Both are similar actions simulation of good decisions requires a simulation of future results I apologize that the logical leap was to great for you too understand. I will try to working on be concise so even the most unintelligent can understand my arguement.

In what we is it ins't? We are all composed of quarks and we all follow the laws of the universe, so how would it be impossible theoretically speaking to have a computer with infinite processing power calculate the best outcome for every choice by evaluating all possible interactions. Once again this is theoretical Two I am not a preteen neckbeard and if I was that does not make my argument any less true. You would not doubt consider it with less respect but in the end does whoever makes the argument affect the truth of the argument ?

The conversation was on applying logic as opposed to emotion when negating everyday problems, now you're talking about building a computer and simulating the entire universe from a sub-particlular level.

Sometimes you just gotta admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, bub.

You claim to favour logic, yet your too fucking stupid to even have a simple discussion. Don't bother replying, I'm worried if I continue reading your comments my IQ is going to start depreciating.

Both are similar actions simulation of good decisions requires a simulation of future results I apologize that the logical leap was to great for you too understand. I will try to working on be concise so even the most unintelligent can understand my arguement.