• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Simulation Theory

I believe we are disincarnate non-corporeal beings having a physical experience for the sake of a specific learning task or trial. Part of this requires artificial constraint of our larger consciousness, into a more limited material envelope. The product of this obscuration may lead one to feel unreal because, in a sense, this personality is fake. It's a costume. The experiences I have are not the real me, they are events being witnessed. That "unrealness" then gets projected onto the world and the conclusion drawn is that the issue is with reality itself. It's like a person trying to figure out why there is a fleck in all of their photographs, rather than looking at the lens of the camera to remove a piece of dirt. The dilemma is an internal one.

Those moments when reality seems like a simulation, or samsara, or an illusion, are partially a product of momentarily realizing that the personality-level picture is incomplete, that we are "missing something". The missing part is a non-integrated piece of the unconscious.

I suspect that the "illusion" is a product of awareness constraint, and not something mass generated. If you think none of this is real, then it's because some part of you is unrealized and you are only peripherally aware of it. You then misattribute it to something external, like living in a false reality. Because the truth can always be located internally, I do not place much stock in the "mass simulacrum" theory. The universe is just doing itself, on and on, without any input from a "you". So is the falsehood in the entire universe, or is it within you? Apply Occam's Razor to that one.
 
^ That's an interesting perspective. I have very occasionally felt like a soul trapped in a body, but some of the most beautiful psychedelic experiences I've had have involved the (re)realisation and feeling that I am (and I am) my body. It just so happens that this fits with my theoretical understanding of how things work, so that is my point of view, at least for now (and we can still have a soul!).

All this reminds me of an XKCD cartoon: https://xkcd.com/505/. Beyond satisfaction of curiosity, it doesn't matter what underlies everything we see and know. In a sense we're already in this situation with respect to quantum physics, save for the fact that we can actually use that knowledge. It doesn't translate well into the language in which we live our lives.
 
Last edited:
I like the Holographic theory. In that within each of us is a very fuzzy representation of the entire universe, and as we continue to connect our nodes, we increase the fidelity of hologram, reaching towards an ever-clearer picture of whole thing.
 
vortech said:
I like the Holographic theory. In that within each of us is a very fuzzy representation of the entire universe, and as we continue to connect our nodes, we increase the fidelity of hologram, reaching towards an ever-clearer picture of whole thing.
Click to expand...

So do I, as you describe it. The challenging question then becomes 'in what way is this map (of combined beings) different from the territory of the universe itself?'. It's perhaps impossible to describe anything about the universe without that being a point of view, and therefore incorporated into the hologram that represents the universe. Nothing is ever left over, therefore, and the two are identical.

Harks back to the recurring theme of what is to distinguish a simulation from the real thing.
 
What I'm pondering right now, and maybe y'all can help me, is: In what way does the Holographic Universe theory support and give evidence for Simulation Theory. My intuition is telling me there is a sstrong connection, that not only are they compatible theories, but that there is something within a perspective of this fabric that can produce hard data to support both holographic and simulation theories simultaneously. I wish I knew more about the details/science of Holographic theory to have more to work with at the moment. But as long as I've known about this theory, the principle has felt as elegant and profound as simulation theory itself....

Indra's Net comes to mind as an ancient concept relevant to this subject...
 
I watched a lecture or two by Leonard Susskind (Stanford professor for theoretical physics) about the Holographic principle, and he never mentioned anything about simulation theory. it's more about information conservation and black holes, and the possibility to apply this to the whole universe...
 
vortech said:
What I'm pondering right now, and maybe y'all can help me, is: In what way does the Holographic Universe theory support and give evidence for Simulation Theory.
Click to expand...

Well, if the universe does turn out to be a hologram as you defined it (the sum total of points of view thereof) then it is​ a simulation, just as our perception of the world is a simulation of it.

As Bagseed hinted, the holographic principle pertains rather to the possibility of a complete description of four-dimensional physical behaviour by a physical theory defined only on the three-dimensional boundary of that system, much as a (perfect) two-dimensional hologram completely describes the three-dimensional object it represents. You'll need some elbow grease to get from that to isolated parts together describing the whole.
 
Last edited:
As I remembered correctly, Indra's net refers exactly to the holographic concept I described a few posts back. Each node of consciousness is one of 'Indra's Jewels' and all of the jewels together connected in the net is also just one jewel, the complete conservation of the hologram, all the information of the Universe. Pretty amazing that Indra's net is such an ancient teaching of Buddhism. Those Buddhists get some pretty clearly channeled information in their meditations....


"The metaphor of Indra's Jeweled Net is attributed to an ancient Buddhist named Tu-Shun (557-640 B.C.E.) who asks us to envision a vast net that:
at each juncture there lies a jewel;
each jewel reflects all the other jewels in this cosmic matrix.
Every jewel represents an individual life form, atom, cell or unit of consciousness.
Each jewel, in turn, is intrinsically and intimately connected to all the others;
thus, a change in one gem is reflected in all the others.

"This last aspect of the jeweled net is explored in a question/answer dialog of teacher and student in the Avatamsaka Sutra. In answer to the question: "how can all these jewels be considered one jewel?" it is replied: "If you don't believe that one jewel...is all the jewels...just put a dot on the jewel [in question]. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels...Since there are dots on all the jewels...We know that all the jewels are one jewel"
The moral of Indra's net is that the compassionate and the constructive interventions a person makes or does can produce a ripple effect of beneficial action that will reverberate throughout the universe or until it plays out. By the same token you cannot damage one strand of the web without damaging the others or setting off a cascade effect of destruction.
A good explanation of the Hindu/Buddhist myth of Indra's net can be found in The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra: "...particles are dynamically composed of one another in a self-consistent way, and in that sense can be said to 'contain' one another. In Mahayana Buddhism, a very similar notion is applied to the whole universe. This cosmic network of interpenetrating things is illustrated in the Avatamsaka Sutra by the metaphor of Indra's net, a vast network of precious gems hanging over the palace of the god Indra." In the words of Sir Charles Eliot:
"In the Heaven of Indra, there is said to be a network of pearls, so arranged that if you look at one you see all the others reflected in it. In the same way each object in the world is not merely itself but involves every other object and in fact IS everything else. In every particle of dust, there are present Buddhas without number."

The rest can be read at

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/04/net-of-indra.html?m=1
 
vortech said:
I thought I had already created a thread for this subject, or at least saw one here, but I couldn't find it so here we go.

I expect this topic has been mused over by basically all contemporary intellectuals by this point. With good reason given our current state of technological progression, it is one of the more intriguing thought experiments of the new millennium. It was likely 'The Matrix' in 1999 that seeded the idea firmly into the collective consciousness. It again 'hit the front page' this year when Elon Musk stated his conclusion that the chance we are in 'base reality' is 'one in billions'.

This brings me to a very interesting trip I had a few weeks ago. I had taken a potent amount of 3-Meo-PCP throughout the day at a weekend-long festival, and as the music was winding down for the evening my mind wandered into this subject. It is hard to explain the logic path I took...and logic may not be the right word...it was more of an exercise in intuiting and loose associating as my mind sought to explain a series of events that were not otherwise explainable by my human-sized brain. Anyway, I had the 'ah ha' moment, a deep feeling that yes, this is all a simulation, and it all made perfect sense.

I felt as if I reached the conclusion organically. It wasn't like I said 'OK, I have a theory that 'reality' may be a simulation....let's try validating the theory by pigeon-holing it'. It was more like I tested all sorts of possible explanations, and the ONLY one that worked out as a valid explanation for every one of the tested phenomena was Simulation Theory. After the 'Ah Ha' moment I continued to feel it out for another half hour or so just to make sure I didn't miss any cracks, and it continued to feel intuitively as if I had stumbled upon some sort of proof. This is not new; as I have continued to grow my sense of intuition, Simulation Theory always had a certain feeling to it, like it was the only reality that made sense, but I always remained a couple steps back from 'surrendering' to it. Aside from the fact that 'normal people' would assume I had lost my last marble if I started screaming this from the rooftops, there is was the issue of assuaging my ego when informing it does not in fact exist. Like any ego doing its job, it is nearly always screaming from the rooftop of my mind "NO, I won't believe it!!! I MUST be REAL!!!!! See....look at my flesh bag! It feels real, it looks real, it smalls real, it thinks REAL!!!!"

However, this night a few weeks ago was different. Because of my aforementioned ego-tempering dose of 3-Meo-PCP, I easily came to terms with and was able to let my ego down gently. The result was *extremely* peaceful and freeing. Strikingly, this feeling has persisted ever since that night, and my 'reality' shift has benefited me with an increased sense of flow and synchronicity. Imagine if we all realized tomorrow that we are in fact living in a simulation. I don't know what would happen, but I only hope that it would cause the world to come together like never before, ushering in a new golden age of peace and prosperity. We would take life more lightly and not sweat one bit or byte of it. If Earth is just a program, there must be a way to hack this thing to create our Utopian dreams come true.

I could go on longer, but I want to hear other people's perspective.
Click to expand...


We could be a simulation program run by an advanced super alien race on some supercomputer. God could just be playing a quick game of The Sims on his P.C. We could be plugged into virtual reality and used as batteries like The Matrix. We could just be God's dream.


Who knows. Reality is weird man.
 
This guy basically tells it like it is. You have to concentrate really hard to understand it cause he's on a different level, but yeah, wow. Mind blown

 
Vortech, I have a question. Since we have no evidence, nor could we due to the nature of solipsism, is it rational to even suggest its a viable concept worth investing in? I mean, I dont know if there are purple aliens about to attack planet earth, but since there is no evidence that will happen, is it rational to think its possible, without any actual evidence?

Solipsism isnt falsifiable necessarily, but without evidence to warrant belief, why even think its rational to assume its possible? Not only that, but to assume it is possibly valid would require an unjustifiable assumption, this is philosophical suicide if one was to do this..

What are your thoughts on what Ive said?
 
I regard simulation theory as *possibly* valid; it hasn't been proven to be false, and it is possible to see it as reality because it just makes sense in a certain way. There may not be a smoking gun to prove it irrefutably, but lots of little alignments add up.
 
vortech said:
I regard simulation theory as *possibly* valid; it hasn't been proven to be false, and it is possible to see it as reality because it just makes sense in a certain way. There may not be a smoking gun to prove it irrefutably, but lots of little alignments add up.
Click to expand...

What actual evidence is there for it I suppose is what I was looking for. Just because we can conceptualize it, doesnt mean that concept is evidence for it. We cant disprove it, but we really dont even know if there is anything to disprove.

What are your thoughts?
 
If you are looking for specific evidence, just start with any of 100s or 1000s of videos on YouTube on the subject. Some of them are well-done documentary style. From there you can research those bits of evidence to get a better picture.
 
vortech said:
If you are looking for specific evidence, just start with any of 100s or 1000s of videos on YouTube on the subject. Some of them are well-done documentary style. From there you can research those bits of evidence to get a better picture.
Click to expand...

Im not talking about ideas or conceptual discussions on the matter, Im talking about actual evidence "from the other side". To suggest solipsism is real would require evidence of it, not just a thought experiment or the inability to disprove it, thats not actual evidence. Thats like me talking about the possibility of unicorns on other planets and then using that conversation as evidence for unicorns on other planets, it begs the question, which is what you have to do to suggest evidence for solipsism, beg the question and use circular reasoning.

The entire point of solipsism is that there can be no evidence, if there was evidence of solipsism it would cease to be solipsism lol

So apart from theories, what actual evidence do you have for this? Two men who talk about solipsism isnt evidence for solipsism, its just two men playing with their imagination.
 
vortech said:
Sorry this should work now that I'm on a desktop
Click to expand...

I watched the video, it still doesnt answer the problem of solipsism. We could say our reality functions like a simulation, but without proof, we are equally warranted to say its not, in fact the preponderance of evidence against solipsism far outweighs the evidence for it imo . A person on stage attempting to draw parallels may meet the requirement for evidence, but then I could easily provide a rebuttal to the contrary as evidence. Who is right? Hence the problem of solipsism.

This conversation has been going on for a very long time, yet the problem remains..

I tried to work through disproving/proving solipsism, and while I have opinions on it, its just not possible to answer, its not falsifiable, meaning there is no way to prove or disprove it.

If you would address the points Im making and confront the issue, you would see how futile the attempts to justify the simulation theory are, its just not possible without faith.
 
A simulation would also require a programmer, or 'simulator'... something else to think about.. To be honest, considering I am a Christian, our physical and bio-mechanic reality could in fact be a form of a simulation that God is running with sentient beings.. Not that it would matter, as our perception of it would have no real bearing on the outcome.

I remember Plato quoting Socrates, "All I know is that I know nothing".. Either a statement of humility, or Socrates contradicted himself..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top