Spitballing some Simulationism.

[Alchopwn]

The aim here is to open up the topic of Simulationism to some peer review 

By now, everyone is likely to have encountered the idea of Simulationism.  For those tiny few who have not (and on this forum, if you have not, the whole issue of how you have avoided the idea is a topic in itself imho),  then it is like the Matrix movie idea that we live in a computer generated reality, so realistic that it is not discernable from the original reality the simulation is based on.  So, we are potentially interacting with a reality that seems completely real, but is in fact a fake.

The ramifications of this are potentially huge, on the proviso that it is true.  I mean, suddenly all the supernatural things people encounter are far more explicable.  For all we know, this simulated reality has a magic system that accounts for the strange things that occur... Or they are glitches?  Certainly the Mandela Effect becomes a lot more explicable, as details are changed and edited retrospectively, or even altered for some reason that is not known to the general public.  This also potentially interreacts with the Many Parallel Alternate Realities ideas put forwards in Physics.

I mean, if we are presently experiencing a simulation, I totally understand what I am doing here.  I am always super eager to play games of that kind.  In fact, one of my own first "Simulationist moments" came while playing World of Warcraft, and despairing over the "spawn" model that was used to simply bring new interactable creatures into being within the simulated world of Azeroth.  I was looking at a murlock randomly misting into being or "respawning", and I realized that this was very similar to the idea of reality that Aristotle proposed, where "rats are spontaneously generated by the proximity of grain".  Now, mostly people dismiss Aristotle on this issue and wonder how he could have reached such a bizarre conclusion, given that he had at least some idea of sexual procreation generating humans and other animals.  Then again, perhaps he was simply playing an earlier, less realistic, and less complex version of our simulation?

It is also a bit of a give-away that we refer to game designers as "Devs" which is only a short linguistic distance from Devas (Hindu deities), and from the Divine.

Anyhow, see how you enjoy the following Simulationism questions. Treat them as potential discussion points, if you like, or offer your own.

1.  If we are in a simulation, is Big Foot a glitch or an Easter egg? 

2.  If we are in a simulation, how do we leave?  Can we leave?  I mean, if we are sprites like the sims, perhaps we can't leave? 

3.  There have been a lot of reasons for a simulated reality to exist:  (a) as a means of storing consciousnesses for people awaiting medical procedures (b) it is some sort of trap  (c)  it is some sort of training exercise  (d) our civilization actually collapsed catastrophically, and we are being stored and rescued (e) we are the playthings of higher intelligences.  Do you have other theories?

4.  Does this mean that people who engage in prayer are trying to bother the Developers?  Does it work?  What do you want the Devs to change?

5.  There is the distinct likelihood that if mathematics works in this simulated reality, that it actually works in the higher reality we are based on.  But what about the anthropic principle?  Are there universes which have lower difficulties we can play in?  You know, where obesity isn't a thing, FTL travel is easier to figure out, and perpetual motion engines can work?

6.  Does this simulation have a central plot? If so, what is it?  If you don't interact with it, are you losing the game?

7.  What do you consider the best proof that we are living in a simulation?

8.  What do you consider the best proof that we are NOT living in a simulation?

9.  Add your own topic.

[+ouija ouija]

I would like to 9. 'Add your own topic', which is: 'What happens when you over-think things and don't get out in company enough?'.

 

 

just kidding, of course!

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

I would like to 9. 'Add your own topic', which is: 'What happens when you over-think things and don't get out in company enough?'.

You think about insanity like this.

 Or in @acute's case you start stalking Suella Braverman and Priti Patel for a dinner date at Domino's. 

[zep73]

I wish I could get involved in this, but I just don't have the energy. The level of ignorance is just too overwhelming. And why should I care what people think? I know the scientific facts, and that's enough for me.

[XenoFish]

Our experience of the objective reality is through a subjective mental model of it. One that is constructed out of sensory information. Due to the sheer number of stimuli we only consciously process a finite amount of this information. Basically the 'simulation' is just a 'reality tunnel'. 

[acute]

49 minutes ago, Piney said:

in @acute's case you start stalking Suella Braverman and Priti Patel for a dinner date at Domino's. 

"Hell hath no fury like a leadership candidate scorned." — Proverbs 32:19

[Piney]

12 minutes ago, acute said:

"Hell hath no fury like a leadership candidate scorned." — Proverbs 32:19

That's certainly something a Tory agent provocateur would say....

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

1.  If we are in a simulation, is Big Foot a glitch or an Easter egg? 

Bigfoot is more than likely just a perceptual glitch.

Quote

2.  If we are in a simulation, how do we leave?  Can we leave?  I mean, if we are sprites like the sims, perhaps we can't leave? 

Death or deletion probably. 

Quote

3.  There have been a lot of reasons for a simulated reality to exist:  (a) as a means of storing consciousnesses for people awaiting medical procedures (b) it is some sort of trap  (c)  it is some sort of training exercise  (d) our civilization actually collapsed catastrophically, and we are being stored and rescued (e) we are the playthings of higher intelligences.  Do you have other theories?

Realty could be a byproduct of a neuronetwork of linked cultivated brain cells. All of which are going through a life simulation in order to not go insane due to the machine/s that use us as cpu's. 

Quote

4.  Does this mean that people who engage in prayer are trying to bother the Developers?  Does it work?  What do you want the Devs to change?

If life is a simulation (a fantasy world) then those gods are as real as they believe them to be. Doesn't mean talking to the dev's of the universe will do anything. 

Quote

5.  There is the distinct likelihood that if mathematics works in this simulated reality, that it actually works in the higher reality we are based on.  But what about the anthropic principle?  Are there universes which have lower difficulties we can play in?  You know, where obesity isn't a thing, FTL travel is easier to figure out, and perpetual motion engines can work?

Perhaps math only works because we believe it does, thus conforming reality too it. 

Quote

6.  Does this simulation have a central plot? If so, what is it?  If you don't interact with it, are you losing the game?

Collective plot? Doubt it. Individual plot certainly. We can't help but interact with it. 

Quote

7.  What do you consider the best proof that we are living in a simulation?

8.  What do you consider the best proof that we are NOT living in a simulation?

Best proof either way? None. In many ways I view the simulation theory as just a 'scientific version of god did it'. 

Edited July 28 by XenoFish

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

9.  Add your own topic.

10.) What is Consciousness, and what is the experiencer of the simulation?

In Advaita Vedanta (non-dual=God and creation are not two), the universe is actually a grand thought-form of the One Consciousness. So, would that be termed a 'simulation'? The 'experiencer' would be individual rays of the One Consciousness temporarily in the ignorance of separate sensation.

[L.A.T.1961]

I think this idea is my favorite when trying to explain the unexplainable.

For me it is the equivalent of a unified field theory for the paranormal.

It simplifies the problem of trying to explain individual phenomenon with customised causes.

Could a simulation be created by chance? a continuous trial and error mechanism that finally arrives at a stable solution but using a simulation to some degree.

Are simulation universes more likely to exist if they are more likely to be stable? increasing the chances that we are in such a universe.

So no God or intelligent creator but a random physical construct, operating from the first instant of the universes creation with it's original laws and a simulation framework.

I don't think the idea of a simulation has to be tied in to a grand plan that requires it to be designed by something. 

[Piney]

39 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In Advaita Vedanta (non-dual=God and creation are not two), the universe is actually a grand thought-form of the One Consciousness.

You could just say "in pantheism the Universe is the Creative Spirit". 

[papageorge1]

38 minutes ago, Piney said:

You could just say "in pantheism the Universe is the Creative Spirit". 

Perhaps that can be made to be the same, but Advaita Vedanta is the name of the philosophy I came to understand these things and am comfortable with.

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Perhaps that can be made to be the same, but Advaita Vedanta is the name of the philosophy I came to understand these things and am comfortable with.

It is the same.

The same in Buddhism, Shintoism, Turkic-Mongolian/Korean Shamanism,Algonquian and Lakota tradition and Vodou. 

Advaita Vedanta doesn't hold the corner in pantheism. 

But it's just plain pantheism none the less. 

[Alchopwn]

On 7/28/2024 at 9:38 PM, ouija ouija said:

I would like to 9. 'Add your own topic', which is: 'What happens when you over-think things and don't get out in company enough?'.

 

 

just kidding, of course!

Hey !  Whaddya mean?  When I'm out in company, I am keeping this stuff running in the back of my brain as a sub-routine.  It totally never affects my personal interactions.  I just let it percolate around and then regurgitate it for my little baby birds right on this forum. 🤮😝  Exclusive content !

Edited July 31 by Alchopwn

[Alchopwn]

On 7/28/2024 at 10:26 PM, XenoFish said:

Our experience of the objective reality is through a subjective mental model of it. One that is constructed out of sensory information. Due to the sheer number of stimuli we only consciously process a finite amount of this information. Basically the 'simulation' is just a 'reality tunnel'. 

Well, that's a pretty Robert Anton Wilson approach, but a lot of fine minds have reached quite different conclusions with the same information.  We should probably be taking Simulationism seriously, imo, if only to be very certain of our ground when we dismiss it.

[Alchopwn]

On 7/29/2024 at 2:04 AM, papageorge1 said:

10.) What is Consciousness, and what is the experiencer of the simulation?

In Advaita Vedanta (non-dual=God and creation are not two), the universe is actually a grand thought-form of the One Consciousness. So, would that be termed a 'simulation'? The 'experiencer' would be individual rays of the One Consciousness temporarily in the ignorance of separate sensation.

To my thinking, this view of God is quite unacceptable papageorge1, which is not to abuse you in any way, as you raise it in a sensible context.  It is the idea I take issue with.  Allow me to explain...

If there is a non-Dual God behind creation, then why is it creating?  Why is this God creating a fantasy world for fantasy figments of its imagination to exist and suffer in?  This is no the behavior of an awakened and enlightened being.  This enforced delusion is a cruelty to billions of the created beings.  Now think a little deeper...

Why would a delusional entity, be creating an imperfect reality this way?  Is it perhaps trapped in a terrible void for all eternity?  Does it torture us out of sheer boredom?  Does this sound like a God or something else entirely?

This argument, and several others, as well as a lack of personal experience of deities are why I don't really accept the existence of a God.  But then, how do we even define what a deity is?

You are however quite correct to raise this version of the God Hypothesis.  During the European Medieval period, we first hear about the Mind of God expressed as a mathematical expression.  And what did the monks call the Mind of God?  The Matrix.

Edited July 31 by Alchopwn

[XenoFish]

31 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Well, that's a pretty Robert Anton Wilson approach, but a lot of fine minds have reached quite different conclusions with the same information.  We should probably be taking Simulationism seriously, imo, if only to be very certain of our ground when we dismiss it.

It's the current mental model I enjoy. 

[papageorge1]

5 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

To my thinking, this view of God is quite unacceptable papageorge1, which is not to abuse you in any way, as you raise it in a sensible context.  It is the idea I take issue with.  Allow me to explain...

If there is a non-Dual God behind creation, then why is it creating?  Why is this God creating a fantasy world for fantasy figments of its imagination to exist and suffer in?  This is no the behavior of an awakened and enlightened being.  This enforced delusion is a cruelty to billions of the created beings.  Now think a little deeper...

Why would a delusional entity, be creating an imperfect reality this way?  Is it perhaps trapped in a terrible void for all eternity?  Does it torture us out of sheer boredom?  Does this sound like a God or something else entirely?

This argument, and several others, as well as a lack of personal experience of deities are why I don't really accept the existence of a God.  But then, how do we even define what a deity is?

You are however quite correct to raise this version of the God Hypothesis.  During the European Medieval period, we first hear about the Mind of God expressed as a mathematical expression.  And what did the monks call the Mind of God?  The Matrix.

In the philosophy I am discussing (Advaita Vedanta) the universe is seen as a great play/drama in which Brahman (God, the One Consciousness) separates Himself from Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II. It is play with a happy ending for all with much joy/suffering/drama in the middle scenes.

Why? = To experience the positive experience of going from separate ego ignorance to full Oneness.

Why do humans create plays/drama with no practical purpose? =To Experience

[Abramelin]

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In the philosophy I am discussing (Advaita Vedanta) the universe is seen as a great play/drama in which Brahman (God, the One Consciousness) separates Himself from Himself in Act I and returns Himself to Himself in Act II. It is play with a happy ending for all with much joy/suffering/drama in the middle scenes.

Why? = To experience the positive experience of going from separate ego ignorance to full Oneness.

Why do humans create plays/drama with no practical purpose? =To Experience

"The physicists now are all certain, he said, that all the known processes in nature were once part of a single, unified force."  Kinderman paused and then spoke more quietly. "I believe that this force was a person who long ago tore himself into pieces because of his longing to shape his own being. That was the Fall", he said, the 'Big Bang': the beginning of time and the material universe when the one became many - legion. And that is why God cannot interfere: evolution is this person growing back into himself."

The sergeant's face was a crinkle of puzzlement. "Who is this person?" he asked the detective.

"Can't you guess?"  Kinderman's eyes were alive and smiling. "I have given you most of the clues long before."

Atkins shook his head and waited for the answer.

"We are the Fallen Angel", said Kinderman. "We are the Bearer of Light. We are Lucifer."

 

From William Peter Blatty's  Legion.

[MrsGently]

On 7/28/2024 at 1:09 PM, Alchopwn said:

The aim here is to open up the topic of Simulationism to some peer review 

By now, everyone is likely to have encountered the idea of Simulationism.  For those tiny few who have not (and on this forum, if you have not, the whole issue of how you have avoided the idea is a topic in itself imho),  then it is like the Matrix movie idea that we live in a computer generated reality, so realistic that it is not discernable from the original reality the simulation is based on.  So, we are potentially interacting with a reality that seems completely real, but is in fact a fake.

The ramifications of this are potentially huge, on the proviso that it is true.  I mean, suddenly all the supernatural things people encounter are far more explicable.  For all we know, this simulated reality has a magic system that accounts for the strange things that occur... Or they are glitches?  Certainly the Mandela Effect becomes a lot more explicable, as details are changed and edited retrospectively, or even altered for some reason that is not known to the general public.  This also potentially interreacts with the Many Parallel Alternate Realities ideas put forwards in Physics.

I mean, if we are presently experiencing a simulation, I totally understand what I am doing here.  I am always super eager to play games of that kind.  In fact, one of my own first "Simulationist moments" came while playing World of Warcraft, and despairing over the "spawn" model that was used to simply bring new interactable creatures into being within the simulated world of Azeroth.  I was looking at a murlock randomly misting into being or "respawning", and I realized that this was very similar to the idea of reality that Aristotle proposed, where "rats are spontaneously generated by the proximity of grain".  Now, mostly people dismiss Aristotle on this issue and wonder how he could have reached such a bizarre conclusion, given that he had at least some idea of sexual procreation generating humans and other animals.  Then again, perhaps he was simply playing an earlier, less realistic, and less complex version of our simulation?

It is also a bit of a give-away that we refer to game designers as "Devs" which is only a short linguistic distance from Devas (Hindu deities), and from the Divine.

Anyhow, see how you enjoy the following Simulationism questions. Treat them as potential discussion points, if you like, or offer your own.

1.  If we are in a simulation, is Big Foot a glitch or an Easter egg? 

2.  If we are in a simulation, how do we leave?  Can we leave?  I mean, if we are sprites like the sims, perhaps we can't leave? 

3.  There have been a lot of reasons for a simulated reality to exist:  (a) as a means of storing consciousnesses for people awaiting medical procedures (b) it is some sort of trap  (c)  it is some sort of training exercise  (d) our civilization actually collapsed catastrophically, and we are being stored and rescued (e) we are the playthings of higher intelligences.  Do you have other theories?

4.  Does this mean that people who engage in prayer are trying to bother the Developers?  Does it work?  What do you want the Devs to change?

5.  There is the distinct likelihood that if mathematics works in this simulated reality, that it actually works in the higher reality we are based on.  But what about the anthropic principle?  Are there universes which have lower difficulties we can play in?  You know, where obesity isn't a thing, FTL travel is easier to figure out, and perpetual motion engines can work?

6.  Does this simulation have a central plot? If so, what is it?  If you don't interact with it, are you losing the game?

7.  What do you consider the best proof that we are living in a simulation?

8.  What do you consider the best proof that we are NOT living in a simulation?

9.  Add your own topic.

The only spit-ball you need to destroy SimulationT is: *drumroll* mass

Things wouldn't have mass if they were part of a simulation especially since it developed out of holographic universe theory. So I decided I won't bother with it.

Interestingly though, but don't try to nail me down on where I've found that bit, but the only place were the holographic theory might be useful in a way to describe what is happening is at the event horizon of a Black Hole. as that is where we imagine the spaghetti effect to set in, when you're stretched thin between the singularity approaching core of the Black Hole and the infinity approaching universe.

But as I said holographic shenannigans that's just one aspect of Black Holes encorporated inside the entire universe where we have mass and by this can tell the two "modes of existence" apart.

[L.A.T.1961]

48 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

The only spit-ball you need to destroy SimulationT is: *drumroll* mass

Things wouldn't have mass if they were part of a simulation especially since it developed out of holographic universe theory. So I decided I won't bother with it.

Interestingly though, but don't try to nail me down on where I've found that bit, but the only place were the holographic theory might be useful in a way to describe what is happening is at the event horizon of a Black Hole. as that is where we imagine the spaghetti effect to set in, when you're stretched thin between the singularity approaching core of the Black Hole and the infinity approaching universe.

But as I said holographic shenannigans that's just one aspect of Black Holes encorporated inside the entire universe where we have mass and by this can tell the two "modes of existence" apart.

I don't see why inertia and gravity cannot be simulated in a simulation so taking mass into account.

Video games can include this so why not a bigger universe.

There are no design limits to an environment that could be created in a sim. 

[MrsGently]

2 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I don't see why inertia and gravity cannot be simulated in a simulation so taking mass into account.

Video games can include this so why not a bigger universe.

There are no design limits to an environment that could be created in a sim. 

Well because video games include rules on how things have to behave to make it appear as if gravity would exist. There's no actual gravity anywhere in a game.

Gravity is actually one of those things, we don't really understand why mass attracts mass. Thought models sure but for Einstein's idea to really make sense you need first a sheet of space-time the mass can float on, but "observed" has that so far not really been by anyone. We detected some gravity-waves, that's not the same though.

And that's exactly the crux of the matter, our universe mostly emerges out of stuff interacting with other stuff,  simulation is just projection of information running on rules but basically no interactions. And that's also just objectively not how anything works from what we can observe.

[L.A.T.1961]

On 7/31/2024 at 7:28 PM, MrsGently said:

Well because video games include rules on how things have to behave to make it appear as if gravity would exist. There's no actual gravity anywhere in a game.

 

But there is a conundrum there, if a sim allows the same actions and it appears to behave the same, following a mathematical/ physical model, how do we tell it apart?

Sim gravity would look indistinguishable from what we call today real life analogue gravity and no test we could do would expose it as different.

The only way we might see around the edges of a sim is if the rules only apply up to particular scales of distance, mass and other universal constants.

At such scales it might not be important for these things to be as accurately reproduced for the sim to operate well enough to be stable? 

So a sim would eventually show itself up by its own inconstancies.  

[MrsGently]

1 hour ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

But there is a conundrum there, if a sim allows the same actions and it appears to behave the same, following a mathematical/ physical model, how do we tell it apart?

Sim gravity would look indistinguishable from what we call today real life analogue gravity and no test we could do would expose it as different.

The only way we might see around the edges of a sim is if the rules only apply up to particular scales of distance, mass and other universal constants.

At such scales it might not be important for these things to be as accurately reproduced for the sim to operate well enough to be stable? 

So a sim would eventually show itself up by its own inconstancies.  

Kind of I guess. A simulation would contain plenty of duplicates also sthg the real universe doesn't have.

[XenoFish]