Your thoughts on Simulated Reality (after experiencing dmt/aya)?

[Limbol]

Hello, after noticing a blue/red squared line pattern in reality while under the effect of aya – and experience the same lines drawn in multiple sessions my interest for the simulated hypothesis did get my attention.

In recent years this idea have gotten a lot of attention from the science community – and as it stands today – it’s actually if not the most, one of the most plausible ideas for our understanding of the universe.

According to prof. Nick Boström the argument goes as follows (either one is true – 1, 2 or 3)
1) Intelligent civilizations do not reach technological maturity (asteroids, war w/e).
2) Intelligent civilizations do reach technological maturity but does not develop tools/interest to explore simulation (for w/e reasons).
3) Intelligent civilizations do reach technological maturity and do participate in simulations.

If simulated reality is possible – One of the three alternatives above must be true. To be clear – the above alternatives translates to all (potential) intelligent life across the entire universe – not only to our civilization.

If alternative 3 is correct, According to Elon Musk - "There’s a one in billions chance we’re in base reality". In other words, if alternative 3 is true the odds that this reality is real – is very slim.

Several “mysteries” can be explained with the simulated hypothesis. For instance the big bang can be explained (imagine starting up any computer game, according to the game-world - it’s a big bang happening every time the game load up).

Quantum entanglement (pairs or groups of particles impact each other – even over great distances – totally bypass the law of speed of light). Speed of light is (as we know it) the maximum limit towards a particle can travel (photons). Quantum entanglement instantly interfere with each other even if the distance is from earth to the Andromeda galaxy. In other words, for light it takes 2500 million years to travel from earth to Andromeda. Q-entanglement bypasses this altogether and instantly impact each other. From a computer simulated perspective any distance – in any game – has the same distance to the processor. For instance, travel from Azeroth to Kalimdor (in world of warcraft) gives no further distance – for the game – then travel one footstep. According to the game it’s all there to begin with. You just experience the zone you load at any specific time. This explains quantum entanglement.

Double slit experiment (fire electrons and depending on the observer it changes particle/wave). Furthermore, in delayed choice double slit experiment the wave transform into particle while being observed. And not only that, it alter the past to fit the present. In other words it travel back in time and correct its own record from have been a wave to now be particle instead. This can be explained in a simulated reality (imagine bug-fixing, updates, restart and so forth).

Holographic universe (where our 3d world is extracted from a 2d surface). Example shining a laser thru a 2d imprint give the impression of a 3d object shining out of it (imagine the holograms in Star Wars). This idea his highly debated and will not get further into it but simulated reality give explanation to this model as well.

Matter can be quantized (billions times smaller than an atom) and the matter consists of bits (Binary code - A bit can have only one of two values). Time is quantized, space is quantized etc – everything is made of individual bits – which mean it is computable. This by itself does not dictate simulation but it does indeed give the idea additional potential.


As regard to who is running the simulation it can be any of the following
A) Advanced human civilization (in theory a 5 year old can be running our world)
B) Any deity (God, Spirit etc)
C) Aliens (any other advanced life form other than humans)
D) Artificial intelligence/Robots
E) Unknown force or entity


To the question of discussion
Have you had any glimpse into any potential that the world (our reality) might be a simulation – and if so, explain the best you can how and why you get the impression it might be so? Furthermore, if you under the impression our world in not an simulation, please explain the best you can how and why you get the impression it might be so?


Thank you for your time

 

[dragonrider]

What is Musks reasoning behind this assumption? Is it that there would have to be infintely many of these hyper-advanced civilisations, and therefore infinitely many simulations?

Because if that would be the argument, then there still would have to be many more of these hyper-advanced civilisations than less advanced civilisations, for it to be true. And of these hyper-advanced civilisations, the vast majority should have chosen to design them in such a way that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between some actual reality and simulated reality. Wich would not nessecarily be some innevitable consequence of having simulated reality's.

But yes, life is mysterious enough to legitimise such questions.

 

[fathomlessness]

*Dimensional Simulation

I am a believer.

Extra spatial dimensions would explain quantum entanglement a lot. It would also explain the DMT experience a hell of a lot too!

What is even more plausible is something like The Matrix. Each consciousness separated from others via the program. This doesn't discredit the possibility of actual interaction, it only adds the possibility for false sensory impressions like seeing people that don't have actual conscious existence or self awareness while displaying all the signs of it (P-zombies). An example of what this higher dimensional projection of a person with or without a mind would look like would be something like this:

[youtube]

The hard question with all this is The Hard Problem itself. Where is there any room for self-awareness or consciousness to exist in that simulation? How can awareness emerge from a simulation? I guess it would be no different from if it were a REAL universe whatever the hell that means. It would seem if you want to say it is a REAL universe you would be setting yourself up for a description of a simulation anyway! haha.

The simulation theory could very well be a probable reality and what it would look like when we discover it would be something like the movie Allegiant. I think what might actually be the case invariably always ends up being something slightly different from what we thought it might of been, in otherwords Bostrom and Musk might be on the right track but perhaps haven't quite figured out what it could actually be, better yet 'what it's for'!

[youtube]

 

[fathomlessness]

What is Musks reasoning behind this assumption? Is it that there would have to be infintely many of these hyper-advanced civilisations, and therefore infinitely many simulations?

Because if that would be the argument, then there still would have to be many more of these hyper-advanced civilisations than less advanced civilisations, for it to be true. And of these hyper-advanced civilisations, the vast majority should have chosen to design them in such a way that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between some actual reality and simulated reality. Wich would not nessecarily be some innevitable consequence of having simulated reality's.

But yes, life is mysterious enough to legitimise such questions.

How on earth would you have an infinite amount of simulations? Can you imagine an infinite amount of yourself or of people at all? You can't because you can't imagine infinity because you don't have the mental capabilities. Speaking of infinity in this sense and in other sense related to finite entities is utterly meaningless, at least to me and I would love if you could prove otherwise, really.

It doesn't need many more advanced civilizations. With intelligence comes the scope of your reach to attend many tasks. That's like saying we have 20 mice in a cage so therefor we need 20 scientists to attend them.

Also, perhaps the hyper advanced civilization intended upon having the secret found out as some sort of intelligence maze test just like that seen in Allegient.

 

[dragonrider]

I meant virtually infinite ofcourse.

 

[upwaysidedown]

As regard to who is running the simulation it can be any of the following
A) Advanced human civilization (in theory a 5 year old can be running our world)
B) Any deity (God, Spirit etc)
C) Aliens (any other advanced life form other than humans)
D) Artificial intelligence/Robots
E) Unknown force or entity

Indeed, in my observing of the scientific interest it seems that they always assume that the simulators must by A or C, i.e. members of an identical styled physical universe.

(I'm now going to show how we are already producing a very large number of simulations from this universe)

My point would be that, yes - if you assume such a physical reality where simulations can be created exists then there is a probability of it being the source of us (if we are a simulation). But probabilities of here being a simulation increases if you consider the possibility of simulations also occurring within other types of reality.

But again, why does it need there to be a specific intelligence behind it. A simulation could occur naturally (i.e. material or information in a reality being in some form a description of a reality in another). Then if you want to really mess up your mind, consider that the information that represents the simulation need not even be acknowledged by an intelligent entity in order to exist. So really any random rearrangement of information could be used to describe the simulated reality. Which kind of means that, so long as the information could be represented, then it is (since its all in the interpretation). Which would mean all realities can exist (within finite limits of the possible representations of information).

Of course, if there was a source reality which was infinite. Then anything and everything would exist as a "simulation".

Since we appear to have a physical universe with "laws", it would be obvious to think that these laws must exist somewhere. If you created this universe, where would you put the laws that govern it - they would really have to sit outside of it - which really kind of implies a simulation.

My favourite theory is that we are a simulation that exists as one of an infinite number of such simulations from within a source reality which is infinite.

If this is the case, it would be irrelevant that there was another physical reality simulating ours, as of course there would be an infinite number of such cases, but we would also exist as a direct simulation from the source.

But even if you take the infinite out of the equation, it would mean that any finite set of data (say a finite universe) could be interpreted to also represent a finite number of other finite universes.

(The tripping point here is you have to realise that simulated instanced do not need to exist simultaneously, or sequentially relative to the source universe, nor does the data need to exist all in one place or in a continuous sequence - meaning that from one finite universe you would also be simulating a very large number of equally sized finite universes)

I hope someone gets what I'm saying. I can expand on any of it if you have questions.

 

[Studio1one]

How about simulations within simulations - how deep could the rabbit hole go?


If indeed there is a society so advanced technologically to create a simulated universe indistinguishable from reality, is it also possible that simulation could become so advanced as to create a simulation to the same level of quality.

If so, then is it not possible that the reality in which our simulation was created is not also a simulation. How far could this go?

If this is the case and there is a single master reality and billions of simulations within simulations within simulations, what happens if the power goes out in the master reality?

 

[○]

simulation of the Self

 

[Final Incarnate]

Terrarium Terra does feel like self Replicating Artificial Intelligence .

id rather view it as a computer sim and base spirits and computers as one in the same.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

When dealing with something as unapproachable as the 'ultimate nature of reality,' I think that normal human-level constructs like 'simulation,' don't really make sense. We perceive and can conceptualize such a tiny fraction of our local reality that the idea that we can meaningfully map our experiences to some kind of 'absolute' seems absurd to me.

My understanding is that there are depths that we can dimly perceive with technology and scientific models, but beyond that, we may as well be cave men trying to figure out how a MacBook works.

Something like DMT or other psychedelics may, somehow, change the functioning of our brain in such a way that it allows us to see a different set of patterns, or think in a different way, but I think the vast majority of what's really going on is beyond us, regardless of the drug.

Blessings
~ND

 

[CrackingTheCode]

I have always found science interesting, especially astro and quantum psyhics. About 5-6 years ago I set out to learn everything I could about astropsyhics, which always (ultimately) leads to learning quantumn psyhics.


But before I realized who I/You/We are... all though I think I always suspected it... I always thought "what are the odds of all this?"

The big bang, the fact that if any of the fundamental forces were off by .0001% (weaker or stronger) the whole system would never have worked. You would not have the uniform cosmos. (Meaning, the universe has roughly the same proportions of "stuff" in any direction you look)


If gravity had been just a little bit weaker, we wouldn't have galaxies, if it had been just a bit weaker, it all would have collapsed in on itself.

So, it's either we somehow beat the odds... which is possible if given an infinite number of tries.
(Think of having 16, sixteen-sided dice. What are the odds that you roll them together and they land on a sequental order of 1 through 16? Infitesibly small chance, but its not zero.

OR

Its all part of an intellegent design. It works the way it does because it was DESIGNED to work that way.


Given your own life experiences, which of the two seems more likely?


So, these were my thoughts/knowledge for years before I ever even thought about touching psycadellics.

But, "knowing" and *knowing* can be two different things. It's one thing to have the (book) knowledge, it's another to live/experience it.

I destinctly remember my very first trip ever (shrooms) telling myself "Holy shit, you/they were right. This REALLY IS a simulation". Or maybe it's just the drugs (shrooms) and I'm just really open to suggestion right now (tripping).


But, I also had this thought (realization) that this also meant I could control and influence it, at least to some extent. Which, is exactly what I realized I had been doing (unconsciously) my entire life. As I reflected on my life and the choices/events that ultimately lead me to where I am today and that moment... my next thought was "Did I even really have a choice? Or am I just acting out a role, thinking the character IS me?"

But that's another story


Want to see something that seems to suggest we're living in a simulation?

If you take a metal plate, attached to a speaker so the plate vibrates at set frequences and then sprinkle some salt, sand or similar material over it... turn on the speaker and watch what happens.

Geometric patterns begin to form and correlate to specific frequences. The higher the frequences, the more complex the patterns.

Ever see these patterns while tripping? For me, they're what I see on lower doses of P. Cube (2-3g) when I look at certain surfaces. Carpet and stucco houses in particular.


Makes you wonder why is that?... maybe we're living in a simulation?

The true answer, for me at least is...I just don't know...but given what I do know (or think I know) about science and based on my own life experiences, the simulated reality seems the most likely explanation to me, at this point in time.

When you consider what we've learned in the last 100 years, it really makes you want to see the next 100 years.

 

[Final Incarnate]

When dealing with something as unapproachable as the 'ultimate nature of reality,' I think that normal human-level constructs like 'simulation,' don't really make sense. We perceive and can conceptualize such a tiny fraction of our local reality that the idea that we can meaningfully map our experiences to some kind of 'absolute' seems absurd to me.

My understanding is that there are depths that we can dimly perceive with technology and scientific models, but beyond that, we may as well be cave men trying to figure out how a MacBook works.

Something like DMT or other psychedelics may, somehow, change the functioning of our brain in such a way that it allows us to see a different set of patterns, or think in a different way, but I think the vast majority of what's really going on is beyond us, regardless of the drug.

Blessings
~ND

Downside of Language of the tongue . im pretty sure a lot of users of Psyche Medicine have so much "down on point in their minds but can not simply even come close to wanting to put it in written, even if using pictures or adobephotoshop or gif editor etc. )

I do not think it will always be like this though, i would not be surprised if some enginner etc after a psyche medicine breakthrough made an engineering breakthrough and made a telepathy device for Humans.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

New Age metafysical filosophy BS 101

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

There's actually some really cool work being on that very topic by researchers doing in-vivo neural recordings. There's still a way to go, but we've already developed technology that allows you to move a robot just by imagining it moving.

Language is a whole different beast, but we're getting there ^_^

Blessings
~ND

 

[nexalizer]

My younger - and often stoned - self would've found this question and it's implications fascinating. Indeed, it did, at some point.

Nowdays, probably in no small part due to mentioned stoning not really happening on any regular basis, I shrug and ask .. "if so, then what?"

We can't know the answer. I agree with the reasoning laid out, but even then, we simply do not have enough information to even make a reasonable guess at the probabilities (and likely won't for centuries, if ever).


To answer the question/thread topic, my thoughts are as follow.

We cannot know, and will not be able to know, much like whether there's life after death or not.

Assume it's real, after all here we are, worst case scenario you made good use of your time in reality (or 'reality', if it turns out that way).

Perhaps it goes on somehow.

Perhaps it doesn't and this is our only shot at awareness, arising from billions of years of darkness, and once again delving into it in just several decades.

Either way, we can experience now.



Another way to look at it: when you're really, fully immersed in a game, be it a simple football match, or a computer game, or some fancy new VR thing .. does anything else exist at that moment?

If you're fully there, the answer is no.

Is it a meaningful question to ask, while you're in the game, if it's just a game? Or does asking the question go against the very idea of playing the game?

Maybe it works the same with life.

Or maybe I need to smoalk moar again.

 

[nexalizer]

New Age metafysical filosophy BS 101

Welcome to the Nexus!

Also, make sure to enable spell-checking.

 

[dragonrider]

As regard to who is running the simulation it can be any of the following
A) Advanced human civilization (in theory a 5 year old can be running our world)
B) Any deity (God, Spirit etc)
C) Aliens (any other advanced life form other than humans)
D) Artificial intelligence/Robots
E) Unknown force or entity

Indeed, in my observing of the scientific interest it seems that they always assume that the simulators must by A or C, i.e. members of an identical styled physical universe.

(I'm now going to show how we are already producing a very large number of simulations from this universe)

My point would be that, yes - if you assume such a physical reality where simulations can be created exists then there is a probability of it being the source of us (if we are a simulation). But probabilities of here being a simulation increases if you consider the possibility of simulations also occurring within other types of reality.

But again, why does it need there to be a specific intelligence behind it. A simulation could occur naturally (i.e. material or information in a reality being in some form a description of a reality in another). Then if you want to really mess up your mind, consider that the information that represents the simulation need not even be acknowledged by an intelligent entity in order to exist. So really any random rearrangement of information could be used to describe the simulated reality. Which kind of means that, so long as the information could be represented, then it is (since its all in the interpretation). Which would mean all realities can exist (within finite limits of the possible representations of information).

Of course, if there was a source reality which was infinite. Then anything and everything would exist as a "simulation".

Since we appear to have a physical universe with "laws", it would be obvious to think that these laws must exist somewhere. If you created this universe, where would you put the laws that govern it - they would really have to sit outside of it - which really kind of implies a simulation.

My favourite theory is that we are a simulation that exists as one of an infinite number of such simulations from within a source reality which is infinite.

If this is the case, it would be irrelevant that there was another physical reality simulating ours, as of course there would be an infinite number of such cases, but we would also exist as a direct simulation from the source.

But even if you take the infinite out of the equation, it would mean that any finite set of data (say a finite universe) could be interpreted to also represent a finite number of other finite universes.

(The tripping point here is you have to realise that simulated instanced do not need to exist simultaneously, or sequentially relative to the source universe, nor does the data need to exist all in one place or in a continuous sequence - meaning that from one finite universe you would also be simulating a very large number of equally sized finite universes)

I hope someone gets what I'm saying. I can expand on any of it if you have questions.

Yeah, i get what you're saying. But would 'simulation' still be the apropriate word for those alternative scenario's? You could call the whole 'selfish gene' thesis a theory on simulation that way. The only way consensus reality could nót be a simulation then, is when all of consensus reality would be exactly as it seems. Wouldn't 'simulation' imply volition of some sort?

 

[upwaysidedown]

Yeah, i get what you're saying. But would 'simulation' still be the apropriate word for those alternative scenario's? You could call the whole 'selfish gene' thesis a theory on simulation that way. The only way consensus reality could nót be a simulation then, is when all of consensus reality would be exactly as it seems. Wouldn't 'simulation' imply volition of some sort?

I think you could deconstruct volition until it is no longer important. Certainly we would experience no difference in our reality between it being intentional from a similar intelligence, or not.

For example what is intelligence anyway except something expressed as part of existence, to consider otherwise sort of implies it is something outside of existence.

Since there are so many possible interpretations of the data of existence as different simulations, perhaps it is indeed intelligently created, but created by you - in your interpretation of your existence.

 

[dragonrider]

Yeah, i get what you're saying. But would 'simulation' still be the apropriate word for those alternative scenario's? You could call the whole 'selfish gene' thesis a theory on simulation that way. The only way consensus reality could nót be a simulation then, is when all of consensus reality would be exactly as it seems. Wouldn't 'simulation' imply volition of some sort?

I think you could deconstruct volition until it is no longer important. Certainly we would experience no difference in our reality between it being intentional from a similar intelligence, or not.

For example what is intelligence anyway except something expressed as part of existence, to consider otherwise sort of implies it is something outside of existence.

Since there are so many possible interpretations of the data of existence as different simulations, perhaps it is indeed intelligently created, but created by you - in your interpretation of your existence.

You're right. Now i come to think of it, i actually think you COULD call the selfish gen thesis a sort of simulation as it implies that making choices, the very thing of volition actually, is simulated by our genes.

But when you look at reality as a whole, the very reason i mentioned volition, is because i think 'simulation' at least requires representation. If the universe would be a simulation, then there would either have to be a whole other universe, containing elements, assembled in such a way that they could represent our universe...or, our very counsciousness should be a simulation as well. You could definately trick a mind into believing it is perceiving more than it actually does. Or into believing that it is free. So in that case i would be believing that it is me having these thoughts, while the 'simulator' would be making sure that these thoughts won't get too elaborate, so that i'll never find out it's all an illusion.

Maybe some of these things could happen spontaneously, without volition? Elements that are assembled in such a way that they represent something...yeah, genes actually do that. Brains do it as well. So if you believe in evolution, wich i do, then indeed, it should be possible.

But i think the word 'simulation' means a little more than just there being parallel reality's. It does seem to suggest some sort of dominance of one of these realities over the other. Genes encode our behaviour instead the other way round, though ofcourse a realy nifty simulation would also require a kind of feedback mechanism. Or just like i with the mind, any kind of 'sponaneity' would also have to be encoded.

 

[upwaysidedown]

But when you look at reality as a whole, the very reason i mentioned volition, is because i think 'simulation' at least requires representation. If the universe would be a simulation, then there would either have to be a whole other universe, containing elements, assembled in such a way that they could represent our universe...or, our very counsciousness should be a simulation as well. You could definately trick a mind into believing it is perceiving more than it actually does. Or into believing that it is free. So in that case i would be believing that it is me having these thoughts, while the 'simulator' would be making sure that these thoughts won't get too elaborate, so that i'll never find out it's all an illusion.

OK, first imagine its a computer simulation. This is fine with your definition. Then imagine that the simulation is distributed across servers around the world. Still OK?

Now imagine that we distribute it to servers across the universe... Still OK?

So the data that represents the sim is effectively scattered over the entire universe, and if you were to look at how it exists physically it would seem to be bits of random data (in the absence of the "program" which knows how to interpret that data)

Now imagine that we slow down the simulation program. If you were in the Sim you would not notice any difference. We can speed it up too, but time in the universe is irrelevant to the Sim, as long as the next calculation is done to create the data for the next step for the Sim.

So really we could even simulate them out of sequence (if this was programmatically possible) and the Sim would not notice.

Now what if nobody looked at the computer to see if it was working. Would that be OK?

What if it was never looked at?

So the only thing that "knows" the simulation is the computer. Is that OK?

The computer is just more data. More atoms of data storage which are considered to represent something. So why have the computer at all? What if there was no computer and the data representing the simulation steps just happens to exist. After all it was only the computer that required it to be in specific places in a specific order, and we just scattered them over the whole universe anyway. For example, say part of the data is where the computer expected it to be, well we could just have that data somewhere else - after all there is now no computer to "care" where it is. Or we could just consider some other random atoms to represent the computers new record of where that data should be.

So when above did the "simulated" reality stop existing, because now its there and there is no computer, nobody looking at it and it is made up of matter spread over the whole universe. Why not all of the matter?

Approach 2, is my conceptual one. Which is to point out that if it can be simulated then each step in the simulation (or if you like the entire history of the simulation from beginning to end) is just data. So as data we could represent it as a very very very large number.

That number may not be represented physically, but does that stop it existing? It very likely exists within the digits making up pi (you are almost certain to find the first or last 6 digits from your phone number in the just the first 100million digits) imagine what there is within the infinite number of places it has. Pi is a thing that exists and is represented by every circle. Pi is just one of many conceptual places that a reality could hide.