Stimulating Simulation – The Physical Universe.

What a perfect thread for me to exercise my philosophy degree! From what I have gathered from scanning the conversation as of now, there are many assumptions going on with the "Universe as Simulation" argument.

1. Contrary to popular belief, science is not purely objective. Scientific evidence relies on hypotheses that - a lot of the time - are explored with confirmation bias. If you dig into peer reviewed articles and scientific literature, you will notice that more papers are published of "successful hypotheses" versus unsuccessful ones. This in itself already skews objectivity.

2. Objectivity is actually subjectivity agreed upon by a certain group of masses. In a sense, there is only subjectivity.

3. Arguments about reality and the "universe" often rely on our conception of time, which is perceived in a linear fashion. So to say the Big Bang happened in the past, and might contract in the future, is still utilizing a human model of time, even though quantum physics has increasingly shown that time is malleable, if not non-existent, in higher vibrational frequencies.

4. The idea of an "initial cause" is again a linear conception of time.

5. The definition of "simulation" infers that there must be an end. If we are to accept that as truth, then we would have to agree that every state of existence is a simulation, because every state of existence will always end until we are reabsorbed into the Source; the end-all yet infinite state of being.

6. If we assume that higher dimensions operate outside of time, then that ultimately infers there is no end. Since higher dimensions must contain the lower dimensions, that means our 4th-dimensional perception is simply just limited instead of simulated. If we understand that time is a subjective concept, then that will ultimately collapse the argument that our universe is a simulation, based on the grounds that a simulation can only exist in a finite universe.

Originally Posted by slaga

So then does it follow that the simulation(s) have no end?

Simulations can be programmed to have ends or not. In relation to this physical universe, it follows that this simulation has no end, yes.

Except to say that the 'end game' is one huge machine, which in itself could provide an infinite number of simulations for consciousness to explore.

There is no telling that the physical universe hasn't already evolved into the machine through this process already and what we are experiencing is a simulation provided through that machinery.

It is possible.

:)

Originally Posted by Homunculus

What a perfect thread for me to exercise my philosophy degree! From what I have gathered from scanning the conversation as of now, there are many assumptions going on with the "Universe as Simulation" argument.

1. Contrary to popular belief, science is not purely objective. Scientific evidence relies on hypotheses that - a lot of the time - are explored with confirmation bias. If you dig into peer reviewed articles and scientific literature, you will notice that more papers are published of "successful hypotheses" versus unsuccessful ones. This in itself already skews objectivity.

2. Objectivity is actually subjectivity agreed upon by a certain group of masses. In a sense, there is only subjectivity.

3. Arguments about reality and the "universe" often rely on our conception of time, which is perceived in a linear fashion. So to say the Big Bang happened in the past, and might contract in the future, is still utilizing a human model of time, even though quantum physics has increasingly shown that time is malleable, if not non-existent, in higher vibrational frequencies.

4. The idea of an "initial cause" is again a linear conception of time.

5. The definition of "simulation" infers that there must be an end. If we are to accept that as truth, then we would have to agree that every state of existence is a simulation, because every state of existence will always end until we are reabsorbed into the Source; the end-all yet infinite state of being.

6. If we assume that higher dimensions operate outside of time, then that ultimately infers there is no end. Since higher dimensions must contain the lower dimensions, that means our 4th-dimensional perception is simply just limited instead of simulated. If we understand that time is a subjective concept, then that will ultimately collapse the argument that our universe is a simulation, based on the grounds that a simulation can only exist in a finite universe.

You raise some good points, there may be no time or even causality, which would throw a wrench in the simulation idea. I'm not sure what you mean by #6 though. Why infer that things are infinite? The multiverse may be larger than we can possibly imagine, yet still finite. This is a point Tom makes in my big TOE: nothing can truly be infinite.

Originally Posted by Homunculus

What a perfect thread for me to exercise my philosophy degree! From what I have gathered from scanning the conversation as of now, there are many assumptions going on with the "Universe as Simulation" argument.

1. Contrary to popular belief, science is not purely objective. Scientific evidence relies on hypotheses that - a lot of the time - are explored with confirmation bias. If you dig into peer reviewed articles and scientific literature, you will notice that more papers are published of "successful hypotheses" versus unsuccessful ones. This in itself already skews objectivity.
   
2. Objectivity is actually subjectivity agreed upon by a certain group of masses. In a sense, there is only subjectivity.
   
3. Arguments about reality and the "universe" often rely on our conception of time, which is perceived in a linear fashion. So to say the Big Bang happened in the past, and might contract in the future, is still utilizing a human model of time, even though quantum physics has increasingly shown that time is malleable, if not non-existent, in higher vibrational frequencies.
   
4. The idea of an "initial cause" is again a linear conception of time.
   
5. The definition of "simulation" infers that there must be an end. If we are to accept that as truth, then we would have to agree that every state of existence is a simulation, because every state of existence will always end until we are reabsorbed into the Source; the end-all yet infinite state of being.
   
6. If we assume that higher dimensions operate outside of time, then that ultimately infers there is no end. Since higher dimensions must contain the lower dimensions, that means our 4th-dimensional perception is simply just limited instead of simulated.
   
7. If we understand that time is a subjective concept, then that will ultimately collapse the argument that our universe is a simulation, based on the grounds that a simulation can only exist in a finite universe.

1. Objectivity is subjectivity agreed on. Individuals can agree that what was observed was seen to do 'such and such'. When explanations as to why what was observed did 'such and such', subjectively those who agreed on what was observed doing something may not agree to the 'why' of what that something was doing and will often then form groups of individuals aligning their opinion on 'why'.
   
   
2. Subjectivity is the leading motivator. One cannot build large and complex systems without objectivity, which is subjective interaction to produce objective results.
   
   
3. Yet here we are experiencing linear time, in a in "lower vibrational frequency" Therefore deal with what we are within, what it shows us and what we can do with it.
   
   
4. Yes but so what? Experience within the framework of time and linear time is not a problem for consciousness.
   Initial cause (big bang) is not incorrect. It is simply the product of "on" or 'Run code" in regard to the simulation.
   
   
5. "Reabsorbed into the Source;" is simply another way of saying 'Contraction' - there is no need to be 'reabsorbed into the Source' because
   *we (Consciousness) are source having an infinite number of experiences and the only required thing in terms of making the experience(s) optimum is to realize *this in whatever experience we are subjectively having.
   
   'Simulation' is metaphor. There does not necessarily have to be an end to all simulations.
   
   (See my last post for more on this)
   
   
6. But 'finite' suggests time and simulations can be programmed to continue indefinitely.
   The 'end' of a simulation is when an individual leaves it. The individual leaves one simulation and enters another, and only has to find the evidence of a 'beginning' within the experience in order to realize that he/she/it is within and experiencing a simulation.
   
   
7. Therefore if any of these 'higher dimensions' have beginnings then they are simulations too.
   
   What created these simulations are other simulations. What created all simulations (or the initial simulation which then created all other simulations) was something which had no beginning.
   

Homunculus

You've established that you don't buy the simulation idea. What then is your outlook on metaphysics?

Originally Posted by slaga

You raise some good points, there may be no time or even causality, which would throw a wrench in the simulation idea. I'm not sure what you mean by #6 though. Why infer that things are infinite? The multiverse may be larger than we can possibly imagine, yet still finite. This is a point Tom makes in my big TOE: nothing can truly be infinite.

I infer that things are infinite because any finite state of existence must ultimately stem from a pre-existing source. Nothing can arise from nothingness no more than existence can cease existing. It's similar to saying: 1 = 1 AND 1 = 0. There can't be two modes of existence. There's either existence or non-existence. These types of contradictions are called "tautologies." Basically, since we are making these arguments WHILE currently existing, it is contradictory to assert that non-existence is possible.

Originally Posted by William

1. Objectivity is subjectivity agreed on. Individuals can agree that what was observed was seen to do 'such and such'. When explanations as to why what was observed did 'such and such', subjectively those who agreed on what was observed doing something may not agree to the 'why' of what that something was doing and will often then form groups of individuals aligning their opinion on 'why'.
   
   
2. Subjectivity is the leading motivator. One cannot build large and complex systems without objectivity, which is subjective interaction to produce objective results.
   
   
3. Yet here we are experiencing linear time, in a in "lower vibrational frequency" Therefore deal with what we are within, what it shows us and what we can do with it.
   
   
4. Yes but so what? Experience within the framework of time and linear time is not a problem for consciousness.
   Initial cause (big bang) is not incorrect. It is simply the product of "on" or 'Run code" in regard to the simulation.
   
   
5. "Reabsorbed into the Source;" is simply another way of saying 'Contraction' - there is no need to be 'reabsorbed into the Source' because
   *we (Consciousness) are source having an infinite number of experiences and the only required thing in terms of making the experience(s) optimum is to realize *this in whatever experience we are subjectively having.
   
   'Simulation' is metaphor. There does not necessarily have to be an end to all simulations.
   
   (See my last post for more on this)
   
   
6. But 'finite' suggests time and simulations can be programmed to continue indefinitely.
   The 'end' of a simulation is when an individual leaves it. The individual leaves one simulation and enters another, and only has to find the evidence of a 'beginning' within the experience in order to realize that he/she/it is within and experiencing a simulation.
   
   
7. Therefore if any of these 'higher dimensions' have beginnings then they are simulations too.
   
   What created these simulations are other simulations. What created all simulations (or the initial simulation which then created all other simulations) was something which had no beginning.
   

1. Which is why science, and empiricism at that, are not outside of dogmatism. The "why" is what matters in science. Groups can agree that 'such and such' happened, and even agree on the "why," but that still does not capture objective reality. Objective reality is an ever-fleeting concept that will continue to be chased until subjectivity can be accepted as Justified, True, Belief.

2. I understand where you're coming from, but why not drop the concept of "objectivity" altogether? Truth is only coined "Truth" when it accomplishes a goal. Although some basic facets of science and mathematics are logically valid and sound, there are still "degrees of difference" that exist among its concepts. Seemingly objective truths are always mended in the future by further illumination.

3. Now you are touching on what I'm trying to explain. Yes, it's true we are dealing with the linear framework we exist in, yet science has shown time is malleable. That in itself alters any "objective" truth. Our science is only a science based on 4-dimensionality. We have yet to incorporate the increasing presence of other dimensions and how those are at play in our own physical reality.

4. What is the 'Run code' you speak of?

5. I should have clarified my stance. Yes, I agree that We are Source. How then does this not contradict the simulation theory? If We are Source, and Source creates said simulation, then there is no simulation.

6. Again, I don't see why these individual experiences need to be called simulations. The definition of simulation lies on the grounds that there is an underlying reality that is being mimicked. If these so-called simulations all end, then what is underneath? How come these experiences can't simply be called experiences? The experiences are the underlying reality. The individual 'simulations' are the realities.

7. I think this just loops back into my previous statement above.

Originally Posted by slaga

Homunculus

You've established that you don't buy the simulation idea. What then is your outlook on metaphysics?

My outlook on metaphysics is simple. What we call Reality is just that...Reality. Even when we die and our consciousness continues to exist at a higher vibrational frequency that is not confined by a human body, THAT will still be reality.

If you're more interested in the standpoint I'm coming from, I would recommend reading Spinoza's philosophy.

Originally Posted by Homunculus

1. Which is why science, and empiricism at that, are not outside of dogmatism. The "why" is what matters in science. Groups can agree that 'such and such' happened, and even agree on the "why," but that still does not capture objective reality. Objective reality is an ever-fleeting concept that will continue to be chased until subjectivity can be accepted as Justified, True, Belief.

2. I understand where you're coming from, but why not drop the concept of "objectivity" altogether? Truth is only coined "Truth" when it accomplishes a goal. Although some basic facets of science and mathematics are logically valid and sound, there are still "degrees of difference" that exist among its concepts. Seemingly objective truths are always mended in the future by further illumination.

3. Now you are touching on what I'm trying to explain. Yes, it's true we are dealing with the linear framework we exist in, yet science has shown time is malleable. That in itself alters any "objective" truth. Our science is only a science based on 4-dimensionality. We have yet to incorporate the increasing presence of other dimensions and how those are at play in our own physical reality.

4. What is the 'Run code' you speak of?

5. I should have clarified my stance. Yes, I agree that We are Source. How then does this not contradict the simulation theory? If We are Source, and Source creates said simulation, then there is no simulation.

6. Again, I don't see why these individual experiences need to be called simulations. The definition of simulation lies on the grounds that there is an underlying reality that is being mimicked. If these so-called simulations all end, then what is underneath? How come these experiences can't simply be called experiences? The experiences are the underlying reality. The individual 'simulations' are the realities.

1. I think objectivity has to remain because we are individuate.
   We all have subjective experience but share that experience with others, and this requires 'getting on the same page' which is an objective or shared reality.
   Individuate subjectivity alone cannot do the science.
   
   It could be seen for example (and I think this is where you are coming from) that if everyone's subjective experience were linked to a source or hub, and that hub was a living entity (like some think of as Gaia) then altogether that entity would be having a subjective experience which happens to consist of all our subjective experiences.
   
2. Perhaps inanimate things are objective. Like the Physical Universe and the subjective is consciousness.
   
3. How can 'we' do this except subjectively?
   
4. It is metaphor, just as 'this universe is a simulation' is metaphor.
   
5. Why cannot something be real and simulation at the same time? It is not contradiction.
   If source never had a beginning, then Source simulates a beginning. How can source simulate something which it has never experienced and cannot therefore make a similar model of? Perhaps the word simulation is not a good one to use, but in relation to this universe, it is something of a simulation of that which created it, which is also a simulation (according to some theories) it 'came from' a non physical universe which many 'spiritual' people consider to have created this universe.
   
6. Simulations (or whatever you want to call them) are real. Anything consciousness experiences is real. The 'simulations' are simply those 'universes' which have be created, like the Fractal.
   If you want to call the experience 'experiences' then what is being 'experienced?'
   
   Have you read this thread?
   
   We could look at this as Consciousness = Reality
   
   The Universe = Simulation
   
   Consciousness + Simulation = experience.

Whether the Universe was created in an instant or it is eternal, this will blow all of your minds.

The most accepted and used system of music uses 12 tones and is a very elegant system. If you calculate pi in base12 you find 3.184809493B91866 etc. If you assign each digit to each tone in the chromatic scale and play it, it is the most beautiful melody that exists.

Youtube - 72 digits of pi base12 The Eternal Melody

How old is this melody? It's older than human history. It's older than Earth history. It is as old as you can get in this Universe.

This discovery was overwhelming. The amount of musical reason contained in pi base12 is astounding. If there is a Creator who transcends all time, who made all laws so, this is the song he wrote to us all. The alternative is that the Universe itself contains reason on all levels. Either way, that's pretty awesome.

Here is another little tid-bit to turn your brain inside out.

What if all the codes of life (DNA) are already written?
What if some of the special irrational constants in math calculated in base4 (0,1,2,3) contain encoded DNA (A,C,T,G)?

I have no idea, but I really want to know.