I don’t actually exist in your current session of reality.

            1. The Hyperion Uncertainty Principle?

              1. Not mine.

                Remember as brilliant of a mind as Einstein did not accept the theories of quantum uncertainty or of entanglement. God doesn’t roll dice? Something like that.

                1. Einstein said God doesn’t play with dice.
                  Schrodinger famously retorted “Quit telling God what to do”

                  Paraphrasing, obviously.

                  1. I did say, ‘something like that’.

                    1. Wasn’t disagreeing. Always thought the Schrodinger line was the best part.

            2. It does save on memory and processor capacity to not render anything outside my senses.

              1. Of course, that’s the way today’s computer games seem so huge.

              2. The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that particles don’t have a defined state until measured. At the macro scale everything functions as an average of probabilities. How’s that saving processor time?

    3. it is highly likely we are living in something created by a vastly superior intelligence

      And the explanation for Trump is to test our limits of what we’ll believe possible..

  2. Thurston Moore broke Kim Gordon’s heart.

    Never forget…

    1. And Thurston Howell broke Lovey’s heart, little buddy.

      1. In the 90s there was a rapper named Thirstin Howl III. His best song was “I Still Live With My Mom’s.”

    2. And now he’s broken mine.

      *burns orders orphan to burn Daydream Nation disc*

  3. Wait… what is this? Didn’t we already have PM links? Are we now getting late nite links? Is this late nite links?

      1. Damn Varnish cache server and guru meditation numbers.

        1. Relax, weedhopper, the squirrels love you.

    1. Is this late nite links?


      Seriously, go find some links. Longtorso style.

      1. No, please. .. don’t.

        The stench of PUA loser messes with my sleep.

  4. “People come by and immediately want to see it, touch it and hold it,” Mr. Tollin said with pride.

    This is what makes me start to realize that Trump might just win in November.

  5. because he also shared that he thinks of himself as 49 percent woman. “Sometimes 47 percent, it depends on what day you catch me.”

    Does this mean Gosling can get into 49% of the nation’s “women only” washroom?

    1. It means he’s only half a pussy.

  6. Matt, do you just not announce the new Fifth Column episode until it’s finely aged?

    1. He posted it today. Get it together.

      1. Some of us have [taken your] jerbs.

        1. Well excuse me, Mr Big Shot.

          *runs away sobbing*

  7. Anyone else watching Roots 2016? I’m sort of watching, in that I can see/hear the TV from my computer desk.

      1. Damnit! You racist bigots!

        1. We’re racist and bigots? That’s harsh.

          1. Damn straight! Racist bigot! … wait, you didn’t get the memo when you signed up for this deal?

    1. Snoop Dogg (sp?) released a video lambasting Hollywood for reveling in blacks’ worst moments rather than evangelizing their success. No, really, Snoop Dog (?) is better on civil rights than the NAACP or any of their college-going wannabes at Yale.

      1. I saw that. He did it in a profoundly inarticulate way. But I think that makes it more genuine in a way.

    1. Will the left turn on sexual freedom?

      Didn’t they mean “When the left turned on sexual freedom?”

      1. Get out of our bedrooms! Get into our bathrooms, and later you can get back into our bedrooms!

        1. And don’t forget the kitchen — do the dishes before you leave.

      2. They don’t want *government* in the bedroom, they want college administrators in the bedroom… as mandated and overseen by government.

      1. Also: A human failure moment as I manage to post this as a reply to C. Anacreon instead of in the main thread.

      2. Well, fuck those 2nd amendment crazies in the party, we must disown them!

        1. Peterson isn’t head of the “2nd amendment contingent” in the party, and getting pissed off at Peterson isn’t the same as disowning gun lovers.

    2. The article went on about how men behaving in very unlibertarian ways — masturbating and cumming on a woman’s jean clad ass in the subway while she was unaware of it — was somehow a damning indicting of libertarianism.

      1. There wouldn’t even be subways in libertopia!

    1. I love how leftists suddenly discover and laude competition only when convenient.

      And the e-cig thing also has a major tinge of busy-bodyness to it as well as cronyism. The same jerkoffs who thought “we finally beat the evil dirty smokers” then “had to deal with” e-cigs and flipped the fuck out. Because it WAS NEVER ABOUT HEALTH DAMMIT.

      1. The salt thing earlier really does show how little lefties are worried about what the science “shows.” As of we’re ever hurting for evidence.

  8. I really don’t know whether I care about bernie sanders or thurston moore less.

  9. a 12-string acoustic piece “laced with excerpts from Bernie Sanders’ speeches, touching on topics like the worship of money, economic inequality, social justice, and the need for basic human rights for all people.”

    The four-minute, 10-second track titled “Feel It in Your Guts” mashes up Sanders’ campaign speeches…

    Feel it in your bowels.

    I can’t wait until the DJ-Capitalist remix comes out

  10. Ryan Gosling Thinks ‘Women Are Better Than Men’

    -1 Harry Belefonte

    1. Better at what? Being late? Taking 3x longer than necessary to do the shopping? Going bat shit crazy over nothing?
      Or, better at being nice looking/smelling. Better at nurturing? Being empathic?

      1. “”ugh! typical male attitude = *needlessly competitive* and constantly trying to break things apart then rather than digest the beauty of the whole.””

        Of course, the way you ‘win’ this debate? Is to go, “*but of course you are dear. we both knew that.*”.

        1. Duh. You think I’d ever make that comment in real life? Well, to a female at least? And we all know that there aren’t really any female libertarians, so it’s not like I’m gonna offend somebody here.

    2. …and more evolved.

      Not from what I observed during my daughter’s party celebrating her 11th birthday with nine friends.

      They’re like hyenas rolled into jackals wrapped into tasmanian devils.

      I just took my bandages off.

    3. I thought we all started out female in the womb and the Y chromosome caused the physical progression to male. That being the case, males are females perfected for a specific purpose.

      1. We’re Super Women!

  11. Cory Booker to Hillary Clinton: ‘You give love a good name’

    Good god, just when you thought there was nothing more nauseating than a Bernie+’Sonic-Retired’-combo… this happens.

  12. It took some fifty years, but Thurston Moore finally did something that wasn’t entirely cool.

    I think that’s Novoselic that shows up in Youth Against Fascism.

    Nirvana opened up for Sonic Youth before anybody outside of Seattle knew who Nirvana was.

    “Gary Johnson and William Weld Are ‘Like Nirvana in 1991,’ Says Krist Novoseli?”…..are-like-n

    Maybe Novoselic can call up and explain to Moore why he’s barking up the wrong tree.

    1. Is it cool to cheat on your wife?

      I hope not.

      1. Not as cool as taking hyperbole literally.

        1. I was genuinely asking. I’m not sure how I could take hyperbolized coolness literally anyway. But I guess that’s more of your charming hyperbole.

          1. So-called hyperbole: when you could’ve just as well said nothing.

            1. Up yours!

              I’ll say what I want to say.

              Jackass takes hyperbole seriously.



      “I think we should destroy the bogus capital process that is destroying youth culture…”

      So cul.

      Incidental: Sampled by this beloved-by-me commie-Swedish-douche band:

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.