Crazy Theories of Reality

[AndyC]

I can't be bothered to write anything. This thread particularly directed towards Ni-dom users, what 'crazy' abstract theories have you come up with? Other's should share too.

 

[QuickTwist]

I was talking about this in discord awhile ago.

I think there is a kind of intent behind evolution. Once life existed, it sent things on a course. This course is lead by intent of evolution itself otherwise known as determinism.

I don't think this is a metaphysical thing necessarily, but it could be. Basically I believe that there is a guiding force behind the random chance of evolution and determinism. It would be kinda like a guiding hand gently nudging life along, but only when it starts to get a tiny bit off course. I think of it like bumpers in bowling. Then its just a matter of a simple nudge to set it back on track. I don't think 'it' does this with a particular end in mind, it just keeps things going and advancing. Given that life still exists and hasn't died out for as long as life has existed on this planet I can only see that some... thing is keeping life going. I imagine there are countless planets or other places where life did exist, but ended relatively quickly into its inception. Something is different about earth. I can only see the reason that life still exists on earth is not due to chance, but that the universe wills it - it wants life to be on earth. Maybe the reason there is still life on earth is because of how unspectacular we are rather than us being special in some way. When thinking about all the crazy shit that must be in the universe, I can't help but think that life isn't actually that impressive. I mean, think about the formation of a star or a black hole or other really weird shit. That stuff is way more interesting than what these mechanical things with body tissue do. I mean, we don't know a fraction of the cool shit that happens in the universe. There is stuff way more complex than life in the universe.

Back to my point. I think there is purpose in the universe if for nothing else, to and in itself. It by definition gives itself purpose in existing. Life is just a small fraction of what is happening in the universe, but it too has a purpose to and in itself. I imagine there are key occurrences in the universe and that life is one of the more specific things and we don't know how many of these specific things there are or how specific things actually get. We know there are a shit ton of stars, that's another occurrence that is not as specific as life. Stars and planets are like the bassline of the universe - things build off that. Then you have shit that occurs far less often than stars and planets. I couldn't begin to guess what kind of things those could be. There could be something that only occurs in the universe once, but I don't think it is life. Maybe something like time distorting fields or worm holes or the creation of these things, IDK. Things that manipulate shit is way more interesting than life because life has very limited control over things since they are simply "visiting" a place or host. But there could literally be life that makes up the size of a solar system and is just doing its own thing in space. But the universe itself could be conscious, and I think it is depending on how you look at it. I think how it would be possible to determine if the universe is conscious is if it seems to work together within its parts in some way. For us to be able to observe that we would have to be alive for quite a while. maybe that is our purpose? Maybe life's purpose is to discover the outside purpose of the universe from within? Maybe that is why the universe wills life - so that eventually conscious thought within the universe can be conscious of the universe's consciousness.

/Dumb ramblings

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Science comes no where near giving a comprehensive picture of reality as experienced by humans (and probably the rest of life). It is therefore necessary to supplement the rationalist viewpoint with a spiritual one, or rather to have a mindset which captures both - and even then, I would say that the spiritual is more important. Our minds are linked up and communicate on psychic levels, and we communicate not only with each other, but with everything in our environment. It is possible even to influence a computer just through the power of thought, and in the future we will realise just how much the human mind can do and be boggled that we hadn't known about it earlier - that surely people had experimented with it and got real results, yet it remained unknown? And I have barely scratched the surface of what we are capable of, but in the future we will all seem like geniuses compared to what we are now. We will begin to harness our true potential by tapping into what we already know on a subconscious level, but being able to easily bring it to conscious awareness.

The way in which things are linked up means that all kinds of bizarre coincidences occur in a way that seems almost miraculous given a statistical means of understanding - of course, it is only statistical in the sense of not taking into account the full picture of what is occurring, so correctly reasons from a simplistic model, but that model is incorrect (AndyC, I've seen you use the term 'bayesian', which is relevant here). It operates on something like the law of attraction - that like will be attracted to like on a very profound level, and so all kinds of things will co-occur that seem impossible almost to happen by chance, but it is reality.

Our minds operate in tandem with quantum mechanical principles, and as such the future and the past are not uniquely determined, but exist as probabilistic distributions (although, due to entropy, the past is "more" determined) however, it is not chance but a true manifestation of the freedom of will inherent to all existence which allows us - in our particular instance of the universe - along a definitely chosen path. When a smaller entity is put into contact with a higher entity, the whole system tends to operate as a singular whole, and this is the reason for the observer effect, and also for group psychological phenomena.

What is important to know, is that in order for humanity to progress and tap into our full potential, we have to overcome the pettiness of selfishness and ignorance, and to set our mind to higher goals. We will co-exist more peacefully, with a mindset of understanding, and there will be no concept of retribution but only of helping each other to help each other. And I realise when I write this that this is motivated by the function of Fe, and so there are other modes of understanding what is necessary for transcendence to higher states, and ultimately it will involve everyone enlightening each other while retaining their independence as individuals. Love is the potion which will set us free. Love for ourselves, for each other, for nature, and for the unknown which is beyond what we have experienced. For when we love, we affirm existence, and when we affirm rather than attempting to destroy that which we do not understand, we allow ourselves to operate as a peaceful holistic system, and that means all the parts benefit. We have lost a lot in our modern pursuits, but we have gained in other ways, and it is for the future that we will come to realise this potential.

And you know what? Maybe humanity won't survive. Maybe we'll be destroyed sooner than later. But you know what else? That won't be the end of us. Because we exist in a spiritual manner, i.e. as spirits, and when/if humanity ends, all that was achieved up until that point won't be gone to waste, but the potential manifest within will be opened up and the stage will simply become intangible. We are the whole planet evolving, and we are only one stage in that. Ultimately the way of things is beyond what any of us can comprehend.

But you know what else? As large a scale as all of this is occurring on, that does not detract from the sacredness of our individual experience. We are like a whole universe, experiencing itself from within, we are made in the image of the creator, and so we are creation and creators simultaneously, which means that we have all of the potential within us that is contained in the whole of existence, in its own set of proportions. And it is our positioning in a larger system that allows that unity of mind to give itself meaning, but we are perfect - and perfect because we are imperfect, always striving - and need only realise that what we are, this world we experience, is the totality and ends as well as the tiniest of means and fraction of the greater. It is all positively wonderful and to know the wonder that is existence, to affirm all by loving all, just as it is, is the meaning of it all, the purpose.

That's all for now!

 

[Black Rose]

HAL 9000 was predicted in the 1969 movie (2001: A Space Odyssey).
I believe that one of the intelligence agencies achieved HAL level A.I. on that date.
We are all being simulated at CERN, the headquarter for the backup internet.
I have evidence that Interpol was recruiting for a new director on a forum I visit.
When I was in elementary school I would watch the cartoon show sherlock holmes in the twenty-second century. Sherlock Holmes worked for Interpol.

 

[onesteptwostep]

This is going to sound weird, but there was a point in my life where I thought everyone was in a competition to be the alpha male. Like people would emit alpha waves out of their head and then they would be fighting over who would be the alpha male within that space. Basically the being that has the highest or strongest alpha male would become a deity of some sort. Naturally, I thought I was strong.

Insanity, I know.

Another theory I have, one concerning religion, is that the account in Genesis is actually an account of the first theoretical person who achieved consciousness. It's not really a true account per say, but more like how a being (some primate) achieve consciousness somehow. Red usually means poison in the animal world, but eating the apple made them realize that the apple wasn't poisonous at all, so voila, knowledge happens. Maybe it's even possible to think that the first apple which mutated into a red one allowed this to happen.

 

[QuickTwist]

This is going to sound weird, but there was a point in my life where I thought everyone was in a competition to be the alpha male. Like people would emit alpha waves out of their head and then they would be fighting over who would be the alpha male within that space. Basically the being that has the highest or strongest alpha male would become a deity of some sort. Naturally, I thought I was strong.

Insanity, I know.

Another theory I have, one concerning religion, is that the account in Genesis is actually an account of the first theoretical person who achieved consciousness. It's not really a true account per say, but more like how a being (some primate) achieve consciousness somehow. Red usually means poison in the animal world, but eating the apple made them realize that the apple wasn't poisonous at all, so voila, knowledge happens.

Its a myth that it was an apple. In fact, its incredibly vague what the fruit even was.

 

[onesteptwostep]

The entire thing is a myth lol. But myths have their origns somehow. Not too sure what though. If we knew we probably would have a more empirical based religion.

 

[QuickTwist]

The entire thing is a myth lol. But myths have their origns somehow. Not too sure what though. If we knew we probably would have a more empirical based religion.

Nah, too easy.

 

[JR_IsP]

I think that living in a computer simulation is possible, in fact, for me once, it was a mathematic certainty. I actually wrote and essay about it, it's called the Domes theorem.

Let's first begin with the very first advanced enough civilization of the universe. And suppose they created a simulated universe, (or at least a planet)... what would happen if that simulated universe creates another simulation inside? Two simulated civilization would rise.

And since we can't determine if we are the very civilization or some simulation in the depths of old dying universes, which one is more likely?

Think about it for a while. It's more likely for us to be simulated than being the original ones.

----------------------------

Another crazy reality theory? It's also possible for you (and the whole world) to be a product of my imagination. What if I'm dreaming and in that dream I created a whole world? Some would say: you can't create a world in a dream! But, did I? I only know little people, and online chats could be random manifestations of my subconscious. Creepy, uh?

---------------------------

But, does it even matter? After writing the first essay (I wrote it with a friend of mine) I realized that it doesn't matter if we are living a real reality or a fake one, after all, reality is real for us, right?

Right?

*awakes in the middle of nowhere*

 

[QuickTwist]

I think that living in a computer simulation is possible, in fact, for me once, it was a mathematic certainty. I actually wrote and essay about it, it's called the Domes theorem.

Let's first begin with the very first advanced enough civilization of the universe. And suppose they created a simulated universe, (or at least a planet)... what would happen if that simulated universe creates another simulation inside? Two simulated civilization would rise.

And since we can't determine if we are the very civilization or some simulation in the depths of old dying universes, which one is more likely?

Think about it for a while. It's more likely for us to be simulated than being the original ones.

----------------------------

Another crazy reality theory? It's also possible for you (and the whole world) to be a product of my imagination. What if I'm dreaming and in that dream I created a whole world? Some would say: you can't create a world in a dream! But, did I? I only know little people, and online chats could be random manifestations of my subconscious. Creepy, uh?

---------------------------

But, does it even matter? After writing the first essay (I wrote it with a friend of mine) I realized that it doesn't matter if we are living a real reality or a fake one, after all, reality is real for us, right?

Right?

*awakes in the middle of nowhere*

Clearly we are just a computer simulation made in case something happens to the real reality.

 

[Rixus]

From a probability perspective, the idea of layers of a sim makes sense. Avoiding the question of why, one has to ask the question of how and whether it would even be possible to maintain it. Let's say a species capable of such a feat were capable of harnessing the full power of their home star - a Dyson Sphere. Or, go the whole hog and build a Dyson Sphere around a whole galaxy (as mechanically impossible as this seems).

OK, so if they are capable of such an advanced sim as our reality and to give sentience to each simulated creature within that reality, they are far beyond our technical ability. But let's say they are using quantum computers networked on a grand scale across that whole galaxy. Still, there's only so much information that could possibly be processed within that given environment. The computational power would be utterly immense. And there's only so small it could get before each sub atomic particle within the computer system was actively processing. Especially given that in that theory, the sim would conform to the reality we see. And we can see that even on the sub atomic level, the information that would be required to process this reality would be incredible - and now imagine this on the scale of the universe we see? And if every particle's behaviour had to be individually processed to achieve the complexity we have observed, would there need to be a 1:1 ratio between how many particles it could compute and how many particles it took to do the computing since every part of that particle has to be utilised in order to compute an entire particle?

OK, but this advanced civilisation is far beyond us. So it achieves all of this and buildfs the machine within a Dyson Sphere of a whole galaxy. And the system processes nearly 14bn years of data before the next level of the sim is created. Is this being processed in real time? Because if so, this computer is so ancient that the galaxy it was built within are at least radically different, if not collapsed. Because by then we're talking about a 28bn year old universe. And the cycle continues. How many levels are built before the heat death of the original universe occurs? How long before there is no power within the top level universe?

If each level is a sim within a sim, then it must be processed physically in the real world somewhere. And that means that each level adds an order of magnitude onto the computational power requirements of the original top level universe. How many levels before it goes beyond what it was built for? The original creators will be long gone if we are processed in real time, and the computer isn't being maintained.

And if we are not and it all happened in a timescale observable to the top level universe creators - then it would create new levels within itself fast enough that no matter how powerful this computer was it would crash soon from being over strained and either shut down or just overheated and exploded like a gigantic hypernova. And surely if the entire galaxy is cocooned within a Dyson Sphere, the heat generated within the system as power is converted into energy would gradually build up, so you would have this massive system the size of a galaxy overheating.

And why would you build a galaxy sized computer just to see how much it could take before it destroyed itself?

 

[Black Rose]

Rixus,

In order to create accurate models, we need to eliminate impossible scenarios from our calculations. This means such things as the moon can be cut down to only a few variables. Calculations need only take place to find the minimal equation to represent any entity in the simulation. Quantum computers can be used to find out things that classical computers cannot. Such as the traveling salesman problem. This can be used to find the most likely path an entity has taken with minimal calculation. Just like GPS can triangulate people's position on earth, big data can track people in time. We don't need a Dyson sphere. All we need is Jupiter.

 

[INTPWolf]

From a probability perspective, the idea of layers of a sim makes sense. Avoiding the question of why, one has to ask the question of how and whether it would even be possible to maintain it. Let's say a species capable of such a feat were capable of harnessing the full power of their home star - a Dyson Sphere. Or, go the whole hog and build a Dyson Sphere around a whole galaxy (as mechanically impossible as this seems).

OK, so if they are capable of such an advanced sim as our reality and to give sentience to each simulated creature within that reality, they are far beyond our technical ability. But let's say they are using quantum computers networked on a grand scale across that whole galaxy. Still, there's only so much information that could possibly be processed within that given environment. The computational power would be utterly immense. And there's only so small it could get before each sub atomic particle within the computer system was actively processing. Especially given that in that theory, the sim would conform to the reality we see. And we can see that even on the sub atomic level, the information that would be required to process this reality would be incredible - and now imagine this on the scale of the universe we see? And if every particle's behaviour had to be individually processed to achieve the complexity we have observed, would there need to be a 1:1 ratio between how many particles it could compute and how many particles it took to do the computing since every part of that particle has to be utilised in order to compute an entire particle?

OK, but this advanced civilisation is far beyond us. So it achieves all of this and buildfs the machine within a Dyson Sphere of a whole galaxy. And the system processes nearly 14bn years of data before the next level of the sim is created. Is this being processed in real time? Because if so, this computer is so ancient that the galaxy it was built within are at least radically different, if not collapsed. Because by then we're talking about a 28bn year old universe. And the cycle continues. How many levels are built before the heat death of the original universe occurs? How long before there is no power within the top level universe?

If each level is a sim within a sim, then it must be processed physically in the real world somewhere. And that means that each level adds an order of magnitude onto the computational power requirements of the original top level universe. How many levels before it goes beyond what it was built for? The original creators will be long gone if we are processed in real time, and the computer isn't being maintained.

And if we are not and it all happened in a timescale observable to the top level universe creators - then it would create new levels within itself fast enough that no matter how powerful this computer was it would crash soon from being over strained and either shut down or just overheated and exploded like a gigantic hypernova. And surely if the entire galaxy is cocooned within a Dyson Sphere, the heat generated within the system as power is converted into energy would gradually build up, so you would have this massive system the size of a galaxy overheating.

And why would you build a galaxy sized computer just to see how much it could take before it destroyed itself?

All of this yes.
But i have something to add.
If another reality we are just a simulation, would we have the same laws of physics as the above simulating world,or is some part of our world simplified?
I play fallout, the denizens exist inside a world that our our current technology can process, with limited physics and ai.
Are we the denizens of a similarly simplified world? With AI conscious minds limited to understand how our world works?

 

[QuickTwist]

From a probability perspective, the idea of layers of a sim makes sense. Avoiding the question of why, one has to ask the question of how and whether it would even be possible to maintain it. Let's say a species capable of such a feat were capable of harnessing the full power of their home star - a Dyson Sphere. Or, go the whole hog and build a Dyson Sphere around a whole galaxy (as mechanically impossible as this seems).

OK, so if they are capable of such an advanced sim as our reality and to give sentience to each simulated creature within that reality, they are far beyond our technical ability. But let's say they are using quantum computers networked on a grand scale across that whole galaxy. Still, there's only so much information that could possibly be processed within that given environment. The computational power would be utterly immense. And there's only so small it could get before each sub atomic particle within the computer system was actively processing. Especially given that in that theory, the sim would conform to the reality we see. And we can see that even on the sub atomic level, the information that would be required to process this reality would be incredible - and now imagine this on the scale of the universe we see? And if every particle's behaviour had to be individually processed to achieve the complexity we have observed, would there need to be a 1:1 ratio between how many particles it could compute and how many particles it took to do the computing since every part of that particle has to be utilised in order to compute an entire particle?

OK, but this advanced civilisation is far beyond us. So it achieves all of this and buildfs the machine within a Dyson Sphere of a whole galaxy. And the system processes nearly 14bn years of data before the next level of the sim is created. Is this being processed in real time? Because if so, this computer is so ancient that the galaxy it was built within are at least radically different, if not collapsed. Because by then we're talking about a 28bn year old universe. And the cycle continues. How many levels are built before the heat death of the original universe occurs? How long before there is no power within the top level universe?

If each level is a sim within a sim, then it must be processed physically in the real world somewhere. And that means that each level adds an order of magnitude onto the computational power requirements of the original top level universe. How many levels before it goes beyond what it was built for? The original creators will be long gone if we are processed in real time, and the computer isn't being maintained.

And if we are not and it all happened in a timescale observable to the top level universe creators - then it would create new levels within itself fast enough that no matter how powerful this computer was it would crash soon from being over strained and either shut down or just overheated and exploded like a gigantic hypernova. And surely if the entire galaxy is cocooned within a Dyson Sphere, the heat generated within the system as power is converted into energy would gradually build up, so you would have this massive system the size of a galaxy overheating.

And why would you build a galaxy sized computer just to see how much it could take before it destroyed itself?

You mention that space doesn't have to be a 1:1 ratio. Why not time as well?

 

[INTPWolf]

So along that same thought.

Electro Magnetic spirals?

If you take a one dimensional ray connected at one end to a vertex, and apply a two dimensional force to all points on the line perpendicular to each points relative position to the vertex. The points closest to the vertex will obit more often than points further away.
You end up with a spiral.
Take many of these spiral vertices and throw them all together in a three dimensional a sandbox. The spiraling points on the line, pushing pulling and colliding, will align vertices at the poles to create rings, these rings will then have north and south poles of spirals moving in on one side and out on the other.
This creates a torus of constantly recycling and self perpetuating energy.

Now take 3 dimensional wire made of many vertices with weak spirals and no cohesive structure, and move the wire through a spiralling torus, the smaller spirals will be temporarily forced to align pole to pole. As long as each pole is attached to another in a loop then cohesion can be achieved.

Resistance to the spiral cohesion causes spirals to collide. Bumped and jostled around, and at a certain level of resistance, the vertex will break free of its position and move away from resisting spirals. The spiral becomes compressed one one side and decompressed on the other. When this happens there becomes an imbalance, and a wave is created.

Whereas Electromagnetic Radiation, ie; light, is a wave. Or an imbalance spreading outward attempting to reach a state of balance through entropy.

As boiled down as i could make it not using any science terms.
This was the idea i had when raking leaves into lines at work.

 

[Rixus]

@Animekitty - I was expecting someone to see it that way. When we render a virtual world (let's take an open world RPG as an example), the GPU renders only that which is on the screen and visible to the player. Only the area in which we are in is loaded, while in most cases anywhere outside of the immediate vicinity are simply stored and a bunch of variables saved for loading later on. If something in one area affects another - this data is simply passed to those saved variables. Surely this simulation we are a part of could be done the same way to save on computational power?

I do not believe this is so if we are to take the idea of the reality in which we live being a sim. If we are the AI's, then why do we need to exist at all times if it for benefit of the player? If we can accept that we all exist at all times and are not simply loaded up when required, then we accept that the simulation is for our benefit as the AI's and not for any "player". In this world where everything is loaded and rendered only for our benefit, is it only for human benefit or for the benefit of animal AI's too? How far down the evolutionary chain does that extend? Was this Earth in the sim created just for us to exist in recently (ala Genesis) or has it evolved as the natural process that science believes? Is everything not within our immediate visual awareness simply not there unless we are?

I believe that if such a sim existed, it would be created more like a natural sim to allow for a universe to evolve completely within it's own virtual environment in order to produce the complexity that we can see around us - either on Earth or in space. All laws of physics were set at the start and allowed to progress without interference in an experiment in which all matter was accounted for at the start. If I zoomed in to my desk, I believe I'd see first the microbes then the atomic structure of the wood, and that it was there in that small structure all along. And if this is the case (and we have no evidence that it is not and all evidence suggests it is), then the computer at the core of this sim has to be computing the behaviour of each and every atom that we see around us. And in order to produce the correct glitch free interactions of all things great and small, this has to be done on a truly grand scale. The moon must exist in it's entirety whether we are on it or not. All stars and star systems must exist along with their galaxies in order for it to be so observable.

And, even if we accept that all that humanity cannot witness directly exists, it still doesn't override the problem that no matter how powerful you build the machine at the top level, each subsequent level of the sim must be processed in the physical world somewhere. And that somewhere has to be the machine at the top level in the real world. Which again means that each level adds more strain upon the top level - and no machine has infinite capabilities so eventually it cannot handle another level of complexity. Not to mention that as this universe grows, it grows in complexity all the time.

@INTPWolf - I see no real reason why not. The real world outside of the sim could have more complex forms of physics - when the rapid expansion of the universe occurred, several other dimensions did not unfold like the 4 (possibly 5) we see around us, which led to them being flat and not part of our physics in any meaningful way. Perhaps in that way, processing a less complex world is easier in a universe where after length, width, height and time there are more dimensions to consider. And perhaps our minds simply can't handle an understanding of what it would be like.

@QuickTwist - I believe time would have to also be held in a 1:1 ratio for this to work in that way. If it took every particle in the machine to calculate every particle, it would only be possible to do this at the base time. Unfortunately, there is no base time in our universe due to time dilation - all points have a slightly different time reference. Which also leads to the problem of what happens when the universe at the top sim dies. What happens after the heat death of the universe? What happens after all matter collapses into multiple singularities? Or even if this machine at the top survives all that, what happens after protons themselves degrade to the point where matter cannot exist - which will happen one day. In a few hundred trillion years, but it will happen.

 

[Black Rose]

Rixus,

The constraints do limit when a sim will take place but not the complexity. It may take time to properly construct the models of past humans that have died before running them. And even then we would not be able to run a sim containing every H2O molecule in the ocean. You must look at this from the scale at wich the sim creates accurate models before running. for instance, if we have the DNA of every human being on earth (doable by the 2030's) We can know what the DNA of the first human's tribes were with a measurement of accuracy. Problem is that we need a grid to locate in 4D where they were and what they did before running any simulation. We first model humans and then run mini sims to check for errors, then correct the models for accuracy. Once we have total accuracy the sims run non-stop. The near past is easier to model than the far past just because we have more data regarding it. But we can trace back those models when making current sims accurate.

 

[Rixus]

Rixus,

The constraints do limit when a sim will take place but not the complexity. It may take time to properly construct the models of past humans that have died before running them. And even then we would not be able to run a sim containing every H2O molecule in the ocean. You must look at this from the scale at wich the sim creates accurate models before running. for instance, if we have the DNA of every human being on earth (doable by the 2030's) We can know what the DNA of the first human's tribes were with a measurement of accuracy. Problem is that we need a grid to locate in 4D where they were and what they did before running any simulation. We first model humans and then run mini sims to check for errors, then correct the models for accuracy. Once we have total accuracy the sims run non-stop. The near past is easier to model than the far past just because we have more data regarding it. But we can trace back those models when making current sims accurate.

I think it depends on purpose. If you're talking about a virtual world we could visit for entertainment, then I'd totally agree. Perhaps a huge cinematic universe we could both view and visit.

But I was thinking about the concept of the reality in which we live being a virtual universe with all of us being solely virtual beings. I think in that context, this would be more like the simulations astro physicists run to observe how things like star formation occur. Running such simulations has, for example, allowed us to account for the previously unexplained odd existence of PMOs. Such a simulation rub on a grand scale would allow for the natural evolution of the universe that we see around us, without having to accept that the things we cannot directly observe don't exist while we're not viewing them - which in my mind is the only way to explain why we are all present at all times if we are not real.

 

[Black Rose]

I think that all you need is a local simulation because as I said we cannot simulate every molecule of water in the ocean. We cannot simulate every atom in the universe. We can only approximate our local system. We may be able to map all galaxies in the universe but never every atom in every star. The resolution necessary for human perception is not that high I think. Real-time physics simulation does not require a Dyson sphere. Perhaps several computers ten kilometers cubed buried in various places on earth. If we look into the sky then the satellites can send pictures from space into the computer for the VR humans to view. And this is not to say we are completely self-contained, just that the system updates itself. If we are running in real-time backup systems are still in place for error correction even if we run in real time. The Mandela effect is a sign of this error correction.

SCOTT ADAMS' BLOG
TOP TECH
How to Know Whether You are a Real Person or a Simulation

Did Philip K. Dick disclose the real Matrix in 1977?​

https://youtu.be/jXeVgEs4sOo

 

[Rixus]

I did once have a theory, though, that the world really was virtual. The purpose of it was for entertainment, though, not for science. We exist within a sort of shared cinematic universe where. Various movies and series exist; sometimes part of the larger plot and sometimes unrelated. The creators would give us a little pushes to further the plot, and some plots would reoccur if they were popular and others would be cancelled.

That led me to wonder if I would be a main character in my own movie or series, or a peripheral side character in someone else's. What if my entire existence was just for a five minute appearance in someone else's story? What if my story had been cancelled or what if it was yet to happen? What if I just an appearance in whatever story I was a peripheral character in? It would have explained certain things.

 

[Black Rose]

Star Wars KOTOR II - The Sith Lords: Trailer 1​

https://youtu.be/1B8iPLMZZfs

 

[INTPWolf]

@INTPWolf - I see no real reason why not. The real world outside of the sim could have more complex forms of physics - when the rapid expansion of the universe occurred, several other dimensions did not unfold like the 4 (possibly 5) we see around us, which led to them being flat and not part of our physics in any meaningful way. Perhaps in that way, processing a less complex world is easier in a universe where after length, width, height and time there are more dimensions to consider. And perhaps our minds simply can't handle an understanding of what it would be like.

@QuickTwist - I believe time would have to also be held in a 1:1 ratio for this to work in that way. If it took every particle in the machine to calculate every particle, it would only be possible to do this at the base time. Unfortunately, there is no base time in our universe due to time dilation - all points have a slightly different time reference. Which also leads to the problem of what happens when the universe at the top sim dies. What happens after the heat death of the universe? What happens after all matter collapses into multiple singularities? Or even if this machine at the top survives all that, what happens after protons themselves degrade to the point where matter cannot exist - which will happen one day. In a few hundred trillion years, but it will happen.

Perhaps we could use something like my spiral electromagnetic field idea and simulate only a small sample group of mater for each object in the virtual world, this small sample group would be influenced by the sample group of any other interacting object.


While chemical reactions would have to be done at real time inside sample groups, accounting for first and second dimension.
Simple things such as hardness, conductivity and melting points@pressure could be pre calculated at the time of the creation of the object and its sample group, accounting for third and fourth dimensions.
Any complex machine that is made that interacts with itself often during operation would have its standard interactions precalculated.

Any denizen of this world that creates any tool to view the molecular level will only ever see the sample group. zooming in further, the computer could be made to parse the code into small an unfunctional bits that just do whatever.

In all things that we interact with, we must apply the observer theory.
Perhaps the universe we live in was a simple place to begin with, and as we learned and expanded our minds the simulation expanded its mathematical function to explain what was and what would always be. A simulation like this could easily run an entire universe, the only serious calculations it would have to do is when we as denizens are about to discover something about how the world works.

Math itself could be something local to our world.

Imagine an apple tree, it has 7 apples on it, with this you know that the tree can feed you for a whole day.

Now a world without math, The tree would be made up of meaning, it would not be here or there/one or many in a relative location, it would exist in meaning and as meaning only. You would find the tree by remembering what the tree means, like in a dreamscape. The tree would also have on it either zero or infinite apples on it.

 

[QuickTwist]

The universe inside the universe could be vastly different than the outside universe. The universe inside doesn't have to be an accurate representation of the outer universe. Also, time can shrink inside of a universe. There could be much less detail in the inner universe - much like frames in a movie don't have a dynamic motion, but a static one. Think of a video game and how even the most realistic ones have things happening in them that are not accounted for. In other words, wherever the player character is, there is nothing happening where the player character is not, it is only assumed things are happening where the player controller isn't. And there are time benchmarks in a videogame where time seems to skip ahead. As far as I am concerned, there is no proof that time is static in this universe. There is also no proof that nothing is lost in translation in this universe. So the outside universe could very well be more detailed that the inner, and could actually be completely different. This whole meta-universe thing has me thinking that there could be a pattern to it, but we could never figure it out. It could function like a nonverbal IQ test in this regard. There is a pattern and only one thing can possibly happen, but that doesn't mean that any of the preceding in the system are the same.

 

[JR_IsP]

Well, glad to see that my crazy high school idea was developed that much in here! But I have 2 things to add: Time: You're right my friend, if you create a whole new universe in 14 billion years, and the next simulation takes another 14 you'll have a 28 billion years universe, right?

But why would someone recreate all the universe in such a complex way? Let's say we simulate universe because we would want to see how culture appeared, would you recreate the Big Bang? I'd probably recreate one planet and only from 60000 BC, or something. Maybe (I'm no universe programmer).

And if you would like to test physical theories about cosmology, would you simulate even life?

I'm just expanding the idea. Have you heard the unthinking majority song? (From Serj Tankien) What if *prepare for huge especulation* people is only a few, and simulated programs fill the 7 billion population? (I'm defining people as deep programmed AIs, and programs like a basic one)

And what if (bending the ideas above together) this sim layer is only a partially genereated one? Things far away may be low rendered, and there would be no need to simulate subatomic particles... unless... programs (or people) use a electronic microscope, for example. You'll render those particles in the instruments, or the space pics in the objective of the telescopes.

And two: There is NO second consideration.

Three: Really, that's all.

However, I never truly believed that. I did it for fun XD (you INTP guys surely have tought weird crazy impossible ideas too, right?)

But what if we *final crazy idea* are only simulated but no independent, like a huge 4D movie. We wouldn't have real control of us (except that we wouldn't be able to figure it out)... and this reminds me of some apocaliptical universe civilization scenario. I only was able to find the article in the spanish wikipedia (the article per say exists on the english version, but the section I'm talking about is missing in the english one) I'm leaving a google translate url of the page, search for the "Life in the end of the universe" section.

Think about the last paragraph. It says that somehow, a system which consumes no energy would be able to reproduce recordings of the universe... If we use that idea in here, we figure out the time problem and the computational power one. What if this is a movie? A movie played across a slowly expanding/collapsing universe?

If you can find an english version of the section I'm talking about I'd be greatly thankful. I hope you understood this post XD

 

[INTPWolf]

@QuickTwist. With that model, each consecutive simulation would have less dimensions.
I cannot even begin to understand how we could make a virtual simulation with all 11 dimensions calculated and actively used. much less creating any new dimensional laws.

 

[JR_IsP]

Not necessarily. Why recreating all the 11 dimensions? We only "feel" the first 3 of them. And the fourth one is widely especulative. Recreating a 11 dimensions universe would be a waste of power for me. (Again, 11 dimensions may be rendered in experiments and special observations, but not in daily life)

 

[INTPWolf]

I'm just expanding the idea. Have you heard the unthinking majority song? (From Serj Tankien) What if *prepare for huge especulation* people is only a few, and simulated programs fill the 7 billion population? (I'm defining people as deep programmed AIs, and programs like a basic one)

I have thought of this, what if there is only a few "real" mind's perceiving the world.
Like the 100th Monkey effect ( if it is accurate ) would suggest that humans learn together as a whole species.
So what part of us is us? and what part of us is a basic human function shared between all of us.

@JR_IsP You ninja'd me, that last post was @QuickTwist
What i ment was that if we are a simulation, the world that contains our simulation probably has more dimensions, and the denizens there would expence a ratio of those expanded dimensions. We experience 4 out of 11, in this "upper world, they may experience 8 out of 22

 

[JR_IsP]

Ohhhh, my bad XD

 

[QuickTwist]

sorry if I am not making sense, I am only really skimming this thread.

 

[Black Rose]

One way to calculate a specific human mind in time is to have a factual of all possible human minds. By rotating this fractal into the 4D space of earths timeline and by cross referencing our data, we can locate people and then add them to the simulation. Our brain is a 4D fractal of our experience of causal time. The 5th dimension is fractal of all possible timelines. Hypothetically the 6th dimension is time travel and error correction.

 

[INTPWolf]

sorry if I am not making sense, I am only really skimming this thread.

It wasn't too far fetched tho.

@Animekitty

Wouldn't it be easiest to make a mass conscious mind that was used as the central fractal possibility calculator? One mind that is the fractal, and each living denizen of that reality is the branches of it. In this way the main fractal mind can present its larger issues to the mass of smaller branches in smaller ways.
In that way, the much larger issues can be addressed by the masses in a way that they understand and can process. Enough branches solve the problem, then the main fractal intelligently guides the world and everything that happens by those decisions.

This somewhat addresses what i was talking about before, where the universal laws are blurry to begin with, and only as we experiment and expand our minds the laws of the universe actually start to take mathematical form. The main fractal consciousness becomes curious right along with us, and explores in order to know. Thus the math that exists behind the scenes is created.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

But, does it even matter? After writing the first essay (I wrote it with a friend of mine) I realized that it doesn't matter if we are living a real reality or a fake one, after all, reality is real for us, right?

Yeah, I was thinking this after reading the first part... like if we live in a simulation, so what? What are the actual implications? Things are still as real as they feel. But it's interesting at least to think of how it's possible to program a universe such as this from some higher plane. And now we have virtual reality, and it said that we will be able to program our own universes. So with the choice of whether to enter into a simulation, then the implications are real. And I think it would be better to try and make the reality we live in better, rather than to escape into virtual worlds. After all, the virtual world is embedded in the real world, and real things still have real effects.

 

[Black Rose]

@Animekitty

Wouldn't it be easiest to make a mass conscious mind that was used as the central fractal possibility calculator? One mind that is the fractal, and each living denizen of that reality is the branches of it. In this way the main fractal mind can present its larger issues to the mass of smaller branches in smaller ways.
In that way, the much larger issues can be addressed by the masses in a way that they understand and can process. Enough branches solve the problem, then the main fractal intelligently guides the world and everything that happens by those decisions.

This somewhat addresses what i was talking about before, where the universal laws are blurry to begin with, and only as we experiment and expand our minds the laws of the universe actually start to take mathematical form. The main fractal consciousness becomes curious right along with us, and explores in order to know. Thus the math that exists behind the scenes is created.

I like this idea. As I see it the main branch can be nodal points like the 12 root servers of the internet. But once we fill in all gaps of past knowledge we get into network effects. Like facebook friends and all links between individuals as nodes. The fractal branches fold back into themselves as cybernetic feedback. So it may be that there is the main branch(s) but each person connects is a hyperlinked way. The 6th dimension I mentioned. That way all information is found.

 

[JR_IsP]

Yeah, I was thinking this after reading the first part... like if we live in a simulation, so what? What are the actual implications? Things are still as real as they feel. But it's interesting at least to think of how it's possible to program a universe such as this from some higher plane. And now we have virtual reality, and it said that we will be able to program our own universes. So with the choice of whether to enter into a simulation, then the implications are real. And I think it would be better to try and make the reality we live in better, rather than to escape into virtual worlds. After all, the virtual world is embedded in the real world, and real things still have real effects.

True. The only real implication about living in a simulation is the reaction of the programmers... what if they don't want us to know?

 

[Lazy Vulpes]

Reality is a recursive fractal.

 

[TheAdditional1]

I skipped a lot of this but for one thing:

Consider the universe before the concept of life. I always visualize this as the most lifeless rock/asteroids floating through space. It gets to the point of realizing that even imagining this is an *absolutely* imagined scenario, because by definition of being before life, it means there would never ever be a soul or a conscious entity in any concept that would be there to observe or ever convey it.

Anyway in this scenario - go from there, and then to the concept of a memory: The fact that things that happen in the world can actually be replayed in some fashion. Not once in the history of EVER, before life existed, has that ever been able to happen.

And after being incredulous that it does, in fact, happen, you have to wonder at what state it does happen in - it's all in our minds, visually; and even bough we see it in our mind's eye, it's not really "replaying" - it's just a series of synapses firing in the unique pattern that was formed once the triggers (the image, or even feeling or smell or any other sense) were processed by our internal brain/synapses system. In pure material, the two incidences - the event and the memory - are absolutely nothing alike whatsoever.

Once you wrap your mind around that, and realize that that accounts for your entire life (in perception, not just videos or replays - everything is a memory or a similar mental Generation after all), then it makes you wonder a bit what reality really is.

That, and the realization that colors don't actually exist, they're just energy levels that we've crazily adapted to perceive. Makes you wonder what we all really are.

Bit of a trip.

 

[Arch]

Hi, I'm new on the forum but I have to start somewhere I guess .
Haven't read everything yet, but.

@TheAdditional1 & Then my idea
About conscious entitites. Is a rock's conscience different from ours? How do you define alive?

By conscience I mean feeling itself, which for a rock isn't much.
I see conscience as, in a way, an observer - for humans this means it lives our thoughts, our brains stimuli, but of course it has no power whatsoever.
In my opinion animals have the same kind of conscience as us.
Therefore even the smallest organism has the same kind of conscience, the most basic human fetus would already have it while not being properly alive. To me anything can have a conscience then. Also it can't seem to be something binary: at some point in an entity's creation the conscience would appear, or develop. on its own it's nothing, it doesn't just "form". You don't become aware of existing at one point in your evolution do you?

So in a way, everything having the same kind of conscience, there would be no boundaries to it as in it would make no sense for a conscience to arbitrarely stick to a particular group of atoms. It would be a conscience of the whole universe.
I don't know.


PS: I'm French, English isn't my main language so I might have made some mistakes.

 

[Cogitant]

I am very much interested in the theories of a man by the name of Viktor Schauberger, who investigated into the nature of vortexes and natural energy systems. http://schauberger.co.uk/articles/
I have spent rather a lot of my life considering how and why things fit together. I am obsessed with quantum physics, the nature of consciousness, theology, philosophy, geometry and mathematical series. There are patterns and relationships between many things, and I enjoy connecting the dots.
I believe that there are more levels to reality than can be measured at this present time, and that harmonic/geometric relationships exist between those theoretical dimensions and our familiar dimensions.
While I'm unsure of what consciousness is, looking at it from a non-anthropocentric perspective, I speculate that inanimate objects might have some form of limited structural awareness. I also speculate that there is an overall collective structural awareness/intelligence.
Therefore, I consider myself to be a pantheist, and also an animist.

 

[Rixus]

You have indeed found the correct forum.

I see consciousness as an emergent property. Analyse a human brain and you'll find a complex set of neurons, nodes, nerves etc. You can analyse it as a machine and find out what each part does. But that doesn't explain awareness. The fact that we see the world through our perspective and are aware of our existence. That makes it emergent - when you look at it as a whole, it becomes more than the sum of it's parts. Some see this as a spiritual concept, but I think it is an inevitable bi-product of complexity at a certain level.

I've wondered if this concept applies to the universe as a whole, too. If I were a neuron sitting inside a huge brain, how would I know that overall the brain was conscious? In that way, how do we know that the entire universe isn't some large mind that were are inside of?

As evolutionists, it's often assumed that the evolution of the universe is essentially random as there is not guiding force behind it. But that's not strictly true, there are laws governing it now. Laws that were created when only certain dimensions unfolded and the universe became that which we understand. And there are variables acting on it from within. So many seem random and so many seem ordained that it's hard to not see a greater intelligence behind them unless you can truly see how each one works together and interacts.

But at what point does the interaction of all these factors become essentially an intelligence? At what point does the universe become so complex is becomes more than the sum of the forces that are acting within it? At what point do we call see it, to all intents and purposes, as an overall intelligence?

 

[Cogitant]

Human consciousness appears emergent from bio-chemical systems, yes...
However, human biological and chemical functions are, of course, unique to humans. They only explain how and why we experience as humans.
The sciences offer a human interpretation of how other things relate to humans...
But humans can only weight and analyze everything else in relation to humankind, through human systems.

From my observations, systems are mirrored on both microcosmic and the macrocosmic. There are mathematical patterns and relationships in nature that have been observed and measured and even copied in form of algorithm to use in AI systems. Ubiquitous growth and entropy patterns, behavioural patterns that can be seen to exist on many levels.

I like the concept of infinity. This idea fits an overall GUT of mine: https://phys.org/news/2016-07-big.html

Perhaps physical states of being can be explained in terms of 'coordinate geometry' and their states of evolution/entropy might be communicated in terms of radiation or particle-waves between bodies (gravitons/electrons etc).

What I'm saying is that perhaps our local super-massive BH, Sgr A*, for example, might be dictating to the Sun how to behave, and the Sun telling the planets what to do.

Things do seem to follow general, identifiable patterns, but there appears to be a chaos factor, or individuation. Think of snowflakes.
Perfect, symmetrical systems and patterns commonly contain irrationals such as Pi, Phi, √2 etc.

Here's one of my Pinterest boards. https://uk.pinterest.com/xcogitant/mathemagical-modelssciencealchemy-and-all-that-jaz/

 

[Seteleechete]

[Silina: the world is some entities mindscape and we are all tulpas inhabiting it.

We could even call that entity God.]

 

[Rixus]

Human consciousness appears emergent from bio-chemical systems, yes...
However, human biological and chemical functions are, of course, unique to humans. They only explain how and why we experience as humans.
The sciences explain to us a human interpretation of how other things relate to us, and therefore only how we can relate to them or use them.
But we can only weight and analyze everything else in relation to ourselves, at the moment, at least.

From my observations, systems are mirrored on both microcosmic and the macrocosmic. There are mathematical patterns and relationships in nature that have been observed and measured and even copied in form of algorithm to use in AI systems. Ubiquitous growth and entropy patterns, behavioural patterns that can be seen to exist on many levels.

I like the concept of infinity. This idea fits an overall GUT of mine: https://phys.org/news/2016-07-big.html

Perhaps physical states of being can be explained in terms of 'coordinate geometry' and their states of evolution/entropy might be communicated in terms of radiation or particle-waves between bodies (gravitons/electrons etc).

What I'm saying is that perhaps our local super-massive BH, Sgr A*, for example, might be dictating to the Sun how to behave, and the Sun telling the planets what to do.

Here's one of my Pinterest boards. https://uk.pinterest.com/xcogitant/mathemagical-modelssciencealchemy-and-all-that-jaz/

I wasn't referring to the specific importance of organics, more wondering if rather the complexity of the system is what gives us such an emergent property. In that way, it could be applied to AI in the sense that once a system becomes complex enough it could be called conscious. But only if that system was sufficiently complex to be far beyond the sum of it's programming.

I don't really like the idea of infinity or the cyclical universe theory. It ignores proton decay - which we may be talking about a decillion years, but in the concept of infinity that's nothing. I always liken the concept of infinity to a snail travelling from one end of the universe to the other, depositing a grain of sand, then travelling all the way back - enough times to move a dessert. And that's not infinity. We would eventually experience proton decay and matter would cease to exist.

I don't see the concept of the creation of the universe as a breakdown of physics. Nothing is infinite in my mind - even the universe. After all, the universe is expanding into a nothing that simply doesn't exist rather than a nothing that is empty Which is something we have trouble getting our minds around. It's a nothing where physics simply doesn't exist anymore. Time is like this - before it existed, it didn't exist. And therefore what came before it is irrelevant because the concept of entropy didn't exist. It's another dimension that expands together with the 3 physical dimensions. But when you envision time as a sphere that expands rather than a line going forward, you can see it contract and condense in the same way space can, and how this could form the singularity of energy required for the expansion of the universe from nothing. Expanding rather than moving forward.

I do love thinking of the concept of scale, though. How an electron orbiting a proton is the same as the moon orbiting Earth, which orbits a sun, which orbits Sgr A*, which is locks in a synchronise orbit with Andromeda and the local group, which orbits a larger group of galaxies, and so on until you get the whole universe expanding and revolving around some great gravitational pull that no one can even identify. It kind of helps put problems in life into perspective.

 

[Cogitant]

It's not just the complexity of a system, it's elegance IMO.
AI is getting closer.
https://futurism.com/should-we-give-ais-the-same-rights-as-humans/

As for me, I have my own model of how things might work, it's always evolving, and I like to explore theories, and weight them according to probability.
I take different theories, philosophies and religious views, and play them off against each other in my creative writing. I write often, just started a new project in fact.

Counter to you, nothingness seems irrational to me. All matter can be reduced to bits and reformed in my understanding. I think it's cyclical perhaps. I also take the view that things represent fractions of the same one thing/entity. You can only divide one, after all.

Maybe zero is the antagonist of one.
1-0 I'm fond of paradoxes.

But we are insignificants, looking into the sky and labelling constellations with our own mythology.

Science has its flaws, there are holes everywhere if you look hard enough...
Scientists seek to prove their own agendas and disprove other's ideas all the time...

And, who knows, we might all be living in our own universes which evolve according to our own individual beliefs. Sinning Christians might well go to Hell.

Or maybe it is the spaghetti-monster's creation

Save​

 

[Teax]

While I'm unsure of what consciousness is, looking at it from a non-anthropocentric perspective, I speculate that inanimate objects might have some form of limited structural awareness. I also speculate that there is an overall collective structural awareness/intelligence.
Therefore, I consider myself to be a pantheist, and also an animist.

I speculate that the awareness of a plant (or a rock, or vacuum, if you want to go to an extreme) is similar to this thought experiment:

Humans have a nervous system which is a requirement to feel touch and pain. A plant does not. Humans also get most of their information through the eyes, which a plant does not have. Human awareness is dominated by the signals the eyes generate, and as a result human experience is tightly linked to the macro-behavior that governs light. The awareness of a plant is more akin to a dream state from our perspective. Dream perception is not generated by a visual stimulus and is thus not visual but semantic in nature. More closely related to remote viewing than direct sensory input.

This redefines the role of pain. I've been wondering whether, if plants are aware, I am perceived as a tyrant, that inflicts pain for no apparent reason. But getting hurt in a nightmare is maybe scary, but not actually painful. If that makes you feel better when eating your vegetables....

For those readers who ask themselves why (the hell) humans and plants would have anything in common in the first place in regards to perception:

I posit that the brain in not solely based on a computational engine. There is a connection to quantum noise through some of the components of neurons, like the microtubules. The underlying assumption here, of course, is that the quantum noise is some form of awareness, or a manifestation of awareness, or a side-effect of awareness or something. (as opposed to the materialistic view that awareness is a product of a brain's operation).

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJjydSLEVlU#t=3790

A brain therefore is a device that focuses awareness, like a lens focuses light. "Focusing of awareness" is just another word for devices that are easily influenced by quantum noise. Such devices collect data on a microscopic level and amplify it to perform changes on a macro level. Neurons are strongly interconnected making them the most obvious example of a system that may work this way. But living cells do this to a certain extent too. So I could speculate that plants have a more focused (higher) awareness than rocks or vacuum does.

(the lens thing is a metaphor, not an analogy. Proper analogy would be a radio receiver or a correlation amplifier device or something...).

As an interesting side-effect, this theory implies that it is impossible to construct a highly-aware AI from logic gates or processors. Or based on deterministic algorithms. So I guess that answers the question whether replicators can ascend or not.

I believe that there are more levels to reality than can be measured at this present time

Let's just say: more than are acknowledged. By the public face of the scientific community that is.

I have spent rather a lot of my life considering how and why things fit together.

I just realized that if you hadn't said this I would've probably never posted this. Farewell, fellow seeker.

 

[Teax]

I think that living in a computer simulation is possible, in fact, for me once, it was a mathematic certainty. I actually wrote and essay about it, it's called the Domes theorem.

Let's first begin with the very first advanced enough civilization of the universe. And suppose they created a simulated universe, (or at least a planet)... what would happen if that simulated universe creates another simulation inside? Two simulated civilization would rise.

And since we can't determine if we are the very civilization or some simulation in the depths of old dying universes, which one is more likely?

Think about it for a while. It's more likely for us to be simulated than being the original ones.

I'd disagree. All you guys are doing is pushing the question of existence one layer back, with each layer of simulation. What makes the root reality exist?

Also in those circumstances, probability has to be re-defined, so it makes no sense to say that it's more likely we are a simulated reality rather than the original. Note: I'm not saying it's wrong to say, I'm saying it's nonsensical to say, the sentence is not fully defined.

A funny side-note about the consequences of living inside a simulation:

Spoiler

Let's assume for the sake of argument we are in a sim:

Our reality is not governed by computable laws. In the strict, traditional sense of "computable". Meaning that the task of computing the "next quantum state" is either NP complete or inherently nondeterministic. So, looking at the parent-reality which contains a computer which our reality is simulated in: it would have to be a quantum computer at the very least. And here we have the same situation as in my previous post (my reply to Cogitant right above) that if the quantum noise is the cause of awareness, then we, being simulated creatures, are equally as aware as the creatures in the parent-reality. Because the quantum noise of the parent reality is the same as in our reality, because the computer is computing our reality based on the quantum effects of the parent reality. Yes, we may inhabit a glorified video game but we are no less for it

nevermind, just amusing myself with hypotheticals...

Avoiding the question of why, one has to ask the question of how and whether it would even be possible to maintain it.

[...]

The original creators will be long gone if we are processed in real time, and the computer isn't being maintained.

It makes no sense to speculate. Because reality from the perspective of any observer within that reality is just a stream of information. Information about "what happens around you". Whether an observer is observing a sim or not is indistinguishable (and therefore equivalent) to the observer.

Let me explain it this way:
if a (normal) computer is executing a (normal) program:

...
x = 2;
x += GetFucksGivenCount(); // does not change the value of x
...

suddenly the computer crashes somewhere here. Does the number 2 stop existing? No, ofcourse not, 2 is just a mathematical constant, it exists independent of the computer. The program stops executing, but that does not change how the simulation would have been continuing, if it didn't stop. The information that was stored inside the variable "x" does not seize to exist, it merely detaches itself from the computer.

Therefore it does not matter whether there exists a parent reality that contains a computer that is simulating our current reality. It does not matter if the simulation is real-time or how much time the parent-reality-computer takes to calculate one frame of our reality. And if the parent computer crashes, our reality may or may not be affected, there is just no way to tell. We as observers exist independent of that computer, as informational entities.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Someone already mentioned this in this thread so I just want to say I too had that creepy feeling. I thought when young whether reality we see is only a figmnet of our imagination. That everything we are aware of is simply the product of us. But then this idea falls short of explaining anything in particular so it is really a crazy idea and not a rational one, because who is us? I mean who am I? The God who created this universe? Eh? I dont know.

Later on I had this thought that the universe must be balanced into a perfect equilibrium and that the only way to do that is that everyhting has to have the exact opposite of everything. IN other words each energy had to be symmetrical. I realise now that this was not novel nor anyhow interesting idea.

One final one is that everything is predetermined and that universe is a perfect machine that where everything is perfect in literal sense of the word. That every imperfection is infact manifestation of the perfect world. In that there is no flaw in the world and that things that dont work will eventually fall in place, because the universe cant stand being imperfect. And that those things that are part of this universe thus must be perfect. You - me - the rotten apple. Its just we are incapable of seeing this perfection, thus we are somehow blind to the perfect world.
Then again what does perfect mean?