# Are we living in a simulation?



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

There are many theories that attempt to explain the fundamental aspects of the cosmos such as reality and existence. One of those theories is the simulation argument, which proposes the idea that our reality, as we know it, may not be real at all, but instead a simulation(run by someone or something). This mind-blowing article suggests that the possibility of us living in a simulation may be far more likely then we may think, as it explains by calculating the different factors and probabilities involved. We can not necessarily know for sure whether or not we are living in a simulation, which is what is frightening. And the idea is far from an impossibility. Actually, the chances that our reality is an illusion are very high. And if we are in fact, living in a simulation, then this idea poses the fundamental question: what happens when we die?

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

Interesting thread. Don't have the time to respond properly right now but I'm going to bookmark and come back to check out the discussion.

Briefly though I'd say you have to look at reality from all perspectives, and everything in between. Study the scientific aspect of the physical world and then study the habits of what appears to be meta-physical i.e. relating to concepts such as quantum mechanics, and then looking at it from the perspective of human consciousness with ideas like emergence respectively-- studying the interaction between our consciousness and by extension our minds with the physical world to allow that extra dimension in our understanding of existence. Deep **** though.


----------



## no subject (Nov 30, 2016)

i dunno


----------



## Overdrive (Sep 19, 2015)

Thanks for the link , i will read this thesis later, sounds really interresting.


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

sad1231234 said:


> There are many theories that attempt to explain the fundamental aspects of the cosmos such as reality and existence. One of those theories is the simulation argument, which proposes the idea that our reality, as we know it, may not be real at all, but instead a simulation(run by someone or something). This mind-blowing article suggests that the possibility of us living in a simulation may be far more likely then we may think, as it explains by calculating the different factors and probabilities involved. We can not necessarily know for sure whether or not we are living in a simulation, which is what is frightening. And the idea is far from an impossibility. Actually, the chances that our reality is an illusion are very high. And if we are in fact, living in a simulation, then this idea poses the fundamental question: what happens when we die?
> 
> http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html


John A Wheeler opined that the universe was made of information, and coined the phrase 'it from bit'. Simulations are made out of information too.


----------



## 2Milk (Oct 29, 2014)

That question really shouldn't be asked, it's pointless. If we do figure out that we are living in a simulation how do we figure out that, that wasn't/was part of the simulation? Was asking the question "are we in a simulation" part of the simulation? Was figuring out that we are in a simulation also part of the simulation? When does the simulation stop?


----------



## Mr A (Oct 7, 2015)

David Icke thinks this world we live in is a hologram, take of it what you will.


----------



## NeverknowsbestFLCL (Aug 4, 2016)

2Milk said:


> That question really shouldn't be asked, it's pointless. 1. If we do figure out that we are living in a simulation how do we figure out that, that wasn't/was part of the simulation? 2. Was asking the question "are we in a simulation" part of the simulation? 3. Was figuring out that we are in a simulation also part of the simulation? 4. When does the simulation stop?


1. We don't, but we have to assume that the simulation would allow such things. The simulation doesn't have to answer back, but then again, what if this is all played out? What if you were SUPPOSED, to ask that question, like I'm supposed to respond to you? What if we really don't have choices, since we've already made the choices (or they were made for us) beforehand in another simulation, and we are just replaying that simulation in this one?

2. oh yes. Everyone will tell you "no". But even if the answer is "yes", it's not like we have control of the simulation, we simply live it. Even if we realize that we are in a simulation, what actions can we really take, since we are simulated by the simulation itself? If we destroy or change it, we destroy or change ourselves.

3. Oh yessss. Imagine, that you are a game designer. Your sitting in front of your computer screen, and looking at your creation. All of your characters move around and do things and such...then, one of them looks into the sky, directly at you, and ask "Am I real? What is real? What is beyond real? IS there a beyond real? Is this just a simulation?". So the character tries to escape the game you made by exiting all of the boundaries, and behaving in ways the game doesn't allow. The character reaches the edge of the map or city or whatever place they're located in, looking past the boundary of all of the digital earth that they walk on....and they find an empty space of nothingness, that goes on forever. But there's a person behind the computer screen, who made the game, yet, no way to reach them.

4. Depends on the source that it runs off of. If the source is infinite, then it runs forever. Otherwise, it does whatever it wants and we don't have a say as to what happens.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Post_Punk_Proclivity said:


> Interesting thread. Don't have the time to respond properly right now but I'm going to bookmark and come back to check out the discussion.
> 
> Briefly though I'd say you have to look at reality from all perspectives, and everything in between. Study the scientific aspect of the physical world and then study the habits of what appears to be meta-physical i.e. relating to concepts such as quantum mechanics, and then looking at it from the perspective of human consciousness with ideas like emergence respectively-- studying the interaction between our consciousness and by extension our minds with the physical world to allow that extra dimension in our understanding of existence. Deep **** though.


Im sure you could probably get some sort of estimate of the chances of us living in a simulation, if you narrowed it all down.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Erroll said:


> John A Wheeler opined that the universe was made of information, and coined the phrase 'it from bit'. Simulations are made out of information too.


Yeah, i think thats our best bit of evidence that our universe could be a simulation.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

2Milk said:


> That question really shouldn't be asked, it's pointless. If we do figure out that we are living in a simulation how do we figure out that, that wasn't/was part of the simulation? Was asking the question "are we in a simulation" part of the simulation? Was figuring out that we are in a simulation also part of the simulation? When does the simulation stop?


Its a paradox. Whatever belief anyone has about the universe, it is undeniable that the "first cause" of the universe/simulation is beyond the boundaries of logic.


----------



## GettingIntoMedicine (Nov 30, 2016)

Yes its quite possible of not probable. I remember reading that scientists are finding hints of binary data in atoms


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

NeverknowsbestFLCL said:


> 1. We don't, but we have to assume that the simulation would allow such things. The simulation doesn't have to answer back, but then again, what if this is all played out? What if you were SUPPOSED, to ask that question, like I'm supposed to respond to you? What if we really don't have choices, since we've already made the choices (or they were made for us) beforehand in another simulation, and we are just replaying that simulation in this one?
> 
> 2. oh yes. Everyone will tell you "no". But even if the answer is "yes", it's not like we have control of the simulation, we simply live it. Even if we realize that we are in a simulation, what actions can we really take, since we are simulated by the simulation itself? If we destroy or change it, we destroy or change ourselves.
> 
> ...


1. I often think about this. And i think that an argument for the idea of consciousess possibly being an illusion would be in the way we percieve time. We think we have a choice, but considering that there are theories which suggest that time itself is an illusion, then that means that all of our conscious thinking is simultaneous. If it is simultaneous, then whats to stop it from being preplanned(by say, God/Gods/aliens for example).

2. If we are in a simulation, we are at the mercy of those who created this simulation, which is a truly frightening concept. We are not in control, but under the control of someone or something that we know nothing about. We can only true to find clues about the cosmos to try to construct a sort of image of the different probabilities of what exists here and out there(beyond our universe).

3. I think that that is what "nothingness" is - not only the boundaries(if it has any) of our universe, but also the physical point where the universe merges with whatever unfathomable realm or dimension out there.

4. It is possible that our universe is a simulation within a simulation within a simulation, and so forth. In that case there would have to be an infinite chain of simulations and simulators. Which defies the laws of logic, unless you consider the possibility that time may be an illusion(as many theorists believe). In the case of time being an illusion, whatever layers of reality(simulation in this case) that overlap this reality(again, simulation in this case) are created by other simulators from other overlapping simulations, and they in turn are created by other simulators, and so forth, and this chain is infinite. But it wouldnt break the laws of logic, because if time does not exist, then there is no transition between creators and their created universes, but instead an infinite chain of simulators.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Well, I don't think that we literally live in a simulation. Not as in "we don't even exist". That's ridiculous. But our reality (as we know it) is shaped by all sorts of things and yes. Other people do intentionally twist things whenever and however they can. And people who have an enormous amount of influence over many people certainly can warp reality more than many people might think. 

But as to the question of whether I think there's some kind of aliens out there looking at his like rats in a maze? No.


----------



## discoveryother (Sep 18, 2016)

our minds are a simulation. i think most people know that already. otherwise, it'd be weird that we can change our minds about things, hallucinate, make predictions, be wrong about things, etc.

and then we are also connected through language, which is another simulation, where words stand for thoughts which stand for the hypothetical objects.

sim 1 - thought/object
sim 2 - word/thought/object

in practical terms, the more real a simulation is, the more useful it is. if your simulation doesn't match reality well you won't have the information you need to get out of danger. a simulation which is entirely false serves no purpose. in a fairly stable environment, small changes to a simulation can come up with novel situations which can predict a better course of action. a simulation which exactly matches the real is an exact copy of the real and couldn't be distinguished from it - therefore also fairly useless in terms of information.

it doesn't matter if we are in a simulation. because all symbols are still objects, which have their own being. "it from a bit" is the same as saying "it from an it" because a bit has its own existence anyway. you just have to do away with symbol/object duality to make sense of this.

as far as someone running some simulation which we are existing in? this is a religious/metaphysics question - something reason tells us we should be agnostic about, based on the lack of evidence. in practice though, this is a matter of belief.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Well, I don't think that we literally live in a simulation. Not as in "we don't even exist". That's ridiculous. But our reality (as we know it) is shaped by all sorts of things and yes. Other people do intentionally twist things whenever and however they can. And people who have an enormous amount of influence over many people certainly can warp reality more than many people might think.
> 
> But as to the question of whether I think there's some kind of aliens out there looking at his like rats in a maze? No.


It may be possible to exist within a simulation. If some kind of intelligent entity that exists either within or outside the universe can create consciousness, then we could very likely be living in a simulation. All they would need to do is to replicate the same essential things that make us human, such as consciousness, sensory perception, etc. And if they put that into a computer(of some sort) in the form of data, it is very possible that we wouldnt even know it. And just as all computers use computer coding, the universe is also made up of what appears to be computer coding.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

sad1231234 said:


> It may be possible to exist within a simulation. If some kind of intelligent entity that exists either within or outside the universe can create consciousness, then we could very likely be living in a simulation.


 Why would it be very likely instead of a remote possibility or just a weird thought about what might be possible? If you say that it's very likely that the sun will come up tomorrow morning, you mean that it's pretty much 100% certain. I don't think you can say that we could be very likely living in a simulation unless you had something more than speculation to go on.


----------



## eukz (Nov 3, 2013)

That'd be so insane lol. The first thing I'd ask the beings in charge of the simulation would be "are you guys being part of another simulation?"


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Why would it be very likely instead of a remote possibility or just a weird thought about what might be possible? If you say that it's very likely that the sun will come up tomorrow morning, you mean that it's pretty much 100% certain. I don't think you can say that we could be very likely living in a simulation unless you had something more than speculation to go on.


There have been calculations - only probalistic of course, but they can still give us an adequate idea of the chances of our universe being a simulation; if of course there were some intelligent entity that had such an ability(to create human consciousness as we know it). And according to those calculations, it is very likely that we may be living in some sort of simulation. Now as i have previously said, this calculation(of our chances of being in a simulation) is only based on the assumption that consciousness can be created.


----------



## lackofflife (Mar 24, 2015)

according to (matrix) movie yes we are living in simulation...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NeverknowsbestFLCL (Aug 4, 2016)

sad1231234 said:


> 1. I often think about this. And i think that an argument for the idea of consciousess possibly being an illusion would be in the way we percieve time. We think we have a choice, but considering that there are theories which suggest that time itself is an illusion, then that means that all of our conscious thinking is simultaneous. If it is simultaneous, then whats to stop it from being preplanned(by say, God/Gods/aliens for example).
> 
> 2. If we are in a simulation, *we are at the mercy of those who created this simulation, which is a truly frightening concept. We are not in control, but under the control of someone or something that we know nothing about.* _We can only true to find clues about the cosmos to try to construct a sort of image of the different probabilities of what exists here and out there(beyond our universe)._
> 
> ...


1. So this brings the questions: Is anything _truly_ real? What is the definition of real? We only know what we can interact with and what we've been told, so what do we really know, if everything we interact with isn't even real, and nothing connected to everything we've interacted has an explaination? If nothing has a real explaination, then everything means nothing, or nothing means everything, which still explains nothing. It's like all explainations explain nothing when they explain themselves.

2. Bold response: yes, this one bugs me the most. 
Italic response: In the end, we are only learning what the simulation wants us to know. Knowing anything else would probably destroy the simulation by causing some sort of event/occurance that is unexplainable, causing unexplainable effects, and an unexplainable infinite outcome, which is even more scary. It's like, searching for the ultimate understanding is the worst thing any of us could do (which, the terms themselves "knowing" and "sense" can't be known or sensed). Which brings us to square one, understanding everything that the simulation is showing us, and simply going with it. That might be the safer outcome, but no one really knows for sure.

3. there still has to be a "point" of connection somewhere though, you know? I mean, no character in any video game will ever come to life, but if they could, what would that be like? Some sort of catalyst body in our reality? Would you call that an entity? How would it act? What would it do? Would it have it's own mind, or be mindless? How would that effect the laws of physics? That's like our existence, being a simulation, and being able to escape it, which really isn't possible. (ouch my brain)

4. Which still doesn't make sense. There is no known "start" and "finish" points in our reality, it's just endless backwards and forwards. But things move, interact with other things, and this is supposed to have a meaning somehow. I mean, we can _start_ a fire on earth, and it will _end_ when it's out of fuel, but the molecules to make the fire _still exist_ and _always have_, just in a different form. So, I can only include that we have always existed, and always will exist, just in different forms that can't be explained. It's like trying to understand where and what you were before you were born, and that's impossible because there's no memory of it, nor any way to access that sort of "realm" <---which is the best way to put it.

So, wherever we were when we were born, is probably the same place we'll go when we die. And we can't call it nothing, but, we can't really give it a name if there's no way to describe it. So we just have to call it "something".

Something has always been here, and is always doing something. Unless, we have never existed, nothing exist, and this is just how nothingness explains itself, which leads to nothing, which doesn't make sense. Whatever the case, it's one of these 2 options.

ow my brain. no mas


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

NeverknowsbestFLCL said:


> 1. So this brings the questions: Is anything _truly_ real? What is the definition of real? We only know what we can interact with and what we've been told, so what do we really know, if everything we interact with isn't even real, and nothing connected to everything we've interacted has an explaination? If nothing has a real explaination, then everything means nothing, or nothing means everything, which still explains nothing. It's like all explainations explain nothing when they explain themselves.
> 
> 2. Bold response: yes, this one bugs me the most.
> Italic response: In the end, we are only learning what the simulation wants us to know. Knowing anything else would probably destroy the simulation by causing some sort of event/occurance that is unexplainable, causing unexplainable effects, and an unexplainable infinite outcome, which is even more scary. It's like, searching for the ultimate understanding is the worst thing any of us could do (which, the terms themselves "knowing" and "sense" can't be known or sensed). Which brings us to square one, understanding everything that the simulation is showing us, and simply going with it. That might be the safer outcome, but no one really knows for sure.
> ...


1. Reality, to the individual is only the collection of our perceptions of our environment. We observe our world with our senses and that gives us an idea of everything. But of course, like you said, there is no way to tell for sure if whether or not what we are percieving is actual reality or an illusion. Perhaps explanation is just a tool of the human mind, and we are attempting to explain away the cosmos with a miniscule biological process within our brains when instead maybe everything just has no explanation. I mean, if space and time, as some theories suggest, are tools of the human mind, then maybe explanation and logic are nothing more than tools of the human mind. If that were the case, then the belief that "everything has an explanation" would be false and not everything, or maybe even nothing, would have an explanation.

2. I do hope fhat if we are in a simulation, our simulators are only doing it for research purposes. And i hope that there isnt anyone evil in charge of the universe. That would probably be the safer outcome, because that would increase our chances of going along with the simulation, which would be just what they want. Yet again, maybe they want us to expand the boundaries of knowledge.

3. Well physically, it is probably impossible to connect to that other dimension. But as for a transfer of consciousness, i guess if it were possible, we would not be in charge of that. But if say, whoever ran the simulation decided to transfer our consciousness, i think we would have a hard time explaining the illogical things in that "dimension" where the simulators were.

4. There are only 2 options - something or nothing. But since nothing cannot make up something, and we are definately percieving something("reality", order, consciousness), then the only logical explanztion would be that something has always existed. Unless of course you introduce an explanation that is illogical. But if something has always existed, how would that expain the expansion of the universe(in the case of a finite universe?) And if the universe is finite, then what would be the explanation of the boundaries of the universe - nothingness? It is easy to say, "well beyond the boundaries of the universe is nothing". But nothingness is not something, so nothingness must be something, because a finite universe(science suggests a finite universe) would have infinite space if nothingness really were nothingness, but nothingness is "taking" up space that the universe would have if nothing but something existed. And if something were around forever, then something would be infinite. And space would be infinite, because space is something, it is area to move. Therefore, in the case of a finite universe, nothingness is something. Now what is that something(nothingness)?


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

andy1984thesecond said:


> our minds are a simulation. i think most people know that already. otherwise, it'd be weird that we can change our minds about things, hallucinate, make predictions, be wrong about things, etc.


You seem to mean a simulation runs on the brain-computer our head. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. The 'I' is a history of myself in my memory. The inputs to the brain-computer are the signals coming in through our sensory organs. The brain computer decides what indicates the boundaries of individual things based on what has worked before as boundaries. The brain computer works out based on input signals whether something is far or near, hot or cold, big or little. In short , the brain computer represents the signals as the very reality that you perceive. And it is a reality that exists only in your head. Because someone else with a different "I" history might deduct a different relative reality based on receipt of the same signals.



andy1984thesecond said:


> and then we are also connected through language, which is another simulation, where words stand for thoughts which stand for the hypothetical objects.
> 
> sim 1 - thought/object
> sim 2 - word/thought/object


We analyze our relative world simulation and translate it into a medium where it can become input to other brain-computers. Words are for humans like wi-fi is for computers. We subjectively form a consensus, whic we call objectivity. That is like a simulation within a simulation.



andy1984thesecond said:


> in practical terms, the more real a simulation is, the more useful it is. if your simulation doesn't match reality well you won't have the information you need to get out of danger. a simulation which is entirely false serves no purpose. in a fairly stable environment, small changes to a simulation can come up with novel situations which can predict a better course of action. a simulation which exactly matches the real is an exact copy of the real and couldn't be distinguished from it - therefore also fairly useless in terms of information.


And that is the cruel hand of evolution at work; only the ones with appropriate simulations running on their brain-computers survive.



andy1984thesecond said:


> it doesn't matter if we are in a simulation. because all symbols are still objects, which have their own being. "it from a bit" is the same as saying "it from an it" because a bit has its own existence anyway. you just have to do away with symbol/object duality to make sense of this.


The difference between 'it' and 'bit', is that no sensory signals emanate from a 'bit', but sensory signals are perceived when encountering an 'it'. So 'bits' must be derived information from a combination of an 'I history' and memories of how I processed these signals in the past, sort of like a category identifier. So remembered experience helps transform 'its' into 'bits'. The other way around, 'bit' to 'it' happens when we perceive sensory signals(bits) and connect them to say a category neuron (I perceive this set of signal 'bits' as a cat, so I assign it to the 'It" cat category in my head, which is not an 'it' outside my brain computer unless I communicate it to someone with words.



andy1984thesecond said:


> as far as someone running some simulation which we are existing in? this is a religious/metaphysics question - something reason tells us we should be agnostic about, based on the lack of evidence. in practice though, this is a matter of belief.


Faith becomes subjective reality, but often when translated into words, the agreement of the subjective views never reaches the point of being deemed objective.

Good post Andy!


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

I've thought about this before.

Or that it's like The Sims and someone is actually playing me. Then I think. Who the **** would be playing me? But then I remembered that one time where I made a household of religious fundamentalists in The Sims who avoided technology and lived very dull lives. Not to mention all the other Sims who had fairly bad lives and were really poor etc because I found that more interesting sometimes when I'd get bored of playing super rich successful Sims.










OK.


----------



## EmotionlessThug (Oct 4, 2011)

*Ayo, If people so called died, how come they still exist within our database, you can still view their pictures and videos on devices and printed photos? If they're permanently gone from this place, that means they will no longer exist in our database, but they appear on our database means they still exist and being reused for coming back in this system to play a character as a software model?*


















*If you can watch computer generated imagery on the screen which is a software, that means anything that's displayed on the digital screen is a software model? We aren't supposed to be watching humans on the digital screen or cartoons if this place wasn't simulation. A computational intelligence system can make changes to a virtual software environment and the software models.*

*It's literally in front of your face. *









*How come the public scientist, software engineers, video programmers couldn't distinguish the digital screen to make a comparison between humans & CGI as software products? *

*These people are perceptually illiterate, and their illiteracy is hilarious......

Do these people have Alzheimer's, Aphasia, and Amnesia? What amuses me is that these people have extremely poor communication skills, that they easily get occupied by the television instead of learning how to communicate properly with one another. It seems their existence living within humanity is too painfully boring that they unconsciously find famous strangers more amusing than their friends and family members.*

I've learned this on my own.


----------



## Boogie Man (Dec 2, 2016)

i believe we are, completely.
but then, i have 2 therapists so.. take from that what you will.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

EmotionlessThug said:


> *Ayo, If people so called died, how come they still exist within our database, you can still view their pictures and videos on devices and printed photos? If they're permanently gone from this place, that means they will no longer exist in our database, but they appear on our database means they still exist and being reused for coming back in this system to play a character as a software model?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Databases and photos are records of the deceased people's existence. When people die, their records dont die because the records are seperate entities. Unless you are looking at it from the view of the entire universe being a simulation, where everything is composed of computer bits. Then in that case, the people who die are composed of seperate computer bits than the records of the people who died.


----------



## EmotionlessThug (Oct 4, 2011)

sad1231234 said:


> Databases and photos are records of the deceased people's existence. When people die, their records dont die because the records are seperate entities. *Unless you are looking at it from the view of the entire universe being a simulation, where everything is composed of computer bits. Then in that case, the people who die are composed of seperate computer bits than the records of the people who died.*


In a simulation

_Binary code, then that means the people didn't die, it goes by a different term, and the definition we have must be wrong. I also believe we're still missing a lot of substantial amount of information when it comes to computer programming and software machines?_

Computer System/Software Machine

_If the software engineers who created us turned off the whole entire system for good and delete all copies of us from their program without a trace, which includes all of their data storage & cloud storage, then that should be considered as death?_

_Also, it's impossible for us to get the idea on our own to learn how create a computational intelligence system, that someone got permission from the main programmers of this system to allow humans to use this biotechnology. The main programmers had taught their first creations how to talk, so they can communicate with them in an appropriate level in order to learn how to program and develop technologies. Which only means that the first generation that's been created knows how to use binary code to create their own universes and life forms using a computational intelligence system, and also shared their knowledge with their creations as how their creator did for them. Now, in order for the universe to expand and continuously keep generating there needs to be a universal intelligent software agent that is only programmed for managing the universe and life forms. The life forms need rules to be conducted in an experiment without realizing its existence, so religious information is a mental programmed that can reprogrammed the software models to proceed in following a ruling system like a Role Playing Game.

We have video game programmers having access to a developers console, not realizing that the console itself is biotechnology. Wow!!










































Since we have access to computational intelligence system which is biotechnology, how come we can't learn how to create molecular designs in a formed of a software to materialize software products through a materialization machine or fix software software agent based models?_


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

*Tv √*

when there was.. radio
newspapers! everything from a huge distance. nothing real. make believe

colour TV!

phone!
portable ones on top of that infrastructure
Facebook fake every fantasy

dangling the senses where everyone plays along...! buy buy buy! false reality pay pay pay!

personal video media to pass on, for capitalist measures

more to it than y/n broadcast desire: by any means. get. like. revenue. deja vu

hot balloon

baboons

see the smiles & chortles

VR headset?

pretty!


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

EmotionlessThug said:


> In a simulation
> 
> _Binary code, then that means the people didn't die, it goes by a different term, and the definition we have must be wrong. I also believe we're still missing a lot of substantial amount of information when it comes to computer programming and software machines?_
> 
> ...


If we are in a simulation, then when we die, our coding is either lost, or transferred to somewhere. It depends on what the intention of whoever run the simulator is, in the case of our reality being a simulation.

People are already working on machines that can create molecular designs to materialize software products, but this technology is in a very early stage. Our prototype 3d printers are an example of machines that can materialize software products into molecular designs.


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

sad1231234 said:


> There are many theories that attempt to explain the fundamental aspects of the cosmos such as reality and existence. One of those theories is the simulation argument, which proposes the idea that our reality, as we know it, may not be real at all, but instead a simulation(run by someone or something). This mind-blowing article suggests that the possibility of us living in a simulation may be far more likely then we may think, as it explains by calculating the different factors and probabilities involved. We can not necessarily know for sure whether or not we are living in a simulation, which is what is frightening. And the idea is far from an impossibility. Actually, the chances that our reality is an illusion are very high. And if we are in fact, living in a simulation, then this idea poses the fundamental question: what happens when we die?
> 
> http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html


http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-12-uncover-hippocampus-future.html

This article discusses how the hippocampus seems to be key for imagining the future. We already know that the hippocampus is involved in memory of the past. And the present stimuli are processed in the context of the immediate past. So there we have it present, past, and future are all there in your head, right now, at the same time. That sounds so much like the Block Universe Theory that Brian Greene discusses in one of his books, where a time is laid out as a 4th dimension on a spatial map.

Past present and future all exist together in our heads, at the same time. And when we experience the future, we experience it the way we imagine it, which is in comparison with previous experience. So we usually experience what we imagine we will experience; if there is something we didn't expect, chances are that we will not take notice of it. Also, the outside world is not necessarily the world we experience. We experience electro-chemical sensory signals only. We interpret a worldview based on these signals. Perhaps the outside world is not there at all. Maybe it's like the Eastern Religions claim; i.e. Everything springs from our consciousness. Could our very bodies be a non-existent product of an elemental consciousness which lies underneath our imaginary concepts of space and time? A Consciousness, which has always existed, simulating a world. A God?


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Erroll said:


> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-12-uncover-hippocampus-future.html
> 
> This article discusses how the hippocampus seems to be key for imagining the future. We already know that the hippocampus is involved in memory of the past. And the present stimuli are processed in the context of the immediate past. So there we have it present, past, and future are all there in your head, right now, at the same time. That sounds so much like the Block Universe Theory that Brian Greene discusses in one of his books, where a time is laid out as a 4th dimension on a spatial map.
> 
> Past present and future all exist together in our heads, at the same time. And when we experience the future, we experience it the way we imagine it, which is in comparison with previous experience. So we usually experience what we imagine we will experience; if there is something we didn't expect, chances are that we will not take notice of it. Also, the outside world is not necessarily the world we experience. We experience electro-chemical sensory signals only. We interpret a worldview based on these signals. Perhaps the outside world is not there at all. Maybe it's like the Eastern Religions claim; i.e. Everything springs from our consciousness. Could our very bodies be a non-existent product of an elemental consciousness which lies underneath our imaginary concepts of space and time? A Consciousness, which has always existed, simulating a world. A God?


Past, present and future all exist at the same time in our heads, but obviously in different ways to each other. Past is our recollection of previous present moments, the present is what we can percieve and interact in, and the future is our imagining of present moments that are to come. But of course this view begs the question of whether or not time is a fundamental law of the universe, or a tool of our mind used in constructing our "reality". In the case of the latter being true, then present is not a moment, but rather a state of mind.

Then what exactly is the present, what is time? Is it a law of the universe, or is it a tool that our mind uses to navigate its way through different "moments"? I think a lot of things point to the possibility of time being a tool of our mind. For example, we already know that time is subjective to what happens in our brain. Perhaps time is just a creation of our consciousness.

And since time is percieved as reality, then other aspects of reality can also possibly be constructed by our consciousness, including reality itself. So in the case of time being a tool of the mind, then whats to say that space isnt a tool of our minds as well? If time and space are tools of our mind, then we are not experiencing reality; instead we are experiencing what our consciousness is constructing in an effort to percieve what reality is. But since our minds cannot percieve actual reality, this very likely means that our minds are either attempting to percieve an unpercievable ultimate reality, or "choosing" to experience a fake reality, or our consciousness is constrained, like what you said, by simulators. Or even by a God.


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

sad1231234 said:


> Past, present and future all exist at the same time in our heads, but obviously in different ways to each other. Past is our recollection of previous present moments, the present is what we can percieve and interact in, and the future is our imagining of present moments that are to come. But of course this view begs the question of whether or not time is a fundamental law of the universe, or a tool of our mind used in constructing our "reality". In the case of the latter being true, then present is not a moment, but rather a state of mind.
> 
> Then what exactly is the present, what is time? Is it a law of the universe, or is it a tool that our mind uses to navigate its way through different "moments"? I think a lot of things point to the possibility of time being a tool of our mind. For example, we already know that time is subjective to what happens in our brain. Perhaps time is just a creation of our consciousness.
> 
> And since time is percieved as reality, then other aspects of reality can also possibly be constructed by our consciousness, including reality itself. So in the case of time being a tool of the mind, then whats to say that space isnt a tool of our minds as well? If time and space are tools of our mind, then we are not experiencing reality; instead we are experiencing what our consciousness is constructing in an effort to percieve what reality is. But since our minds cannot percieve actual reality, this very likely means that our minds are either attempting to percieve an unpercievable ultimate reality, or "choosing" to experience a fake reality, or our consciousness is constrained, like what you said, by simulators. Or even by a God.


Yes. You've nailed it. That's what I have been exploring. And the fact that time is relative is a big clue that we may be manufacturing time in our consciousness (I;ve written about this in my blog. here.) And per Einstein, time is just another dimension and one with space. So if we manufacture time in our heads, we also manufacture space there. And if time and space are created in our consciousnesses, then all of the reality that takes place in time and space, is a product of our consciousness 

Now your job, grasshopper, is to get yourself several PHDs and figure out how to test this stuff conclusively. Start with all the guys who are thinking along the lines that spacetime is not the fundamental reality. The fundamental reality underlying spacetime could be consciousness. The universe might most basically be consciousness. Maybe everything around you is a simulation created in the fundamental God-consciousness, that has always been the only thing that ever has existed.


----------



## Red October (Aug 1, 2016)

Who knows? I have no idea how we could test it to find out

But I do have a bit of a problem with the thought that we 'probably' live in a simulation, because seemingly the same line of reasoning would apply to the people running our simulation - they also would 'probably' be in a simulation... as would the people running 'their' simulation..

You end up with a situation of "it's simulations all the way down"


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Erroll said:


> Yes. You've nailed it. That's what I have been exploring. And the fact that time is relative is a big clue that we may be manufacturing time in our consciousness (I;ve written about this in my blog. here.) And per Einstein, time is just another dimension and one with space. So if we manufacture time in our heads, we also manufacture space there. And if time and space are created in our consciousnesses, then all of the reality that takes place in time and space, is a product of our consciousness
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If both time and space are manufactured by our consciousness, then it is possible that reality is completely subjective to the individual mind. In such a case, that means that all aspects of reality, including the existence of other people's consciousness, may be "imaginary", so to speak.

If our "reality", as we percieve it, is created by our consciousness, then what lies beyond the boundaries of our percievable existence, we can't even fathom. Which i find quite an exciting concept to ponder.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

Wrench's mask is cool

[spoiler=.]




































Can the being running my simulation hook me up with one? Cheers.

edit: =O






edit again:










[/spoiler]


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Red October said:


> Who knows? I have no idea how we could test it to find out
> 
> But I do have a bit of a problem with the thought that we 'probably' live in a simulation, because seemingly the same line of reasoning would apply to the people running our simulation - they also would 'probably' be in a simulation... as would the people running 'their' simulation..
> 
> You end up with a situation of "it's simulations all the way down"


Perhaps in the ultimate reality, beyond the laws of logic and human comprehension, lies a dimension where the entities inhabiting it know everything, in fact maybe even created everything.


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

sad1231234 said:


> Perhaps in the ultimate reality, beyond the laws of logic and human comprehension, lies a dimension where the entities inhabiting it know everything, in fact maybe even created everything.


If we eliminate spacetime from the picture all human knowledge goes out the window with it.

We base everything we know in spacetime.

For instance, the most basic ideas that our maths are based on, fall away into nothingness. What meaning does 'point' have if we assume away space and time? How can there be more than one thing if there is not space between anything? What is Newton's theoretical limit, when there cannot be spatially separated things? Numbers can't even exist in a spaceless timeless universe.

But it would be interesting to see what problems in science might be explained if we developed putative explanations of our experience, with no explicit nor implicit reference to space or time. Could we ever say more than consciousness is all that there is and it simulates everything?

We would have no experience to guide us in determining just 'how' consciousness simulates. Even memories of past simulations to guide our decisions would be impossible without space and time, because memory assumes past, which assumes time. Maybe that's why spacetime is such a persistent illusion; because there would be nothing to think about without it. Consciousness would loop through checking its input box and finding nothing to process, so it would just keep checking an empty input box.

There's nothing to think about in a timeless spaceless universe. But we think about stuff. Is that a proof of the physical existence of space and time? Spacetime is different for different individual consciences, so it can not fundamentally be, like what we experience.

I don't have the answers, but I find it pleasurable mental masturbation. I love playing with my brain


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Erroll said:


> If we eliminate spacetime from the picture all human knowledge goes out the window with it.
> 
> We base everything we know in spacetime.
> 
> ...


Exactly. In fact, when trying to understand what is beyond the perimeters of our comprehensible "reality", we can do away with logic, since logic is based on mathematical reasoning. So not only is everything we comprehend within this fake(quite possibly) reality of space and time, whatever lies beyond this fake reality is uncomprehensible. So we will never be able to understand the true reality unless we have some sort of advancement in our level of consciousness. This seems to support the Simulation Argument as well as biocentrism. But of course, the "space" between numbers for instance, is made up by the human mind in an effort to be able to explain things logically. Mathematics is an invention of humans and has not always existed. Perhaps the "gaps" between numbers was also made up by the human mind, but like space itself, that gap between numbers hasnt always existed, but was created by consciousness.

I have wondered this a lot too. We tend to have this idea in our heads that, in the case of our universe not being the result of a bunch of chaotic occurances, our universe is created by some form of higher consciousness or divine intelligence. Perhaps consciousness was created by something that is unconscious. But beyond consciousness would be a world of no mathematical laws, which would seem to contradict the creation of consciousness in the first place. Unless of course, consciousness has always existed, which would obviously be the case in a timeless dimension. I enjoy just thinking about these far out concepts while figuring out the reality i live in.


----------



## Erroll (Jan 18, 2016)

sad1231234 said:


> Exactly. In fact, when trying to understand what is beyond the perimeters of our comprehensible "reality", we can do away with logic, since logic is based on mathematical reasoning. So not only is everything we comprehend within this fake(quite possibly) reality of space and time, whatever lies beyond this fake reality is uncomprehensible. So we will never be able to understand the true reality unless we have some sort of advancement in our level of consciousness. This seems to support the Simulation Argument as well as biocentrism. But of course, the "space" between numbers for instance, is made up by the human mind in an effort to be able to explain things logically. Mathematics is an invention of humans and has not always existed. Perhaps the "gaps" between numbers was also made up by the human mind, but like space itself, that gap between numbers hasnt always existed, but was created by consciousness.
> 
> I have wondered this a lot too. We tend to have this idea in our heads that, in the case of our universe not being the result of a bunch of chaotic occurances, our universe is created by some form of higher consciousness or divine intelligence. Perhaps consciousness was created by something that is unconscious. But beyond consciousness would be a world of no mathematical laws, which would seem to contradict the creation of consciousness in the first place. Unless of course, consciousness has always existed, which would obviously be the case in a timeless dimension. I enjoy just thinking about these far out concepts while figuring out the reality i live in.


There is a famous patient in neurology,commonly referred to as HW, who had his hippocampus removed. He always felt that he was the same age as when he was when they took out his hippocampus, as the decades passed. There is a literature about 'place' and 'time' grid neurons in the hippocampus, that might provide us with the illusions of time and space. Fascinating stuff to explore.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Red October said:


> Who knows? I have no idea how we could test it to find out
> 
> But I do have a bit of a problem with the thought that we 'probably' live in a simulation, because seemingly the same line of reasoning would apply to the people running our simulation - they also would 'probably' be in a simulation... as would the people running 'their' simulation..
> 
> You end up with a situation of "it's simulations all the way down"


Perhaps it should be viewed as "a nested series of constructed environments", rather than simulation, real, fake etc.

What is reality other than the _actual_ environment we exist in? If reality doesn't describe this, and actually describes something else (imaginary), then the term is useless (and the generally understood meaning is wrong).

I am not even sure what "the generally understood meaning" is tbh. It's something like "physical", I think? But "physical" can exist in a constructed environment as well, so long as the brain and sensations of the brain operates in that environment.

Maybe I am not making myself clear here though, or am misunderstanding something obvious


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Erroll said:


> There is a famous patient in neurology,commonly referred to as HW, who had his hippocampus removed. He always felt that he was the same age as when he was when they took out his hippocampus, as the decades passed. There is a literature about 'place' and 'time' grid neurons in the hippocampus, that might provide us with the illusions of time and space. Fascinating stuff to explore.


Thats fascinating. I would love to have an operation that removed that part of my brain, it would be so weird. Yes, these grid neurons seem to point to the possibility that time and space are illusions. Although of course the gaps between those neurons are made up of space, and so are the neurons themselves, so we cant really verify anything about our percieved reality.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> Perhaps it should be viewed as "a nested series of constructed environments", rather than simulation, real, fake etc.
> 
> What is reality other than the _actual_ environment we exist in? If reality doesn't describe this, and actually describes something else (imaginary), then the term is useless (and the generally understood meaning is wrong).
> 
> ...


Well if our universe is a simulation, then its quite possible that our "reality" is just existing inside a computer.


----------



## EmotionlessThug (Oct 4, 2011)

sad1231234 said:


> If we are in a simulation, then when we die, our coding is either lost, or transferred to somewhere. It depends on what the intention of whoever run the simulator is, in the case of our reality being a simulation.
> 
> People are already working on machines that can create molecular designs to materialize software products, but this technology is in a very early stage. Our prototype 3d printers are an example of machines that can materialize software products into molecular designs.


The materialization machine that I'm referring to can materialize a new life form and universes, and this always relies on how it's computational powered by a computational intelligence system with its main purpose is to being able to run different types of multiple simulations at once, copy, share, and rerun the entire simulation over again differently.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

EmotionlessThug said:


> The materialization machine that I'm referring to can materialize a new life form and universes, and this always relies on how it's computational powered by a computational intelligence system with its main purpose is to being able to run different types of multiple simulations at once, copy, share, and rerun the entire simulation over again differently.


As far as i know, humanity doesnt have that kind of technology. But scientiests suggest that things such as black holes may be able to spawn entirely new universes from almost nothing.


----------



## gregk (Dec 17, 2016)

Elon Musk makes a convincing arguement in this you tube videos


----------



## gregk (Dec 17, 2016)

woops, its this one


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

Elon Musk didnt take in all the factors though. There are many different factors and for all we know, the brain may not even generate consciousness. What i find most convincing of the possibility that we could be in a simulation is not of the probabilites of being in one but of how the universe just happens to fit us within its limits barely, like our consciousness can at the very most not even fathom what lies beyond our universe, and things like light, which is generally the speed at which we humans can see, is the fastest thing in the universe, suggesting that this along with the laws of quantum entanglement may perhaps mean that us humans "generate" our universe as we even look somewhere. Which is exactly how a video game works.

But to counter that of course you can say that an intelligence powerful enough to create such a "simulation" wouldnt use a quantized format for creating things, or that ancestor simulations can only compute data rather than artificially generate conscious experience.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Aug 10, 2014)

Thanks for the link. I've been seeing mentions of simulation theory a lot recently. Not sure why.
It first sounded so silly to me that I didn't even read about it. But I started to take it more seriously gradually. This is the first time I read a serious article about this theory and I have to say it's quite convincing. Now I have to go read some counter arguments. 
It really adds nothing to the horrors of our world. It even might be a good thing. Maybe if we all beg them they will stop this. Or maybe such mechanism exists. Maybe the program will self terminate the moment that most of the simulated people desire to not live. But people have clung to their miserable lives with such passion that I don't see that ever happening. 
Or maybe they have hardcoded this desire to live into us so we would never want it to stop in order to make the simulation moral. Like the cows who beg people to eat them in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That book is the best dark comedy in the world.



Persephone The Dread said:


> Or that it's like The Sims and someone is actually playing me. Then I think. Who the **** would be playing me? But then I remembered that one time where I made a household of religious fundamentalists in The Sims who avoided technology and lived very dull lives. Not to mention all the other Sims who had fairly bad lives and were really poor etc because I found that more interesting sometimes when I'd get bored of playing super rich successful Sims.


I always kill them by building a wall around them so they won't have access to food, sleep and hygiene. 
The helplessness is quite similar to what I experience everyday in real life so I wouldn't be surprised at all if some twisted ******* was ****ing with us all.


----------



## sad1231234 (Jul 10, 2016)

geraltofrivia said:


> Thanks for the link. I've been seeing mentions of simulation theory a lot recently. Not sure why.
> It first sounded so silly to me that I didn't even read about it. But I started to take it more seriously gradually. This is the first time I read a serious article about this theory and I have to say it's quite convincing. Now I have to go read some counter arguments.
> It really adds nothing to the horrors of our world. It even might be a good thing. Maybe if we all beg them they will stop this. Or maybe such mechanism exists. Maybe the program will self terminate the moment that most of the simulated people desire to not live. But people have clung to their miserable lives with such passion that I don't see that ever happening.
> Or maybe they have hardcoded this desire to live into us so we would never want it to stop in order to make the simulation moral. Like the cows who beg people to eat them in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That book is the best dark comedy in the world.
> ...


Its possible that we may not have to worry about the possibility of our universe being a simulation. But it kind of freaks me out, the thought of being at the mercy of someone or something that we dont know anything about.


----------



## EmotionlessThug (Oct 4, 2011)

sad1231234 said:


> As far as i know, humanity doesnt have that kind of technology. But *scientiests suggest that things such as black holes may be able to spawn entirely new universes from almost nothing.*


I've heard about that too.


----------

