Do we live in a Matrix – Is Matter a virtual Simulation?

Originally Posted by guthrio

Siemens,

Thank you for taking the time to consider my post.

I think the points you raised above can be addressed with the following explanations....

We can ... infer that though the mind is invisible, its physical instrument is the brain, which receives and responds to, the energetic frequencies of our olfactory, visual, tactile, gustatory, and auditory senses....in order FOR our minds to correlate their collective inputs TO our awareness as a cohesive picture (our experience of the world).

To your point, No, that can’t be the case.:

From Bashar: "....all of you are, yes... a part of the whole, but as a part of the whole, you are the Whole expressing Itself as "a part of the whole". Big difference than just thinking of yourself as a part of the whole without the other side. You have to understand yourself holographically, it is this and that... not this or that. So, you are the part... you are the whole, you are both one and the same, but expressing the whole as a part."

Would you consider that the "part of the Whole", metaphorically called "our brains" which receives and responds to, the energetic frequencies of our olfactory, visual, tactile, gustatory, and auditory senses....in order FOR our minds to correlate their collective inputs TO our awareness as a cohesive picture (our experience of the world)....is analogous to what a TV or radio does in order to receive (perceive) the invisible frequencies "IT is configured to correlate into a movable feast of pictures or sounds"?

Your intent to "change your mind" becomes your action to activate the "remote" (your brain / body) as an extension to "change the channel of experience" to yet another (already-existing), formerly invisible channel, so to speak...

.....precisely activating the interrelated functioning of each "part of the whole experience" already available because "everything is the same One thing vibrating at different rates?"...per the Bashar reference, below.

The case is that "we" function as the undifferentiated Whole, with tuners (i.e.bodies / brains) "configured" to perceive this interrelated wholeness....as bits and pieces (which are not at all separated on any level). I hope this helps you now perceive (and hear) why this is the case? If not, consider WHY you are even able to appreciate this analogy of BEING the "tuner", in a self-reflective way, from a seemingly separate "standpoint". It is because "....you are the part... you are the whole, you are both one and the same, but expressing the whole as a part."

As to your other two points of disagreement, I believe this "Whole as a part" analogy covers them, as well.

Why? Think about it. Remember that Maya is the (illusion) appearing to make a part of the Whole seem to be "apart" from the Whole, when in Reality....

All "things" are the same one thing vibrating at different rates .....

....ALL "portions" of which function synchronistically, interactively (not independently), and most importantly, infallibly, as One Entity to enable each "part" to achieve and receive (i.e "tune into") "its" highest good.

IMHO, this appears to be the only way this "Whole" thing intended Itself to work, at every level, for "us" All!

One as All, All as One

Again, thanks for considering. Hope this helps.

Reference: https://iasos.com/metaphys/bashar/ (See 3rd and 4th lines under Topics).

Reference: http://montalk.net/ Transcending the Matrix Control System (you're gonna LOVE this site!)

This for the most part agrees with how I think it works.
The one thing vibrating with all the different frequencies is the one universal quantum field (or rather that is one way of speaking about it). It is the parts that tune into the various frequencies to realize a part of it like the TV tuner does. The waves of the quantum field do not collapse for the whole, the only appear to collapse to the part, and only because that part has selected a reality from the infinity of simultaneously existing reality experiences encoded within the vibrations of the quantum field. This is why matter appears as a dispersed wave function until observed and then appears to be a particle to the observer (i.e. double slit experiment). Only the field is real, and only in the abstract non-physical sense. Physical reality (e.g. the particle) is what the observer creates within, space time matter and the rest, with the information it draws from the quantum field (i.e. the wave function amplitudes). Just like the TV tuner draws out one show from the superimposed signals. Reality is how we tune our receivers.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/were-...yway-20190627/


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...-you-make-it-0

"One as All, All as One"

Precisely, we also are God and Man both. It is a question of point of view, third person omniscient, or first person, same reader, two different experiences. In the end, we are individual eyes looking out into a universe that is us.

Originally Posted by Siemens

You yourself said that your convictions regarding the role of the brain are circular: We, as energetic structures, create the visualization of matter. Then the visualized brain should be necessary to create our thought.
That means, if visualization would cause or influence or thinking, the original cause of thinking still were the energetic structure (because it generates the visualization). So or so, the cause of thinking is the energetic structure alone. Your theory just says that virtual matter is an interstation or relay between the energetic structure and our ability to think – but all processing required for thinking is done within the energetic structure.
That raises the question: Why do you believe that thinking requires a relay of virtual matter, when this relay doesn’t add anything to the energetic structure's processing required for thinking?

Well, we are lost in a world of semantics perhaps. The brain generates our thoughts, but consciousness generates the brain, so the brain is not truly the generator but more like the virtual holographic plate through which the light of consciousness shines to create the hologram of me. I can understand the words "we don't need the brain to have thoughts", but I can't conceptualize it within the current limitations of my consciousness... perhaps. Thoughts are rather limited things, combinations of vibrations that symbolize forms and concepts. Outside of a VR construct of some sort, I cannot really imagine how it works because I am stuck within the construct, living in four dimensional reality. I am thinking about the issue with thoughts created by and limited by the VR construct of the brain, which means I understand the english you are using, but my thoughts can't envision it in a realization of reality. I mean I can try to envision it as some sort of disembodied thoughts floating around, but even then it falls back into some kind of four dimensional construct. Thoughts seem to imply the thinker, and for my four dimensional brain, that implies form and time, whether that be a human brain or even a computer chip, or something entirely different (in space and time). But again, you could be right, but my limited human mind is inadequate to see it fully.

I think we are coming closer together. You say “this life has the rule, to experience thought [through a brain]”. That means you actually do not say a brain is necessary per se to generate human thinking. You much more say that we defined it as an arbitrary rule that we need a brain to think, but in actual fact brains aren’t necessary for thinking.

Well, we have a rule that in this life experience we will have a brain, and here are the rules the brain will use to create thoughts, and we will experience those thoughts as part of life. I suppose we could extract reality experiences with different rules, and still call them thoughts, but they would not necessarily be the same. It is perhaps possible, but I only know how it is currently being done to create my experience of mind (and even that is shaky), not what is possible beyond it. One does have direct experience of aspects of reality(ies) without using thoughts (perhaps getting the thoughts out of the way is in fact necessary for it), but I would not say that experience is "thought", although you may include it under the umbrella of that word, IDK.

In the last sentence you say: The belief in the brain helps us to preserve the illusion of life. But is it actually a fact that we all believe that the brain generates our thought?
Human kind doesn’t believe for a very long time that brains generate thinking. Aristotle for example thought the brain would be a sort of cooling organ that reduces the temperature of blood. Most Stone Age people didn’t know what the brain does, as well as kids or animals. Consequently you have to say that when we experience ourselves in a stone-age simulation we DO NOT need brains to think. Haven’t you?
It seem that you actually knew what I just said on a subliminal level. You just hadn’t it explicit. In fact we do not need a brain or any other simulated object to think. Only when we decide to play along the rule: “Thinking requires Brain” we "need" the brain. But we also could deside to live in worlds were we just had a body, without knowing what is inside it, and indeed without anything inside.

Yet, we did have brains, it is just that the thoughts did not know that this is how they were generated. Perhaps the nuance here is the meaning of the word we. Are we talking about the soul, or the soul as represented (filtered) by the human mind and ego. I suppose if we take the position that the moon is not really there when we are not looking then yes, we don't need the brain to have thought, as the brain is not even there when we are not aware of it, yet there is thought. On the other hand if we say the moon does exist, but as potential reality, that is waiting to be brought into our awareness and "realized", and its potential reality creates the tides whether we are looking at that moon or not, then we may say the brain was there all along and our thinking was shaped and bounded by the rules and limits of that brain even though it was not being realized within awareness at the time. I can go either way I suppose. If our reality is a set of rules (e.g. the equation/theory of everything) then the rules of that reality are followed to create whatever consistent experience of reality we draw out. We may not be creating a current picture of the moon in our awareness, yet the rules the moon imposes on the tides are in effect nonetheless, and so we still create the tides in accord with the existence of that moon even when the surf and beach are the only things within our awareness at that moment, then in that sense the moon still exists. And so with thoughts. The brain could be seen as a set of rules that are followed to create the experience of thoughts within our awareness (I mean, this is precisely how we would simulate this in a computer.) Now we may not be actively visualizing a physical brain, but if our thoughts are following its rules nonetheless, then one could argue that the brain continues to exist through the effects of its rules. And ultimately, when we look at all of the forms, we find nothing solid there, only energy, which is difficult to define as something, because it is behind all "things", yet is never directly experienced, only inferred by its consistent mathematically predictable effects. We see a physical reality, that upon closer examination disappears into a set of mathematical rules acting upon some invisible thing called "energy", perhaps there, in those rules, is really where everything in our life experience "exists". The algorithms of the matrix. And for as far as I can see now, that algorithm calls upon the brain subroutine to create the thoughts.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by ketzer

This for the most part agrees with how I think it works.
The one thing vibrating with all the different frequencies is the one universal quantum field (or rather that is one way of speaking about it). It is the parts that tune into the various frequencies to realize a part of it like the TV tuner does. The waves of the quantum field do not collapse for the whole, the only appear to collapse to the part, and only because that part has selected a reality from the infinity of simultaneously existing reality experiences encoded within the vibrations of the quantum field. This is why matter appears as a dispersed wave function until observed and then appears to be a particle to the observer (i.e. double slit experiment). Only the field is real, and only in the abstract non-physical sense. Physical reality (e.g. the particle) is what the observer creates within, space time matter and the rest, with the information it draws from the quantum field (i.e. the wave function amplitudes). Just like the TV tuner draws out one show from the superimposed signals. Reality is how we tune our receivers.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/were-...yway-20190627/


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...-you-make-it-0

"One as All, All as One"

Precisely, we also are God and Man both. It is a question of point of view, third person omniscient, or first person, same reader, two different experiences. In the end, we are individual eyes looking out into a universe that is us.

Hi Ketzer,

Ironically, I'd been thinking about what scientists have called the double-slit experiment, and your post above brought to mind a very strange confluence of ideas about the reality of particles, observers, and experiments.

Consider the following from the reference, pertaining to "the reality of particles, observers, and experiments":

There are infinite versions of reality. There are infinite parallel realities, and they are all equally "real", though you experience only 1 version at any given moment. Shifting from one version to another is not really that unnatural or difficult, since you are doing it all the time anyway - billions of times every second. So it's not so much a matter of"making it happen". It's more a matter of directing or "steering" which parallel reality you shift into - at any moment. Shifting parallel realities is akin to films changing still-pictures 24 times per second, or video changing still-pictures 25 or 30 times per second. It happens so fast, that it creates the illusion of smooth continuous motion. When you shift to another version of reality, you become the "you" that already existed in that version. And the "you" in the version you just left, is still "real" and still "there".

Since EVERYTHING is CONSCIOUSNESS, and
Since YOU are EVERYTHING,

Shifting from one parallel reality to another is like "closing your eyes" in one version and "opening your eyes" in another version. Shifting from one parallel reality to another is like "viewing through the window of another you" and no longer "viewing through the window of the previous you". But keep in mind that this "new you" and the "previous you" are still both "real", and have both always existed..........since YOU are EVERYTHING and YOU have ALWAYS EXISTED. So shifting parallel realities boils down to the YOU-that-is-EVERYTHING shifting the perspective or point-of-view from which it's viewing a part of its EVERYTHING-SELF. And sensing yourself as everything is not losing your identity. In contrast, it is expanding your self-identity to include EVERYTHING.

Here's the rub: From the "stand-point" of all aspects of these scientist's experiments, ANY variable, whatsoever, occurs in an ENTIRELY new version of events that was not identical whatever the variable was.

Case in point: There CAN BE NO "particle OR wave" that travels from an electron emitter TO, "then", THROUGH slits in a barrier configured to capture "its" signature with an interferometer. WHY?

....BECAUSE the "YOU-that-is-EVERYTHING shifting the perspective or point-of-view from which it's viewing a part of its EVERYTHING-SELF"....

...is analogous to the "particle"-that-is-EVERYWHERE shifting the perspective or point-of-view from which it's viewing a part of its EVERYWHERE-SELF"

In other words, every-thing ALREADY EXISTS every-where....AT ONCE.

When you shift to another version of reality, you become the "you" that already existed in that version. And the "you" in the version you just left, is still "real" and still "there".

....same thing for the "electron", the scientist's electrons, the machinery's electrons as well....each being EVERYWHERE ELSE.

What do you think?



Reference: https://iasos.com/metaphys/bashar/

[Emm]

Hi, just wanted to say I'm loving how this conversation is going and am very much in line with Gutherio's posts. Have you read any of the Seth materials by Jane Roberts? He too talks of parallel lives and probable realities...he says for every choice we make there are realities that go down the path of all the other choices we could have made.

This brings in the Law of Attraction factor too making sense of how it works...we gravitate or attract to that reality which is in line with our choices/energy. Love to give a plug to LoA when I see an opportunity lol

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by Emm

Hi, just wanted to say I'm loving how this conversation is going and am very much in line with Gutherio's posts. Have you read any of the Seth materials by Jane Roberts? He too talks of parallel lives and probable realities...he says for every choice we make there are realities that go down the path of all the other choices we could have made.

This brings in the Law of Attraction factor too making sense of how it works...we gravitate or attract to that reality which is in line with our choices/energy. Love to give a plug to LoA when I see an opportunity lol

Hi Emm,

Welcome to Spiritual Forums

The influence of the Seth material helped me to understand other aspects of spirituality from a non-physical standpoint.... especially his use of the terms Framework One and Framework Two to describe how to achieve what he called Great Expectations.

I hope you will enjoy the reference, below, where I speak of what St Augustine and Seth have in common, concerning miracles.

..... which, returning to the OP's excellent question about whether we live in a matrix or not, I believe Neo, at the very least, would certainly understand what miraculous capabilities truly are in any Matrix, don't you?



Reference: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...0&postcount=45

Originally Posted by guthrio

Hi Ketzer,

Ironically, I'd been thinking about what scientists have called the double-slit experiment, and your post above brought to mind a very strange confluence of ideas about the reality of particles, observers, and experiments.

Consider the following from the reference, pertaining to "the reality of particles, observers, and experiments":

There are infinite versions of reality. There are infinite parallel realities, and they are all equally "real", though you experience only 1 version at any given moment. Shifting from one version to another is not really that unnatural or difficult, since you are doing it all the time anyway - billions of times every second. So it's not so much a matter of"making it happen". It's more a matter of directing or "steering" which parallel reality you shift into - at any moment. Shifting parallel realities is akin to films changing still-pictures 24 times per second, or video changing still-pictures 25 or 30 times per second. It happens so fast, that it creates the illusion of smooth continuous motion. When you shift to another version of reality, you become the "you" that already existed in that version. And the "you" in the version you just left, is still "real" and still "there".

Since EVERYTHING is CONSCIOUSNESS, and
Since YOU are EVERYTHING,

Shifting from one parallel reality to another is like "closing your eyes" in one version and "opening your eyes" in another version. Shifting from one parallel reality to another is like "viewing through the window of another you" and no longer "viewing through the window of the previous you". But keep in mind that this "new you" and the "previous you" are still both "real", and have both always existed..........since YOU are EVERYTHING and YOU have ALWAYS EXISTED. So shifting parallel realities boils down to the YOU-that-is-EVERYTHING shifting the perspective or point-of-view from which it's viewing a part of its EVERYTHING-SELF. And sensing yourself as everything is not losing your identity. In contrast, it is expanding your self-identity to include EVERYTHING.

Here's the rub: From the "stand-point" of all aspects of these scientist's experiments, ANY variable, whatsoever, occurs in an ENTIRELY new version of events that was not identical whatever the variable was.

Case in point: There CAN BE NO "particle OR wave" that travels from an electron emitter TO, "then", THROUGH slits in a barrier configured to capture "its" signature with an interferometer. WHY?

....BECAUSE the "YOU-that-is-EVERYTHING shifting the perspective or point-of-view from which it's viewing a part of its EVERYTHING-SELF"....

...is analogous to the "particle"-that-is-EVERYWHERE shifting the perspective or point-of-view from which it's viewing a part of its EVERYWHERE-SELF"

In other words, every-thing ALREADY EXISTS every-where....AT ONCE.

When you shift to another version of reality, you become the "you" that already existed in that version. And the "you" in the version you just left, is still "real" and still "there".

....same thing for the "electron", the scientist's electrons, the machinery's electrons as well....each being EVERYWHERE ELSE.

What do you think?



Reference: https://iasos.com/metaphys/bashar/

Well, I think I agree, but I am not seeing any rub there.
This seems to jive well with Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. And it seems to fit in well with the "block" theory of time or the block universe/multiverse, which was also discovered in the east many years ago and called the Akashic Records. Whether the old and new versions of me that I switch to are both "real" becomes a bit more of a semantics issue. I tend to think that real is a matter of personal perspective and that from the standpoint of my individualized consciousness, what is real is whatever I am realizing within it in any given present moment. All of the countless potential me versions that I can switch in and out of all exist within the computers memory banks (the mathematical wave function / quantum field), but the one I think of as "real" is the one flickering across the screen during the current refresh (i.e. the present moment). Of course all of this postulates implicitly a "me" or "I" that exists a priori to or beyond this system in which it is all taking place. An I that is out of reach as far as direct experience goes as it is outside the boundaries of this system. Yet I know this I exists because I know there must be something witnessing it all, even if it is the thing creating it all as well. Our individual consciousness may be only a single eye in the head of a God that has infinitely many eyes, each of which can look anywhere (and any when) at any given present moment and anywhere else in the next. Which incidentally implicitly implies time again.... even if we accept eternalism and a block universe, we still need some sort of time to conceptualize experience... it is a pesky thing to get rid of all together, at least from within this four dimensional reality POV.

So I agree, but don't see why you saw a "rub" in all of this.

BTW, this switching between versions of me gazillions of times a (moment??), is something I have suspected as of late. Or more like there is many "ketzer" experiences simultaneously playing out "many ketzer threads in the computer all multitasking at once", or a superposition of "ketzer stories" all evolving in the wave function together, though at any given present moment it seems like there is only one, the one I am realizing in my awareness at that gazillionth of a moment. I may switch to another in the next gazillionth of a moment, but even if it is a very different version than the last one, it will have a past which will seem natural, and a future to speculate on, and so the past and present are just different directions from the light cone that extends from whatever "ketzer" version story present moment I am viewing from at that moment.

"Case in point: There CAN BE NO "particle OR wave" that travels from an electron emitter TO, "then", THROUGH slits in a barrier configured to capture "its" signature with an interferometer. WHY?"

No there is none, there is only the present moment perspective of the electron at the screen that decides whether its past will be a wave or a particle based on the observation taking place. Of course the electron is really just the observer anyway, so it is the observer doing this within their own created present moment reality and saying "wow that is strange, the electron seems to know I am watching it"..... silly consciousness, you are the electron..and screen, and slits, and everything else. You don't realize you are watching you.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by guthrio

We can ... infer that though the mind is invisible, its physical instrument is the brain, which receives and responds to, the energetic frequencies of our olfactory, visual, tactile, gustatory, and auditory senses....in order FOR our minds to correlate their collective inputs TO our awareness as a cohesive picture (our experience of the world). [/i]

Sorry, but this can’t be the case except where you understand something different under a visualization than me.

Under a virtual visualization I understand something like a dream or a hallucination that is completely created WITHIN the source of consciousness. Secondly, a virtual visualization exists ONLY in form of perception (resp. something that can be perceived). There is underlying information-processing outside and underlying the visualization to generate the visualization. But the visualization itself is just something that is perceivable. It is just the picture (or sound, smell,...) that is experience in consciousness. Thirdly, a visualization, in form of something perceivable, can take any form and shape. The content that is visualized is determined fully by the information-processor (e.g. consciousness) that gives rise to it.

How far do you agree? Or in which points do you differ from my definition?

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by ketzer

But again, you could be right, but my limited human mind is inadequate to see it fully.

I think I know the source of the problem. But I haven’t enough time to write right now; I will answer the next days...

[Phaelyn]

Matrix quote: "Do not try and bend the spoon, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."

Belief changes perception and creation and objective created reality and experience as well. And we can freely choose our beliefs!

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Matrix quote: "Do not try and bend the spoon, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."

Belief changes perception and creation and objective created reality and experience as well. And we can freely choose our beliefs!

But perhaps how free the choice is depends on just what is meant by the word "we". Or to put it another way, it matters just how deeply within "I" a belief is held as truth.