World Is A Simulation

[Nahm]

Ya. I did half ass it with these ' ' though. So at least there's that. 

[PureExp]

Sharing a cool interview:

Holographic Reality Do we live in a Computer Simulation? Evidence Says Yes!

The man is Jim Elvidge.

 

[Zingo]

Even if we do live in a simulation, and even if our simulation is running within yet another simulation, and so on, at the end of the line there must be something not simulated. The very definition of "simulation" is imitation of a situation or process, therefor there must be a real process at the root of it all that the simulation is imitating. If not, then the whole simulation theory breaks down and we have to define it differently.

[Nahm]

@Zingo sounds like maybe you're contemplating your own realness...?

[Zingo]

@Nahm Aren't we all? :-)

[Nahm]

@Zingo not in about twenty years

[Zingo]

10 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Zingo not in about twenty years

Well, we're all at different stages of our journey.

[Nahm]

@Zingo yes. We are each our own reality, and comparing realities is impossible, because we are each our own reality. 

[ChimpBrain]

I love this topic. I first heard the idea that we might be living in a simulation about 6-7yrs ago and initially liked it on the surface but honestly thought it was just another "sexy" possibility for me to latch onto like the stoned ape theory or something. Since then though, the more I've learned (I use that word loosely), the more it actually does make sense. Does anyone know any recent books that explore the idea in detail? Bostrom's book Superintelligence touched on it a little if I remember correctly but it was way more about the future of AI. 

 

Edit: my bad, I didn't realize there was a trilogy of books listed in the OP! 

Edited March 5, 2017 by ChimpBrain

[jse]

On 23/01/2017 at 4:39 AM, PureExp said:

World Is A Simulation

...and, what if that simulation was being run by a mighty server, that some say goes by the name of ?

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by jse
added pretty font

[PureExp]

@jse My real worry is what if it is written in javascript and runs on windows

No limit to "what ifs".

[PureExp]

Another interesting link, with Musk video.

https://futurism.com/the-simulation-hypothesis-is-reality-all-just-a-computer-simulation/

[PureExp]

@brovakhiin You are right. Musk is not really into simulation stuff, he is a businessman with a passion for high-tech. He is merely repeating the "mainstream" ideas of "materialist simulation hypothesis", which does not dare to deviate too much from established dogma.

IMO, we are the base reality, each of us is same consciousness. The persons or "agents" in this simulation think they are separate individuals and think that the world is out there separate and independent. It is very effective and a successful simulation.

[Nahm]

On 1/28/2017 at 7:30 PM, PureExp said:

@jse  Assuming that your arrows stand for direction of causality, my experience (and I guess of many of the readers here), is neither.

The "external" world and consciousness of it arise at the same time. I do not experience one "causing" the other. If it is all one, what can cause what? One thing coming out of other means more than two. Its not-two, if you directly see it.

Btw, causation and reality are both mental concepts, that is - made up stuff. They are useful for day-to-day talk, not so for deep contemplation. The physical universe is consciousness, so in the end consciousness causes consciousness (which is meaningless sentence if you see it). The problem of causality appears only when you insist that these two are separate. This is where the scientist and philosopher get stuck. Its a belief.

Now, doesn't simulation mean causation? Depends on how you define the word simulation. For me it means - making a model that resembles and behaves as something else. So consciousness (Self) becomes physical world(s) that look separate from itself. But if you see it deeply, nothing really happens, except an experience, an "illusion" of sorts. The essence of a clay pot is just clay. Clay and pot and not separate.

Are you sure you don't experience one causing the other?  If you are it and see it it's one and it's an illusory perception of two. A perception worth experiencing, still though, an illusion. The mind in the middle is also the one, and also part of the illusion.  Imagine, knowing all the amazing things we know about water, that everything is made from water. Not literally, just as an analogy for the one and the two ness. A simultaneous implosion and explosion. Both expanding the other. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Nahm

[PureExp]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

Are you sure you don't experience one causing the other?

Yes. I'm sure.

[Nahm]

@PureExp I'm not for one or the other, but it sounds like I could gain some clarity from your insight since you understand this better. How did you come to know that? 

[PureExp]

@Nahm It is simple. Dig into the meaning of word "causality". You will find that it is empty, meaningless, an assumption, a fantasy, only a rough way of describing events. Useful for everyday tasks, not for contemplation.

Once I saw this, I was sure. X causes Y is a meaningless statement for a seeker.

[jse]

You gotta love this simulation...

 

 

[Nahm]

@PureExp I think I understand where you're coming from but do you find any causation in anything you do with your life? The oneness is the oneness. There is no second part of oneness, so when someone mentions causation, isn't it assumed for the sake of the conversation that they don't mean the oneness? Is there any causation noticeable from your perspective from the oneness? Do you make decisions from what to do with your day, to what to do in your life, or how you treat people, from any place relevant to your enlightened oneness?   ( I'm struggling to find a clearer way to ask this.)

[PureExp]

@Nahm Yes, causation is useful in day to day life. Not very useful for gaining knowledge.

In illusion use illusion, in truth use truth.