Is everything a simulation?

[Ostronomos]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

 

[Jimmy]

We live in the eye of a blue-eyed giant named Makumba

 

[Eddi]

Is everything a simulation?​

Yes, sort of.....

But also no, not really.....

And if it is then I doubt that it is a computer simulation

 

[Quintessence]

Not really a narrative that a ruthlessly sensual nature-based religion is going to be interested in. It's sort of anathema to it, in most respects. What is it about the sensuality of existence and our embodied nature that makes certain humans want to deny it and flee from it so often? So weird how much body shaming and sensuality shaming there is in some cultures.

 

[Balthazzar]

If you mean a mental construct processed by our neurological systems, then I'll suggest yes. Otherwise, probably not.

 

[Whateverist]

If you mean a mental construct processed by our neurological systems, then I'll suggest yes. Otherwise, probably not.

Makes sense but could everything be a mental construct? What would it be a simulation of if everything was part of it?

 

[Heyo]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

There is no evidence for a simulation. There are interpretations of natural phenomena as evidence, but that is all post hoc. What would count as evidence is a prediction that goes against base reality, and it would be found as true. There is no such thing.

 

[Tomef]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

If you could use some digital media to reproduce the whole experience of music being played live, complete with an immersive haptic simulation of actually being there, to faultless imitative perfection, what would the difference be?

 

[Aupmanyav]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)
This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

It is not a simulation created by any God. It is the way of natural forces. But yes, what we make of the world is an illusion. That is the view in 'Advaita' Hinduism (non-duality). 'What exists' does not create an illusion, it is created by our own minds.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

Already debunked.

 

[Balthazzar]

Makes sense but could everything be a mental construct? What would it be a simulation of if everything was part of it?

It's how we process present data that makes it what it is to us, individually. We all play a role in the processing, and the ongoing changes in life dynamics motivate action which motivates greater changes across the entire life spectrum.

 

[Nakosis]

We Live in a Simulation. The evidence is everywhere. All you have to do is look. (youtube.com)

This youtube video presents the thought-provoking idea that our reality is in actuality a simulation. It touches on the idea of God being the "ultimate simulation". And we are mere images.

Well, the idea that some being or beings reached a technological level to create a simulation still begs the question of were did they come from.

Then that simulation reached a level to create their own simulation, and so on, and so on, we may be the millionth+ simulation down from the original. Basically so far embedded we'll never escape to that origin. Likely we'd just create our own simulation and continue the process.

So basically if true, it doesn't matter to us. I mean nothing really changes for us. We, whatever we are, don't really exist. That self we think we are simply ceases to exist when we die in the simulation.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is not a simulation created by any God. It is the way of natural forces. But yes, what we make of the world is an illusion. That is the view in 'Advaita' Hinduism (non-duality). 'What exists' does not create an illusion, it is created by our own minds.

I find this difficult to contemplate. If I ask 2 artists (no, not artists, draftpersons, who can faithfully render what they see) to sit down and draw the tree in my front yard and the house behind it, they will produce remarkably similar renderings. Yet, since there are 2 minds, not one, involved, why should that be? If what is in front of them is only the creation of their own individual minds, why should both create the same illusion?

 

[wellwisher]

If you mean a mental construct processed by our neurological systems, then I'll suggest yes. Otherwise, probably not.

If you consider political orientations, each can cause people to see the same world in different ways. That suggests we have a blend of reality, that is superimposed with a projected alternate reality simulation, based on one's assumptions of reality.

Science, which is a work in progress, changes as new data appears. The old superimposed assumptions, that worked in a temporary way to get the new data, were/are subject to change, with reality always being what it was/is. The earth was flat at one time, at least in terms of the superimposed simulation. Reality did not change with the earth still roundish.

A good example of a simulation in science is the statistical view of the universe, used by science and gambling casinos, where we make the exceptions the center of our attention; risk or winning at cards. If the risk is 1 in a million then logically only 1 in a million needs to worry, yet all are averaged to worry. Or if winning the $billion lottery, is 1 in a billion, all feel lucky that day. Reality does not work that way. That is superimposed reality. You are what you eat, in terms of food for thought.

Statistic places the experiment in a black box. This never made any sense, since if you are in the dark about a phenomena, how do you know if you are doing the correct experiments? Don't good experiments require logical planning in advance? The result is all the data is fuzzy data, reinforcing the illusion of darkness. That is called science by some, based on a simulation within their own minds.

 

[Soandso]

Meh... The "brain in a vat" thing isn't compelling for me. If it's true, so what? Life doesn't change and I still experience it. In any case I don't find the idea compelling considering how complex and consistent reality is as a whole in combination with the way other people (who would also be part of this simulation) demonstrate different complicated views on this same consistent and complicated reality

What would be the point of creating a simulation that constantly uses itself to check and question itself to the person it's meant to contain? Deception? Pacification? To what ends?

I think this is where Occam's Razor is best applied

 

[PureX]

If you mean a mental construct processed by our neurological systems, then I'll suggest yes. Otherwise, probably not.

This.

 

[Balthazzar]

If you consider political orientations, each can cause people to see the same world in different ways. That suggests we have a blend of reality, that is superimposed with a projected alternate reality simulation, based on one's assumptions of reality.

Science, which is a work in progress, changes as new data appears. The old superimposed assumptions, that worked in a temporary way to get the new data, were/are subject to change, with reality always being what it was/is. The earth was flat at one time, at least in terms of the superimposed simulation. Reality did not change with the earth still roundish.

A good example of a simulation in science is the statistical view of the universe, used by science and gambling casinos, where we make the exceptions the center of our attention; risk or winning at cards. If the risk is 1 in a million then logically only 1 in a million needs to worry, yet all are averaged to worry. Or if winning the $billion lottery, is 1 in a billion, all feel lucky that day. Reality does not work that way. That is superimposed reality. You are what you eat, in terms of food for thought.

Statistic places the experiment in a black box. This never made any sense, since if you are in the dark about a phenomena, how do you know if you are doing the correct experiments? Don't good experiments require logical planning in advance? The result is all the data is fuzzy data, reinforcing the illusion of darkness. That is called science by some, based on a simulation within their own minds.

Growing up in China vs. growing up in Scandinavia vs. era and common understanding during these periods varies per each variable association. Life is crazy, and foundational truths help stabilize the ongoing changes in dynamics. It still seems chaotic and imbalanced and muddled, even after 53 years. The simulation grows with us as we grow within the simulation. You mention focal points in terms of odds, hehe. I'm not a gambler, but even 1 in a million is a guarantee at some point in time.

 

[Ostronomos]

There is no evidence for a simulation. There are interpretations of natural phenomena as evidence, but that is all post hoc. What would count as evidence is a prediction that goes against base reality, and it would be found as true. There is no such thing.

Oh ye of little faith.

There is ample evidence that our universe and countless others are a simulation. I suggest you search "the Reality Self-Simulation Principle" by Christopher Langan and prepare to have your mind blown.

It is simply by the mere fact that "reality exists within reality" that provides a tautological proof that everything is ipso facto a simulation.

 

[Ostronomos]

Already debunked.

Oooh, can you provide proof of otherwise. Because I can provide a counterargument to your claim.

 

[Ostronomos]

I find this difficult to contemplate. If I ask 2 artists (no, not artists, draftpersons, who can faithfully render what they see) to sit down and draw the tree in my front yard and the house behind it, they will produce remarkably similar renderings. Yet, since there are 2 minds, not one, involved, why should that be? If what is in front of them is only the creation of their own individual minds, why should both create the same illusion?

Quantum theory says that the illusion becomes objective by collapse of the wavefunction.

Reality reifies itself via observation, which creates reality.