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

Simulated Reality

Captain.Heroin

Captain.Heroin

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
94,868
I wanted to start a discussion about a tripartite disjunction put forth by Nick Bostrom...

1. Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible to construct.
2. A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities (one that might push the probable existence of digital entities beyond the probable number of "real" entities in a Universe) for any of a number of reasons, such as, diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.
Click to expand...

(source)

thoughts?
 
Hey oh, Captain. Hope all is well.
___

About simulated reality, I'll answer accordingly.

1. We have nothing to suggest that we can or cannot reach a state of transhumanism, in terms of the progressive steps humanity takes with its leaps and bounds.

That said, I have to rule out number one.

2. We have to consider whether or not a comparable civilization will be either more ethical or less ethical after technological maturity. In our society, we see a more open attitued towards minority groups, which I in part tip a hat to the information age. So we can use immorality as a viable reason as to why this wouldn't be a simulation.

Unless the civilization was somehow all evil, but destructive societies self destruct so... doubting it.

We cannot fathom how much data it would take to hold our universe in a computer.

3. No evidence suggests this conclusion.
___

Personally, I doubt the simulation due to my point in number two.

Nick Bostrom seems like a smart guy, so I'm picking number two for my reason why we are not in a simulated reality.
 
That was a neat Wikipedia page. Thanks for the link.

I find the envatted brain scenario is most straightforward to conceptualize.

Braininvat.jpg


Using that representation, what is a simulation within a simulation? There are a number of ways that could play out. You need an event that allows new stimuli to be fed to the brain in a way that allows context to change. The brain could go to sleep and a new program runs. It could wake up and a new storyline could begin. Etc etc. one has to ask if the brain stores its own memories or if those are feed by the computer as well. the whole idea of a nested simulation isn't really hierarchical in many of these scenarios. They are merely a shift in storyline in a linear sense. Story goes from A to B to C.

A nested simulation would make sense only if the brain was capable of remembering and processing the story based on a memories of each level of reality and required continuity in that sense. For example, if the brain remembers it was dreaming and in that dream falls asleep and starts a new dream and is aware it is dreaming within the dream. Otherwise, the hierarchical nature of nested simulations isn't meaningful.

The brains requirements for how coherent a storyline it needs and can tolerate dictates a lot of the complexity of the brain/computer interface. If it can tolerate discontinuity in plot, like for example, if one minute I was at home, next minute on a mountaintop, next minute in outer space and my brain was cool with that, then it would be much simpler to implement.

Whatever, just some thoughts out loud. Not sure if those musings are on topic. The question, "what is consciousness" affects the answer of "what is simulated reality" which makes discussing this a bit more complicated.
 
I like to think we're already living in a form of biological simulation, in that our bodies are a sort of avatars for our souls that allow us to temporarily interact with this world. When it dies we can no longer play this game.

But the idea that this world/matrix is a form of simulation is getting quite popular. I think that's right in the sense that it's not REALITY, but a kind of illusion, and when we die we go back to reality. But at the same time, it has a kind of realness while we're here, and what we do here is important while we're here.
 
I think this idea relies entirely on suppositions, which makes it an interesting thought but nothing more. I think we have no way of being able to say with certainty whether or not we have the means to create a simulated reality of the sufficient complexity level. Given the complexity of our universe, it seems unlikely, because as we understand more and more we see that the level of complexity is essentially infinite, or perhaps even truly infinite.

I think that what we experience is an illusion, in the sense that we receive input and our perception of that input is delivered to our awareness by the processes in our brains. We receive incomplete input from our sensory organs, and the way that input is interpreted can vary between individuals. Some people have wildly divergent ways of perceiving the same information. We more or less fall into a bell curve, it seems, since we can mostly agree on basic things. There are certain things we can't deny, such as gravity, or math, leading to believe there are aspects of reality that are objectively true, regardless of perception. But for the most part we all experience reality differently. Does that make it a simulation? In a sense, yes, but that doesn't mean it was created or initiated by another form of intelligence, it could just as easily be just the way reality is.
 
Stripped of everything, there is no you, just awareness. The same awareness that everyone has. The various layers decorating the awareness are a matter of sensory input, memory, and how awareness chooses to attach itself to the aggregate mind that calls itself "I".

When I dream at night, sometimes my dreams seem so real that I don't even realize I'm dreaming. The dreams seem to go on for days or months even. Then I "wake up" and it's only been hours and that reality begins to fade away. Then I get sick and start dying, and this "waking" reality starts to fade, its symbols and labels becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The way we separate conscious experience into different discrete realities doesn't really make sense. It's all one continuous thing projected on a core of pure awareness. All those layers are illusions in a sense because they are empty of true substance. Not much different than holograms. That doesn't mean they don't exist though. No matter if you're dreaming, dying, on LSD, or going to work, awareness never changes. Everything else does.
 
In a sense, I think everything below the divine dimension are illusions. The lower heavens and the astral dimension might have a longer lifespan than things in this world, but they're ultimately transient, and one day it all gets rolled up into one (on the in-breath of the creator).
 
Well said people. The envatted brain kinda implies there was a reality before the brain was placed in the vat. i think I've stated it before but I am a firm believer in the independent reality of consciousness outside the brain. In that case the brain, DNA and the various levels of reality become the simulation. This assumes there is an avatar level of reality as Ninae mentioned where consciousness takes form and layers below or densities where aspects of reality take shape.

There are lots of models for what that looks like floating around. Lately I am entertaining the following one. Could be the one. Seems like a lot of what-ifs, but hey, if this is all a simulation, figuring out how the simulation works is probably the goal of the simulation in the first place. Time is on my side. So yeah, 12 time fields in 15 dimensions grouped in trinities.

NSFW:
Universal-Time-Matrix150.jpg
 
That's a great chart. More complete than what I've seen so far.
 
What does all that even mean? Seems like a lot of Alice Bailey non-speak.
 
Well, who knows how creation is really structured. At least it gives people some idea of the complexity of it. It's better than thinking this world is the first cause of anything.
 
I want a holistic model of reality to arise that I can interact with so our perception can be reintegrated collectively in a way that is harmonious. Makes sense to me. The scaffold I've created has bugs in it and wants me to redirect my perception to insane conclusions. There, said it. I don't know what that reality is or what it looks like. I've been reading all this stuff trying to figure it out. We're all making the problem more challenging no? Your reality affects my reality, that much is clear to me. How do we make this work?

Some people have visions that are so dark I'd like them to know they can upgrade their model if they choose to do so. Reinterpret what's happening to them in a different light. It helped me. we all want a reboot

Little I've encountered is entirely practical. Not saying that this is the model, but it sort of touches on all the things you get exposed to in the rabbit hole as I dig. oneness and presence is my barometer. I want a holistic model of reality that allows every idea I've ever encountered to be integrated and provides discernment and context. ideas are primal and thoughts are primal to me while I'm alive. I want a model of reality where these ideas have resolution. So I entertain it. Is that the source of the crazy-making or is it the resolution of it?

Simulated reality is mind fuck of a topic. Someone suggested recently I watch the original Tron movie to see where these ideas are coming from. Alright, it's in the queue. Gonna go get a haircut. <3
 
levelsBeyond said:
That was a neat Wikipedia page. Thanks for the link.

I find the envatted brain scenario is most straightforward to conceptualize.

Braininvat.jpg


Using that representation, what is a simulation within a simulation? There are a number of ways that could play out. You need an event that allows new stimuli to be fed to the brain in a way that allows context to change. The brain could go to sleep and a new program runs. It could wake up and a new storyline could begin. Etc etc. one has to ask if the brain stores its own memories or if those are feed by the computer as well. the whole idea of a nested simulation isn't really hierarchical in many of these scenarios. They are merely a shift in storyline in a linear sense. Story goes from A to B to C.

A nested simulation would make sense only if the brain was capable of remembering and processing the story based on a memories of each level of reality and required continuity in that sense. For example, if the brain remembers it was dreaming and in that dream falls asleep and starts a new dream and is aware it is dreaming within the dream. Otherwise, the hierarchical nature of nested simulations isn't meaningful.

The brains requirements for how coherent a storyline it needs and can tolerate dictates a lot of the complexity of the brain/computer interface. If it can tolerate discontinuity in plot, like for example, if one minute I was at home, next minute on a mountaintop, next minute in outer space and my brain was cool with that, then it would be much simpler to implement.

Whatever, just some thoughts out loud. Not sure if those musings are on topic. The question, "what is consciousness" affects the answer of "what is simulated reality" which makes discussing this a bit more complicated.
Click to expand...

Your post was appreciated, and I believe on topic. :)
 
I am likely to believe #3 as the most likely. Capyain, you may have missed the thread I started here in P&S a couple months ago, I believe the name of the thread was 'Simulation Theory' in which I recount a peak intuitive experience that lead me to believe more than not that this is a simulation of *some nature*.
 
CT, its cool, you still have your free will. I believe in a simulation theory similar to what John C Lily 'discovered' called ECCO. Earth Coincidence Control Office. This theory proposes that short term coincidences are totally up to free will. What ECCO does is help engineer long term coincidences. Think of these being as playing a *very* advanced version of 'The Sims', and for the most part we can run around and do whatever we want, but in some ways these Officers can create synchronicities and destiny-changing opportunities for us, but even then it is our choice what to do with it.
 
vortech said:
I am likely to believe #3 as the most likely. Capyain, you may have missed the thread I started here in P&S a couple months ago, I believe the name of the thread was 'Simulation Theory' in which I recount a peak intuitive experience that lead me to believe more than not that this is a simulation of *some nature*.
Click to expand...

I'll look for it when I have a spare moment.

I believe in #3 as well.
 
Regardless of Elon Musk's intelligence and posturing, his remarks have re-ignited simulation theory in the collective dialogue, putting the subject back into the mainstream for the first time really since 'The Matrix'. I have caught a whole lot of interesting and imaginative commentary, for instance I just listened to the recent Duncan Trussel podcast episode with Zach Leary. The episode was roughly grounded in the theme of virtual reality, so the conversation inevitably led to remarks about simulation theory that I really resonated with. The dream of VR re-entering mainstream is just one aspect of humanity's technological and consciousness evolution in the ~15 years since 'The Matrix' that makes for a culture that newly ripe for reconsidering simulation philosphy, a clearly-matured culture that is a far cry from the dystopian-colored 'Matrix' that first brought this philosophy to an impressionable new generation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top