Reality Is A Scripted Computer Simulation For The Soul

[AcaciaConfusedYah]

I promised I would read this. I've read your interpretation. I've not read all the comments, yet. Give me a day, or 3, or some quantity of time to digest. Read others, and come to my own thoughts on the matter. I was quickly scrolling through the comments, planning to read them all in depth, but Intezam's comments always stand out to me. I'll read, digest, and express within a few days.

Take care mjc,


ACY

 

[Seagull]

Reality is just thatsingle moment of shifting conciousness.
Change is inevitable, and it is beautifull that in time we are confronted with our own selves.

Here we are, floating in space, soon to be extinguished from a power source we call Sun. But, in the darkness lurks an opportunity, because without light as our source we will soon be developing something else that we can recognise and sense it without light. Or sense it without any of the other requirments such as being a material.
I think that in space, you can have anything you want. The point is all about will you be able to get back all that you need in order to make a clear stand. The idea of describing a continous evolving forever ongoing universe is impossible. And to take it all in is next to impossible. Because we humans are already compressing information about life into smaller versions of itself.
But we forget that it is not an exact replica.

Just like how you would make anything in real life smaller it means it will actually lose some of its value and thats what we actually do with thought.
Forget not the most important thing/idea about controlling destiny, wise man tell you not to dable with destiny and let it happen.
But the truth is that we will never satisfy the need, a quench. The thirst is so needed that only can be revealed to whom it may concern.

It is funny. When you discover exactly how you work. That the flow of universal thought is a flow that is combined of thousands of beings. All having togetherput millions of thoughs.

 

[AcaciaConfusedYah]

Well....
After some time to read/skim the various posts - I don't think I have a whole lot that I can add to this discussion that has not already been said.
mjc has stated his position and beliefs, and other people have contributed.

I, personally, do not subscribe to this "computer generated" notion of "reality." I would be more willing to put my money on "This is some other being's DMT trip or dream" than "this is a CGI simulation."

However, it IS a simulation. It's a simulation of what would happen when the universe happens. I don't think it was carefully scripted by a sole creator. Sure there are a few lone wolf programmers and coders, but most work as a team. Collaboration with each other to see if the other person knows how to overcome an obstacle. In the case of the universe, it is scripted by the molecules and atoms. (which are scripted by smaller and smaller and smaller..... bits of mass.)

Yes, I've had psychedelic experiences that have left me imagining that reality is an expression of a very complex series of wave functions that have been crashed from their wave form into a series of particles. From there, they orient themselves in a seemingly infinite number of different positions and arrangements. They form these constructs, bodies, that we use to express ourselves. Maybe the molecules are the sentient ones, and our idea of consciousness is a joke? Without their orientation, there would be absolutely no "body" to hold a soul. But, they orient themselves based on conditions. Conditions which have been ever changing....

I try not to get too hung up on the human models of interpreting the universe and reality. Humans desire models so that they can explain the "uneasily-explained." This is a process that has occurred time after time after time. An example - look at the early models of the atom. Look at how much the models have changed. They have changed to match the "observable." So, to imply that reality is a simulation also implies that you limit the simulation to a model. Currently, your model does not have supporting evidence that matches the observable. If substantial data can provide a reproducible means to test this model, then it would be something that is widely discussed throughout all off the "flesh machines." (Even the "CGI robots" [shoot, they'd/we'd be happy, because then they/we would have that awareness that you say that they/we lack.)

I don't think a model can describe what's going on. Not any human (or computer) model. And, you already know my feelings from our exchanges in chat - I have many favorable theories about this thing. But, they are all theories. One, or all, of them might be right.... or one or all may be wrong.

My favorite theory is that the "universe" is just trying to experience itself in as many/or all subjective ways possible within the limiting and physical restrictions. Our constructs are just one of the many ways that the quantum weirdness expresses itself. Maybe it's not too different from some of your beliefs, but I feel like you apply too much emotion into these beliefs. I don't mean emotion like "love" or "hate" - but a fear that you may be wrong. How do you feel about being wrong? Are you comfortable admitting when you are wrong? Would you be willing to admit that you are wrong if there were to be some sort of unified observable data that would prove your theory incorrect? I only ask, because I know that I am wrong quite often. By being wrong, I my feel disappointed in myself, but I am also opening my mind to learn something new.

The fear of being wrong causes many people to commit to beliefs - even when the beliefs are not supported with rationality and only considered from subjective views. We see it throughout every single religion. All religions claim an absolute --- which leads one to think that maybe none of them are absolute... or even close. Maybe they are so far from the truth that they can't even imagine what truth is?

Unfortunately, that is how I feel about the CGI robot theory. I cannot confirm your theory. It might be a possibility, but it might not. There are a lot of "mights." There are too many "mights" for me to pick one, and as far as I am concerned - I've never been obligated to pick! People may tell me I "should" pick, but they have no authority over my choice.

In ways we're similar - you're convinced that there is an absolute; and I am convinced that "there could be an absolute, but we've got no way to know." - basically, there is no absolute. I know that out of body experiences and the "aha" moments can feel empowering. As mentioned, I've had many theories and many "aha!" moments. But, they are moments. Fractals of time within time. And once they've passed, then they've fulfilled their possibility of existing before submerging into the abyss of existence.


Personally, I think you should stop worrying about WHAT "reality" is, and focus on just doing it. I am sure that people have said this in previous comments. No matter what it is, we're still gonna be doing it until we aren't doing it any longer. Who cares if some bearded dude in the clouds made this place, who cares if it is a computer, who cares if the crazy space aliens made human beings as a science experiment.... Those things ARE the distractions. Fixation on a singular concept blinds one from seeing all the other possibilities. Focusing on one concept robs you of the joys that may come from learning and exploring new ideas. It's fun to entertain such thoughts, but when they become obsessive, then you're only cheating yourself out of the pleasure within..... what ever you wanna call this life.

Personally, I'd drop the absolutes, and just love your lady; find a hobby; start producing art; anything that allows you to express your feelings. Shoot, write a sci-fi book about the CGI reality and your perspectives. The rest will fall into place once you stop trying to put cylindrical pegs into triangular holes. One size does not fit all. LOL


However, you can use love to fill any hole.
It changes shape so that it can join those who wish to experience it.

Happiness can fill any hole.

Fear can fill any hole.

Hate can fill any hole.

When people have a void – such as the feelings associated with existential crisis/questioning, they want to fill that void with something. They will often fill it with an emotion and idea. The voids are created from temporary awareness of our true ignorance. Once we're aware of our void/ignorance, we try to fill it with a model - piece together the gaps. This construct can be a result of many things - such as social activities, musical preference, art, hobbies, TV shows, conspiracy theories on the internet..... and it goes on. So, people say, "Oh crap, I DON'T know what I thought I knew. What is the easiest answer that creates the least amount of cognitive dissonance?" --- NOT! People don't say that! or think that! they just do it. Without thinking. People will use their immediate influences and construct a mental model to easily fill the gaps that have been created from moments of temporary awareness of our true ignorance.

You asked me to reply, I did. It may not be what you were looking for, but it is what has found you. I told you it would be when the time is right. Is this the right time?
***Looks to the right; sees the clock on the oven***
Yep, it looks like the time is right.

You know I love yah, mjc. I hope you don't take my words as negative criticism. I wanted to convey my perspective and do so in an honest manner. It's ok to have disagreeing beliefs about these ideas. Healthy communication and collaboration helps us move further away from ignorance. When one closes their mind off from being able to learn, then they are accepting ignorance and accepting a constructed model, from which their own mind created. Upon collaboration, then the model can be proposed. After speculation and thorough investigation, it is either accepted by the consensus, or the idea is rejected. In my opinion, a singular person cannot construct a model that fills the void that has been created by the mystery of the universe. If they can, great! What are they trying to prove? To who? Why? And then what?



Take Care,
ACY

 

[Fate]

Metaphysics and Descartes.

These questions are extremely difficult to get to any real answer without a really well grounded framework.

Once you understand what you can and can't claim, then you know what you can build against that will stand up against questions. It's a lot like Postulates and Theorems in Geometry. All parts of the equation have to be valid for the answer to be valid.

I believe "This life matters, we need to gracefully dance our dance and fulfill our roles". If it doesn't help "in this life" then it doesn't actually matter.

The easiest way to think is.. is it possible every person is like you? If so, would this logic fail?

I find things that require "me" to be special are the furthest things from real.

Great questions, after trying to grasp answers, it will lead to more and more questions . It is a long road, but well worth it.. I'd start with Aristotle, Socrates and Descartes

 

[Icyseeker]

Regarding pre-determinism it makes sense to me that all possible things or combination of things exist. I think that the choices you make in this life shape the particular universe that you are in. Sort of like infinite timelines with infinite will that is constantly dreaming up new realities and new ways of being. So in my view everything is predetermined but our will picks and chooses what timeline it lives in.

 

[0_o]

Regarding pre-determinism it makes sense to me that all possible things or combination of things exist. I think that the choices you make in this life shape the particular universe that you are in. Sort of like infinite timelines with infinite will that is constantly dreaming up new realities and new ways of being. So in my view everything is predetermined but our will picks and chooses what timeline it lives in.

I knew you were gonna say that.

 

[Icyseeker]

Regarding pre-determinism it makes sense to me that all possible things or combination of things exist. I think that the choices you make in this life shape the particular universe that you are in. Sort of like infinite timelines with infinite will that is constantly dreaming up new realities and new ways of being. So in my view everything is predetermined but our will picks and chooses what timeline it lives in.

I knew you were gonna say that.

 

[Achilles]

i love this... ive heard it called the simulaion theory and the more savy humans become with bionic body parts and work in AI the more plausible these theorys become. whos to say were not artificially intelligent sims lol. ive pondered this theory many times on psychedelics and let me tell ya... if nothing else.... itll make you wanna watch the matrix real bad lol...

 

[Loveall]

As mentioned before, I think fundamental physics may have some clues as to the nature of our reality.

Over the past few decades, physcisits have been forced to accept some psychedlic-like ideas. One outstanding example is quantum entanglent, where particles are instantly linked across arbitrarily large distances. What does space really mean if this is possible? Serious physicists propose that it breaks down our concept of absolute space, and instead a higher reality exists where all of space is connected and where our reality is simulated.

Some physcisits from California in the 60/70s *ejem* loved this idea, and pointed out that such implications should be discussed by the professionals in the field, instead of just keeping their noses up formulas. There is a nice book called "How the hippies saved physics" on this topic. Another title for the book could be "How psychedlics saved physics"

There is also an interesting Nova episode that just came out on this topic. You'll get to see a physcisits draw a hyperspace sphere on an outdoor chalkboard and claim that reality is created through a projection from this hyperspace sphere, our 3D space being a projected illusion.

 

[Loveall]

This is how I understand the harsh consequences of the experimental confirmation of quantum entanglement:

1) Our core understanding of space and time is shattered! We no longer have space and time separated throughout the cosmos and connected only through light and it's "snail-pace" cosmological speed.

2) If space and time are not spread out like we had assumed, how are they connected? There must be some kind of higher reality where things can be connected to each other independently of where we are observing/seeing them in our universe. This is what the physcisits drawing on the outdoor chalkboard is trying to explain. That also means that our reality is a simulated projection of this connected "higher plane of existence". Plato would approve.

The thing is that many physicsts quitely ignored these possible implications and focused on the formulas, numerical predictions, etc, or they raised obscure objections (e.g. filters are not truly random) to the experiment probing Bell's theorem. By recently using distant quasars to control the filters these objections havebl been shown to not have merit.

It was the psychedelic physcisits from the Esalen institute that were not affraid to speak up and challenge the status quo. They are heroes to me and indeed are the hippies that saved physics.

Finally, an analogy can me made for a simulation. Let's consider the game "SIMS". It has a physics engine. Let's make it realistic and in the SIMS simulation there is a speed of light and no SIM character can go over it. They would understand reality like we did at Einstein's peak. However, what if a smart SIM found out that their large world is being generated in a higher existence plane (a computer chip). He could do experiments where the nature of the computer chip is revealed and two arbitrarily separate events in the world of the SIMS are actually next to each-other in the computer chip. By manipulating the bits in the chip, he could show experimentally that two separate places in the world of the SIMS are actually right next to each other in the higher reality (the chip). That is what we may be doing with quantum entanglent experiments. Make sense? Am I missing something?

 

[Achilles]

Do you think this stuff could somehow connect to Robert Lanzas theory of biocentrism. He’s proven using the double slit experiment that observation is a key role in shaping reality... if I’m not mistaken quantum entanglement somewhat confirmed this as well by showing that Particle parallels react before the other is tampered with just by the scientists making the conscious choice to tamper with the first particle... any thoughts on this stuff? I love trying to connect different theories.

 

[Loveall]

Do you think this stuff could somehow connect to Robert Lanzas theory of biocentrism. He’s proven using the double slit experiment that observation is a key role in shaping reality... if I’m not mistaken quantum entanglement somewhat confirmed this as well by showing that Particle parallels react before the other is tampered with just by the scientists making the conscious choice to tamper with the first particle... any thoughts on this stuff? I love trying to connect different theories.

I think they are related. I'm not familiar with Robert Lanzas work, but way I understand it, the double slit experiment leaves room for several interpretations of what is going on (including the Copenhagen or De Broglie–Bohm interpretations). Quantum entanglement has a more restrictive interpretation not reality. I think quantum entanglement is able to rule out the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation, which the double-slit cannot do.

 

[dragonrider]

This is how I understand the harsh consequences of the experimental confirmation of quantum entanglement:

1) Our core understanding of space and time is shattered! We no longer have space and time separated throughout the cosmos and connected only through light and it's "snail-pace" cosmological speed.

2) If space and time are not spread out like we had assumed, how are they connected? There must be some kind of higher reality where things can be connected to each other independently of where we are observing/seeing them in our universe. This is what the physcisits drawing on the outdoor chalkboard is trying to explain. That also means that our reality is a simulated projection of this connected "higher plane of existence". Plato would approve.

Yes, i would say that is the innevitable conclusion. But even the fact that the speed of light is always the same for each observer is an indication.

But what is the nature of that higher plane?

A novel alternative/adaptation of string theory proposed by the theoretical physicist erik verlinde, states that basically everything we know, is information. But it is not exactly clear to me how "information" is being defined in this theory.

His theory is praised as well as criticized. It could be the new string theory.

 

[Achilles]

That makes sense... if data or information are forms of energy and energy is forever then information is forever to... plus I’m pretty sure they’ve either theorized or have discovered that invisible data fields exist. Idk all the ins and outs of it but I do remember reading that somewhere.

 

[Loveall]

Information theory is very interesting, but I never studied it. I can't say much about the subject other than I want to learn.

 

[PsyDuckmonkey]

It is my opinion that these kinds of discussions would require all participants to understand the "formulas and numerical predictions" as you put it, to a tee. High physics and high mathematics are a discipline that cannot be losslessly transformed down to hunter-gatherer ape think. Those formulas you deride are physics. Talking about physics in hunter-gatherer terms (aka natural language) is like trying to explain what tripping is like to someone who never tripped.

Anyway, information theory is quite central to the implications (or lack thereof) of quantum entanglement. As far as I know, information cannot be transmitted through an entanglement, which means one side of the entanglement cannot causally alter the other side, the speed limit on causality is still in place. Now what this means, or how it is even possible, is beyond me. I have understood some higher theories to understand the difference between getting the maths and not getting it, and quantum mechanics is beyond my current understanding.

As for the double-slit experiment, there is a very clean response to that. People will say silly things like 'subatomic particles are both particle and wave', or they are 'either particle or wave, fixed in one state by observation', and similar. A much cleaner explanation would be that they are neither. They are something that has no clean analogue in the experiential realm of hunter gatherer apes. They aren't like stones, and they aren't like waves on the lake. They aren't like anything we've ever seen or felt. They are like what the mathematical equations describe. Which is beyond our understanding without the work of building a foreign model in our minds by learning the maths.

So don't discount the maths.

 

[Achilles]

He makes a good point bout the hunter gatherer apes lol I love physics but when I look at like formulas and stuff that shit looks like alien language

 

[AcaciaConfusedYah]

Gonna weigh in and regurgitate the things that I've gathered from studying quantum mechanics from an academic setting:


Yes, the double slit is quite the interesting phenomenon. We discussed it in school, you probably know the details; so i'm skipping to the good part.


When the whole "observation" context was used, many different speculations were made by many different scientists. There are those think observation implies human observation. And then there are those who refer to "observations" as their means of detecting the photons.

In most modern techniques, observation requires light. Instruments monitoring this phenomenon use light to "observe." So, the speculation: was it ever a particle/wave? Yes and no - was their response - meaning they don't know.

The proposition: does the light used in the means of "observing" the photon interfere with the wave? We know about constructive and destructive interference... so. By using light to "observe," is it the light that interacts with itself that crashes the wave?

That's where my understanding ends.

Take care!
ACY

 

[The Traveler]

The proposition: does the light used in the means of "observing" the photon interfere with the wave? We know about constructive and destructive interference... so. By using light to "observe," is it the light that interacts with itself that crashes the wave?

Here is an interesting thought experiment based on that principle: Wigner's friend

And some extra mind-pulling stuff: Quantum foam


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[muladharma]

Here is using the work "The Cosmic Game", 1998, Stanislav Grof.

Could be.

One of the attractive things about this type of model, is that it, in a way, could reconcile religion and atheism, spirituality and materialism.

It is a neat and simple way to, on the one hand, totally accept science and materialism. But on the other hand, allow for the possibility that it doesn't end there. You realy die in the simulation the very moment the body stops functioning, because within the simulation, the mind realy IS a material phenomenon.

Stanislav Grof uses the notion "interdisciplinary reference system" for this, before mentioning the works of Ken Wilber: "Sex, Ecology and Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution" (1995), "A Brief History of Everything" (1996), "The Eye of Spirit: An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad" (1997). In Grof's work, the compatibility between science, materialism, religion, spirituality is suggested.

Just few free thoughts on this topic...

I agree we are likely in a designed system. By designed, I mean designed by some other entity, not purely by evolution. Evolution is very important, but it is designed by other entity too.

This idea is found as well, citing "The blind watch maker." (1986), by Richard Dawkins.

While we are "logged into" this life, we have no memory of the planning that happened in the zone between life and dreams.

again, i believe it was not the drug image of shrooms that i ate, but an activation of an experience god wanted me to have. and all experiences or memories are 100% written, planned, created, scripted, and designed to be exactly the way they are.

If you mean something like the non-dream experience, or waking life, is a result of gravitating around the sleep experience, and determined or scripted by the sleep experience, then it might help to see Grof's notion and experiences related to the 'Void', 'Absolute Consciousness', the relationship between them, and mythology relating to this, or words from other spiritual systems that he compiled in his work, such as Śūnyatā.

Also, there is no such thing as age, medical ailments, food, water, medicine/drugs/alcohol, money, beautiful, or ugly. You can keep adding to that list as you please.

The physical being an act of creative expression of the metaphysical is approached with terms such as holotropic and hylotropic, in "The Cosmic Game". The roots of these words are greek: ὅλος (hólos, “whole”), τροπή (tropḗ, “movement towards something”). Bibliographical notes of works about mythology (Greek and otherwise) and their relevance to this topic include: "Myths to live by", Joseph Campbell, 1972.

here is a quote from Albert Einstein
“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” -Einstein

I think this also means we must love one another "by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures..."

and heres a quote by Stanislav Grof
"Individuals approaching death often experience encounters with their dead relatives, who seem to welcome them to the next world. These deathbed visions are authentic and convincing they are often followed by a state of euphoria and seem to ease the transition." -Grof

Albert Einstein is mentioned along C. J. Jung, suggesting a connection between the domain of physics and psychology.

Overall, I recommend using this and looking into. Hope it helps.