Reality Is A Scripted Computer Simulation For The Soul

[xss27]

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.

...So don't discount the maths.

What I find amusing about this thread is how it has veered off into an intellectual-mathematical discussion, which whilst being very interesting and thought provoking isn't all that far from where we started with the OPs original proposition.. which has been critically derided.. and replaced with equally outlandish propositions in my opinion.

There is an over reliance on mathematics in our current scientific paradigm, most easily seen with our cosmological model, astrophysics, and with the theories already mentioned so far. It is a language and unfortunately as humans we seem predisposed to tell stories with it, to project all sorts of fantasies on to it and with it, instead of using it to actually explain what we see.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality" - Nikola Tesla

If we spent more time actually observing what is right in front of us and not getting lost in mathematical abstractions and jerking off to the 'superior' mathematical minds (Hawkings etc) I would posit we would advance much quicker as a society from the point where we are at currently. More over, if we actually bothered to question what is doing the seeing inside of ourselves instead of looking to the outside for answers we'd make the quantum leap we all deep down hope for.

Forget the maths and lets pay attention to ourselves and each other. /rant

 

[AcaciaConfusedYah]

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

Thank you for the links Trav! I am taking a look at them now.


ACY

Edit: Very insightful video and wiki link. I love learning about quantum mechanics. At the university it is presented in a very reduced version. We explored many of the equations that were discussed in Wigner's friend, however it was never discussed as "Wigner's friend," they simply just explained the different states, the equations, and which states apply to which specific setting, transition, etc etc.

I always like seeing the creative ways that folks use to relay ideas and concepts - such as the Quantum Foam. It places an imagery in one's mind that can be used to related the concept behind the theory.

During that video, it shows a magnified version of matter being created out of "nothing" and then being destroyed into "nothing." That is very interesting! I wonder if there is a way to probe even further and see what is occurring within the "moments" of existence before returning to nothing? Is there a limit at some point? Or is it going to be continuously repeating the same behavior "all the way down?" Is it limitless?

 

[mjc490]

Hello!

Because I believe reality is computer generated, this means that the laws of our "universe", such as all physics, are completely created by God, and may change at any time. science is also a creation of God, and its laws can change at any time.

a simple example of this would be the acceleration of gravity. when we measure the acceleration of gravity on earth, it is 9.8 m/s^2. but there is no reason that it has to remain 9.8 m/s^2. it could change at any time, like changing a computer file on a computer.

i also believe things such as DMT and quantum physics, are creations of god as well. they are creations made by god for us to experience. they are NOT made to be fully understood. they are there to amaze us and make us wonder. and they are open to interpretation.

and again, reality is an image(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts).
so any evidence one may find about our reality, could be simulated results, or just a change in the image(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts). so anything and everything is possible!

but again, i also believe reality is a scripted computer simulation for the soul, so everything i wrote here was pre-determined.

thanks for reading. any and all input is appreciated!

 

[laughingcat]

I find it intriguing that so many people begin to think this way after becoming involved with DMT. I published an article on this very subject a couple of years ago:

http://www.buildingalienworlds.com/uploads/5/7/9/9/57999785/gallimore_building_human_worlds_%E2%80%93_dmt_and_the_simulated_universe.pdf

 

[Loveall]

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

A few days after the post above, a preprint of a Wigner's friend experiment using entangled photons was submitted to arXiv (attached).

Title is "Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world"

We'll see if the paper is accepted and published after peer review. Here is a snippet from the conclusions:

... at least one of the three assumptions of free choice, locality, and observer-independent facts must fail.

Looks like we live in an interesting universe.

 

[AcaciaConfusedYah]

42

4 people or 2 people? Or 42 people? Oh, maybe fourty-six and 2.... just ahead of me. I've been pickin' my scabs again!

Looks like we live in an interesting universe.

Yes! One of the more interesting places to be, IMO. Imagine if a universe didn't have these mysteries. That would be incredibly boring, IMO. Why would we even need "time" if there was only sameness? The uncertainty and ability to instantaneously change without direct expectation makes linearity interesting. I think this model - "the mysterious universe" - is one worth existing (if we even exist... at all) in and enjoying the contrast of progression vs. regression.

One step in the "wrong" direction might be the "right" step.

So, observer-independent: yeah, I still have too many questions. Observation is weird. The direct influence of an individual can be observed as "odd."

Short story time: In 2013, I spent a large portion of the summer mushroom hunting for wild edibles. I had heard of lactarius indigo before, yet never found them prior to that summer. Lactarius indigo has a beautiful blue mushroom body, and some people consider them desired as edible.

One day, I came across my first patch. Per typical, after picking a mushroom, I would smell the mushroom to see what smell is associated. This mushroom smelled like lemons and blueberries! It was very unique smelling. I collected a few and brought them home to my wife. I said, "Smell these! They smell like blueberries and lemons!" She smelled them and said, "wow! Those really do smell like blueberries and lemons!"

A week later, my friend Skids (nickname given to him in 10th grade - he ate pavement on a skateboard and had "skid marks" all over his face and body) and I were on a mushroom hunt. I found some lactarius indigo, and yelled for Skids to come check them out. I'd already picked one, smelling it, and said, "the mushrooms smell crazy! They smell like blueberries and lemons." He gave the mushroom a sniff, "Whoa! They do! That's wild!"

2 weeks later, I am on a mushroom hunt with my friend ----; and guess what I found! Yeah, lactarius indigo. "These smell like blueberries and lemons." "Dang, they really do!"

A week later, mushroom hunt with ____. ____ hunted mushrooms before I had started, and he'd told me about the color of lactarius indigo, but never mentioned any smell. Well, I found some more lactarius indigo, and did the usual. "These smell like blueberries and lemons!"...... (___ takes a sniff) "No they don't. They smell like a mushroom." I was confused! "Are you sure, man? Every other person i've shown them to agrees with the smell." He replied, "well, I found them a few years back, and they've always just smelled like another mushroom." I raised the mushroom to my nose, no... definitely blueberries and lemons.

So, I asked him: "when you found them, were you alone or were you with anyone." "Alone, why?" "I'm just trying to figure this out, everyone else agrees that the smell is like blueberries and lemons..." but then, it occured to me....

In the event of wife, Skids, and Seth - I was the initial observer. I told them how it should smell. I didn't ask. Their expectations were not set until I set them. But, Josh... he was his own observer. He made his own conclusions, and neither of us would agree with the other - because, we observed a different phenomena from the same "observation."

Others just blindly trusted me. For them, lactarius indigo will always smell of blueberries and lemons (just as it does, for me). For Josh, he'll always smell, "just a mushroom." After all, Josh and I are two very similar people. I think that's why we got along so well. Maybe this is the VERY event that spawned my curiosity within suggestions and expectations. I began to wonder if "suggestions and expectations" had a larger role than the human mind. I began testing subtle experiments. Over time they grew into even weirder experiments.

So, looping back to these scientific experiments... if we're told something - do we expect it? Does our expectation exist due to carefully placed suggestions? If so - do some people gather expectation from observation or suggestion? If our expectation is based on suggestions - then yes, we're forfeiting the choice to choose. If expectations are based on observation, then that's between ourselves and everything we've ever experienced.

I am assuming that the lactarius indigo smells like blueberries and lemons, because when I first found it, I observed the color and compared it to the color of blueberries. For a brief moment, before smelling it, the thought of blueberries made me think of the blueberry lemon scones that my wife used to make... when I took that first smell... it locked that notion into place. They will always smell like blueberries and lemons... unless you're Josh - Then it's "just a mushroom." IMO, the "just a mushroom" approach seems much less exciting.

So. Two observations. Two different perspectives. When strong suggestions are made, by one we trust, expectations begin to shift towards that direction. If ideals are already "set," then it's all a matter of subjective opinion.

Take Care!
ACY

 

[Loveall]

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

A few days after the post above, a preprint of a Wigner's friend experiment using entangled photons was submitted to arXiv (attached).

Title is "Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world"

We'll see if the paper is accepted and published after peer review. Here is a snippet from the conclusions:

... at least one of the three assumptions of free choice, locality, and observer-independent facts must fail.

Looks like we live in an interesting universe.

FYI, the article on the experimental test of Wigner's friend is being picked up by some news sources. Here is an example,

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[Loveall]

From the news article above:

“The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them,” say Proietti and co. And yet in the same paper, they undermine this idea, perhaps fatally.

:surprised

I foresee a lot of Esalen institute talks on this. I call the hot tub! :lol: :thumb_up:

 

[remyman612]

I promised to share my thoughts on this but held off on it since there's so much to digest on these four pages. Read through almost all of it; skimmed through most of the math stuff though!

All I can really say (and I've mentioned this to mjc a few times) is that I don't know jack about anything! While I've had the 'oh my god everything is a simulation' moment in my very first DMT breakthrough, I still don't know what to make of it. Perhaps someone/something is generating this 'reality' out of another 'reality' or maybe there is just this one reality which got started by the big bang and we're complex byproducts of that big bang. On the other hand, it might also be that I didn't exist until a few minutes/moments ago and my (memories of my) entire life have been written as if it was some kind of 'script'. I wouldn't know (and you wouldn't know either; heck you might not be real either )...

Or maybe I was 'simply' in a drug induced state where my brain tried to make sense of all the stuff going on with my serotonin receptor by 'showing' me some mix of memories/dreams/vivid imagery which I believed to be some sort of higher 'reality' (I have some issues with that word for a lot of obvious reasons). Not sure if one thing excludes another though.. it might be a mix of all of the above. Or it 'is' something that we can't currently wrap our tiny biological brains around since it's more complex and mind blowing than we can possible imagine/take in.

That being said, I've not had your experiences mjc (concerning bots/shape shifting forms) since I'm not you (unless I am, or we're all one.. which we might be.. or not?) so I can't really say anything meaningful about it (or about anything really ). I'd be pretty frightened if such things manifested itself in my (sober) (consensus) 'reality'. It seems like you're not; which is a good thing imho! However reality seems to manifest itself to you/through you I hope you do cherish your current physical existence on this plane .

I used to think hard and long on these questions of 'reality' and came to the conclusion that I don't know jack about jack and I'll probably never will. And that's okay!

edit: thanks laughingcat for that article; it's a good read!

 

[dragonrider]

To the people who think reality is indeed a simulation: what do you think about the fact that we can so seemingly effortless, enter hyperspace? Does that mean that hyperspace is a simulation as well?

 

[mjc490]

Hello all,

I was discussing this forum topic with some people from chat. After talking with some people on chat, they gave me some ideas on how to describe some things better about the information in this post.

In the first post, i claim that there are CGI robots and then there are human beings. CGI robots and human beings are exactly the same, except CGI robots have no souls attached to them.

A better way to describe this is that, what i claim to be CGI robots (no soul), are NPCs. Im sure many of you are familiar with the term NPC. NPC stands for non-playable character. It is a term used often in video games. It is a good way to describe what i mean by CGI robot.

So i believe a portion of the people you see out there in the world are actually just NPCs.

Thank for reading...

 

[Icyseeker]

Hello all,

I was discussing this forum topic with some people from chat. After talking with some people on chat, they gave me some ideas on how to describe some things better about the information in this post.

In the first post, i claim that there are CGI robots and then there are human beings. CGI robots and human beings are exactly the same, except CGI robots have no souls attached to them.

A better way to describe this is that, what i claim to be CGI robots (no soul), are NPCs. Im sure many of you are familiar with the term NPC. NPC stands for non-playable character. It is a term used often in video games. It is a good way to describe what i mean by CGI robot.

So i believe a portion of the people you see out there in the world are actually just NPCs.

Thank for reading...

I think some people live in such a way that you could describe their actions as "NPC" in that they live their life scared of growth and change. But I think it does noone good to think that some people are just scripted programs. I would challenge you to seek out what you think might be an NPC and get to know them.

 

[dragonrider]

Hello all,

I was discussing this forum topic with some people from chat. After talking with some people on chat, they gave me some ideas on how to describe some things better about the information in this post.

In the first post, i claim that there are CGI robots and then there are human beings. CGI robots and human beings are exactly the same, except CGI robots have no souls attached to them.

A better way to describe this is that, what i claim to be CGI robots (no soul), are NPCs. Im sure many of you are familiar with the term NPC. NPC stands for non-playable character. It is a term used often in video games. It is a good way to describe what i mean by CGI robot.

So i believe a portion of the people you see out there in the world are actually just NPCs.

Thank for reading...

No. Everyone has a soul.
That they don't always stand out or behave unpredictably says nothing.
Some people are introvert. Some people are shy.

And also...why would anyone you see on the streets or the subway be motivated to demonstrate to you that they're not an NPC?

 

[DeDao]

well I cant say I understand it all or even agree but I applaud you for being inquisitive/introspective? and thinking for yourself

cool ideas​

 

[mjc490]

I wanted to discuss something that's been on my mind...

Recently I've had a number of negative dreams.

When I wake up back "here", i always think, "man, that was a bad dream!".

But my other thought is, "I THOUGHT THAT WAS REAL!, when I was dreaming it."

So when i examine this, i think, that dreams are supposed to feel real while we are in them.

Because everything is an image(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts), this means when we think or feel something is real, we are experiencing the signal of "feeling real", along with the information in our heads saying "this IS real."

Because i believe human beings are CGI robots with souls attached to them, think of the images(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts) as data we are fed, and settings we experience. The settings and data im talking about is the "feeling of realness", and the "thought that this is real."

Those data and settings can be turned on or off, as if we were robots. So you could be put into the most ridiculous dream ever, and if the correct data and settings are there, you would 100% believe it to be real. You have no choice. In that moment and in that dream, you believe its real.

Now this leads to other questions...

So if you've read my previous posts on this thread, i believe reality is a simulation. Dreams and reality are both part of the same simulation program.

This is a few sentences from my first post on this thread...
_________________________________________________________________________________________
"Life is a collection of memories. A memory consists of three parts.

A memory is an image(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts).

If you can change these three aspects of a memory, you can do anything, like in a dream.

By this definition of a memory, you can also say dreams are a collection of memories.

So life and dreams are made up with the same three elements. The difference between life and dreams is that life appears to be ordered, while dreams can be ordered or chaotic."
_________________________________________________________________________________________

So if life and dreams are made up of the same elements, are the settings and data that say dreams are real, in dreams, also being fed to us as we experience real reality (when we claim to be awake)? This reality would just be a simulation (same as a dream), and we are being fed the settings and data saying its real.

If dreams and reality are made of the same elements (a simulation consisting of images(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts)), then it would be possible to experience the same "feeling or signal of realness", and the same "thoughts or information, that this is real" in any dream or reality setting.

So when we dream or we claim to be "awake in reality", our feelings and beliefs about where we are, are fed to us as settings and data.

So reality could be a dream (a simulation), and we are just being fed the signals and information that this is "real" (reality also being a simulation).

This could also explain lucid dreaming.

When we are in a dream, and become "lucid", that is the realization that you are in a dream. In my terms, that means all of a sudden, you were fed signals and information (or settings and data) letting you know you are in a dream.

And also because i believe everything we experience to be images(eyesight) + signals(feelings) + information(thoughts), that are scripted, that means the realizations you have are supposed to be there. We all have unique experiences or memories, and they were 100% written, planned, created, scripted, and designed to be the way they are.

So our journey through this simulation is exactly the journey that was 100% written, planned, created, scripted, and designed for us to experience, the way we experience it.

So dreams and reality could be in the same "simulation space". And our beliefs and feelings about them are just data and settings. And those data and settings were 100% designed to be the way they are.

We can be fed the data and settings that can make us believe and feel any place is "real".

So this is whats been running through my mind recently. Any input on this subject is much appreciated.

Have a good one everyone!

 

[Icyseeker]

To a large extant what you accept as true in your mind determines your reality. So by thinking through your life you can process your life and get deeper and more insightful with your thoughts which then leads to a more mature thought process that is able to get a better and better picture of the place that you live in.

I don't know if you have played the elder scrolls but there is a state of being called CHIM that has concepts very similar to what you are describing. In terms of the describing reality as a dream. It goes very deep for a video game in lore. Equally there are a lot of fictional universes that have set up really good ways of describing reality such as lord of the rings or even the love-craft mythos.

Here is a few links that will help you get some insight into CHIM

Amaranth? | Fandom

Before i start i just want to point out that i am…

elderscrolls.fandom.com

CHIM

CHIM (pronounced kɪm or tʃɪm,) in Daedric script spelled as (), called the Secret Syllable of Royalty, is a state in which one can break free of all known laws and corruptions of Oblivion. It allows for the user to return to a state before the mingling of Anu and Padomay and manipulate the...

elderscrolls.fandom.com

 

[null24]

What is a "soul"? This is my definition of a soul based on the supposition that reality exists and that biology evolves along some line: It is that something that is emergent from consciousness, which itself is emergent from biological complexity. The further out a consciousness extends from it's owner determines the extent to which it "communicates" in 2-way dialogue with a non-determinate source that seems to exist outside of said consciousness. The conceptualization of things outside the body non-relative to survival creates the larger ideas that go along with it. Awareness of stars and galaxies created the sense of wonder from which the idea of God came from. "Talking with God" probably does not occur in lower life forms. That a soul could be created whole cloth from digital data does not seem impossible to me, in fact I wonder if that wouldn't be the final form of AI- one with awareness of "God" -and I don't mean us. But at the same time I kick against the idea that I myself could be this because it offends my sense of reality.

If the was simulation, the idea that the soul I perceive is the only one and that others are "NPCs" is a good supposition. However, I am very aware of writing this, and of the concept of soul within myself. Is my consciousness and the actions my body performs because of it in a distant location from OP all the creation of OP's "mind" to cement their experience of the simulated reality for the benefit of the experimenter(s) and to create resistance for the simulated consciousness to act upon? Or is the idea that some of us are 'real' and are here to interact with NPCs for the same reason? Why? This presents a problem for me. Data collection or lack of processing power to create an entire reality? If only some consciousnesses are "real", then any simulation would only be a simple video game, and we are literally being played while we agonize over whether or not we have free will or are bound to a deterministic universe. Seems kind of pointless and cruel for all this to just be some gigantic cosmic zitfaced basement dweller's entertainment. Little too Yaldabaoth-ey for me.

If this is simulation, what is the purpose or mechanism of this emergent state of being? It would seem a foregone conclusion in this experiment that the observed would become aware of the observer if the simulated being can conceive mentally of distances they cannot see; i.e. a spacial universe, and then what is the point of the experiment? On what experimental matrix of information is the reality constructed? A random mix of atomic data to see if complexity emerges and to what extent- or would a society use their own, known reality data to construct a mirror-world of their own? It seems like the question posed in the TV show DEVS, in which a computer is built that can extrapolate back and forward into time the actions of a being based upon it's quantum makeup (or something like that)- how can a reality be constructed without a bit-for-bit construction, or could basic quantum data be entered that would then align into atomic and chemical structures within the simulation ala "reality".

And then of course, there is the 'turtles all the way down' paradox- I mean if we are simulated, who is to say that our engineers are not? Programs in programs into infinity...

And then of course, processing power, data and existent potential energy in the universe utilizeable to do so all seem to negate the idea to my tiny little meat brain.

I do think remyman came up with the ultimate answer to this question however:

I don't know jack about jack and I'll probably never will.

 

[abusedtoaster]

~A~

Edit: that yellow line not sposed to be there oops. Old man Trav wont let me remove attached file.

Also apparently there is a way to relax the mind fully whithout blacking out/ becoming less You. No gaps in time when conscious, just various levels of mechanical exertion throughout life should be achievable eventually.

 

[dragonrider]

What is a "soul"? This is my definition of a soul based on the supposition that reality exists and that biology evolves along some line: It is that something that is emergent from consciousness, which itself is emergent from biological complexity. The further out a consciousness extends from it's owner determines the extent to which it "communicates" in 2-way dialogue with a non-determinate source that seems to exist outside of said consciousness. The conceptualization of things outside the body non-relative to survival creates the larger ideas that go along with it. Awareness of stars and galaxies created the sense of wonder from which the idea of God came from. "Talking with God" probably does not occur in lower life forms. That a soul could be created whole cloth from digital data does not seem impossible to me, in fact I wonder if that wouldn't be the final form of AI- one with awareness of "God" -and I don't mean us. But at the same time I kick against the idea that I myself could be this because it offends my sense of reality.

If the was simulation, the idea that the soul I perceive is the only one and that others are "NPCs" is a good supposition. However, I am very aware of writing this, and of the concept of soul within myself. Is my consciousness and the actions my body performs because of it in a distant location from OP all the creation of OP's "mind" to cement their experience of the simulated reality for the benefit of the experimenter(s) and to create resistance for the simulated consciousness to act upon? Or is the idea that some of us are 'real' and are here to interact with NPCs for the same reason? Why? This presents a problem for me. Data collection or lack of processing power to create an entire reality? If only some consciousnesses are "real", then any simulation would only be a simple video game, and we are literally being played while we agonize over whether or not we have free will or are bound to a deterministic universe. Seems kind of pointless and cruel for all this to just be some gigantic cosmic zitfaced basement dweller's entertainment. Little too Yaldabaoth-ey for me.

If this is simulation, what is the purpose or mechanism of this emergent state of being? It would seem a foregone conclusion in this experiment that the observed would become aware of the observer if the simulated being can conceive mentally of distances they cannot see; i.e. a spacial universe, and then what is the point of the experiment? On what experimental matrix of information is the reality constructed? A random mix of atomic data to see if complexity emerges and to what extent- or would a society use their own, known reality data to construct a mirror-world of their own? It seems like the question posed in the TV show DEVS, in which a computer is built that can extrapolate back and forward into time the actions of a being based upon it's quantum makeup (or something like that)- how can a reality be constructed without a bit-for-bit construction, or could basic quantum data be entered that would then align into atomic and chemical structures within the simulation ala "reality".

And then of course, there is the 'turtles all the way down' paradox- I mean if we are simulated, who is to say that our engineers are not? Programs in programs into infinity...

And then of course, processing power, data and existent potential energy in the universe utilizeable to do so all seem to negate the idea to my tiny little meat brain.

I do think remyman came up with the ultimate answer to this question however:

I don't know jack about jack and I'll probably never will.

I would just define "soul" as being a counscious entity. Any more elaborate explanation seems to presuppose a kind of knowledge that i think does not realy exist.

We can't be sure of anything. Except "i think, therefore i am".

 

[mjc490]

dragonrider - I do find it interesting to try and consider exactly what the soul is. one way to consider it, as you have stated, that it is a conscious entity. but we dont know much more than that.

one thing i think about sometimes is solipsism. that is the belief that we cannot prove anything but the self exists. now i consider this view (solipsism) to be depressing, and i dont believe it fully. who would want to be all alone down here?

but i have stated before, that some of the beings out there are just NPCs (non-playable characters). I believe that the self is conscious, and a portion of the beings out there are conscious as well. so we are not alone. but there is no reason all the beings out there have to be conscious. some could just be NPCs.

thanks for the input everyone!