I know, I'm such a bore.

[Ex-User (12972)]

Silly me, posting even though I'm quite sure no one will bother to respond..

Well, I came here to get away from all the uncultured swines that seem to crowd in certain corners of the Interwebs..

That aside, it's been a long day, to say the least.
But I'm happy to have gotten some research out of the way.
I've been looking into quantum cosmology as of late. More specifically, the multiverse theory. I was musing about it, having read about one of the subtheories described as "the simulated multiverse". It is described as being "a collection of universes that are potentially created as simulations running inside futuristic, super powerful computer systems."

Even that's a bit far-fetched for me.. But it would make a good science fiction movie, I'm sure, if it hasn't been used already.

I also briefed over the anthropic principle, though I can't say I really support it.
Rather general and quite the hindrance to scientific advancement in the area of cosmology, I think.

Other than that, I haven't been up to much.

Just passing time and consequently dreading what will no doubt be another agonizingly slow and tedious week.

What've you guys been up to?

 

[Black Rose]

In higher dimensional space the description of any object can be shown to be a network. So the reproducibility of reality as a simulation is just an adjustment of network parameters. Time can be seen as a network that evolves by connections transversed.

I am very much into A.I. - I think that it is highly likely that simulations happen all the time. The data is there and only needs to be put into a model where information is fed back into that same model to create possible scenarios that the simulations can adjust for when determining future states of reality.

 

[Shieru]

@OP - y'know i tend to feel the same way; that what i have to say isn't all that interesting and it's likely no one will respond. but i think it's important not to let depreciative thoughts like that discourage you from interacting - after all, we tend to be our own worst critics.

i wonder, do you think the multiverse theory is valid? it's always tripped me out how the only 'proof' for such theories is abstract. we have no means to observe anything outside our universe as of yet, so how could a theory positing the existence of other universes be considered scientific at this time? perhaps you have some insights..

as for what i've been up to lately, been attempting to understand the mechanisms underlying mental illnesses. it irks me how ignorant and disjointed the field of psychology is, so i'd like to find a holistic explanation that could lead to coherent treatments.

 

[Pizzabeak]

The only reason for simulated universes are inconsistencies in the physics but so far we don't have an excellent or accurate grasp on it so it's partially based on faulty, incomplete thinking. Any abnormalities can mean something. That's like saying there's an infinitely old universe. It depends on if the big bang theory happened or not since that's what modern science is based off, for religious reasons. But there is no living forever of consciousness, there are no multiple universes or dimensions, and you don't reincarnate or anything like that. Otherwise it would be a simulation or multiverses, and the tearing of the fabric of realities. There are a bunch of unconscious Freud and Jungian mind counterparts that play a role too. Only some of it can be found in books, that is to say, Judaism predicts a fractal universe but you have to have a natural intuitive understanding of it all. That's an all too easy assumption to make.

I sometimes think about the nature of simulation. Could it be like the Sims videogame, where characters are being nearly controlled? If so how can consciousness arise? That's why a number of conditions can give rise to life, it just needing a medium to be realized. So it could even just all be data fed into a machine or device of some sort already, implying a number of things. But the characters don't know they are in a simulation, as if they were even conscious of it. So that implies a field of consciousness arises when life is around. The data could be enough to provide all the rest. But insight into multiverses or simulation can't be found in those kinds of examples of sim. Why do we perceive the optics as flesh and carbon based atoms, and the rest of things as the composition that they are, like the air? A simulation wouldn't imply anything nice, what would someone suspect if it were that? They aren't supposed to know it's one, necessarily, unless that were the test. A sim is only ran to gather data.

The only simulation that's being run is a test by hashem and whether we fear or have faith or not. There's karma too because that's allowed within the parameters of it. But there also isn't any karma necessarily and it's just one big chance, all random not deliberate yet fighting for it, there was no divine order or justness to be found. Didn't consciousness slowly evolve into what it is today, implying people became more or less of something? The earliest instances of it were thought to be schizophrenic. Consciousness evolved. And consciousness is just knowing where everything is, at a specific moment, not to waste time or resources. But that's where synchronicity and simulation theory come into existence. So you can't win, they don't know because the free will determinism debate is still going on unfortunately. Religion says with free will comes sin, which is what the simulation wants. What is the brain, what is more real than real?

The anthropic principle refers to Big Bang parameters. Thus we have a goldilocks zone allowing us, by divine miracle or just chance. It had to be so to allow life anyway. But if there wasn't life would the universe exist? It would still be there without conscious entities observing it. There's almost nothing else the universe could summon up that wouldn't be life. But I thought quantum physics said something about multiverses? It might not be that abstract so we can't observe it, but it depends on our understanding of physics as of this juncture.