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

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Found Goat

Ah, relativism, that cultural buzzword of this primarily godless age of “post-truth,” where one man’s expressed, subjective take on a speculative topic of a hyperphysical nature can be another man’s perceived bias ... and rightfully so.

The spirit of this post of mine a simple, casual reply as I too do not care for arguments, especially over something as potentially fantastical as this topic of discussion.

Obviously, in the sharing of our thoughts here, each of us are only offering theories or subjective truths. Hence, we are all to some degree biased in our perspectives.

The terms another poster highlighted which are deemed as not meaningful to the concept of a matrix is true maybe to him but it’s not to me.

In response to this above-highlighted quote, and simply to expand on my own position and thus directed at no one in particular...

The way I perceive it, ethics and morality, and an appreciation of these as invaluable factors to conscious existence, be that in human or above-human form, is what makes us sentient, non-artificial creatures divine, thus making the antithesis of an anthropomorphic worldview.

If anything, one who strives in self-improvement to become more ethical and moral (i.e. more loving) might be thought of to be theocratic or God-centric, or whatever term one, in faith, wishes to refer to the infinite realm beyond the – mechanical?, inhuman(e)? – matrix.

The idea that ethics and morality are unimportant or meaningless in the grand scheme of things is a falsehood, in my opinion, and one I fully recognize to be not an absolute one.

Incidentally, my intensive biblical schooling at an early age has never left me, and although I have intellectually distanced myself from much of it, whenever ultramundane topics of this labyrinthine complexity or pseudo-simplicity are discussed, my mind cannot help but recall certain passages recorded in scripture (Colossians 2:8; 1 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 2:24), whether there is any merit to them or not. A large part of me suspects not, yet I would certainly never give in to such hubris to ever discount entirely the possibility of it being so, as one who, in the end, prefers truth and recantation (if need be) to wishful thinking.

I shall leave it at that. (I contemplated as to whether this here post was even necessary to add, but there you have it.)

I find fascinating the way you express yourself, in writing at least.

I believe that we-here are for our selves-that-incarnated-here pretty much as we-in-our-dreams are for us-here.

From this perspective, I'd say that although it is preferable to not have nightmares, it inherently happens occasionally, and it isn't a big deal for us-here. Striving for an ethical and moral I-in-my-dream isn't something I-here would care about, and that besides the relativity of what is ethical and moral.

I believe that we can purposefully use our dream time to our benefit, we can use it in our quest to evolve, and quest to not waste our lives-here, but love, ethics, morals, although nice and desirable, are by far not our purpose to be here, and may even be counterproductive to that purpose, when they yield emotions that control us-here ... :)

Originally Posted by Altair

I don't know why we keep using this Matrix-trope to discuss the nature of reality. Have people seen those movies or just re-imagining 'facts' about it, as in a sense of cultural *hands-on*, ''knowledge of the streets'' understanding of the concept of the matrix without having watched the movies carefully.............?

We can believe as hard as we want a fall from a high tower won't kill us but as a matter of fact, unless we have parachute or jump in some deep enough body of water beneath it, we will simply die. In the Matrix movie this is not necessarily the case, it's all about the power of mind. In the real world this is not the case because the mind doesn't have that power even though it wants to imagine at times that it can do whatever it pleases (usually when it's on drugs).

That's why the entire Matrix analogy is kind of silly. Our world isn't like the matrix at all, and our beliefs do not determine reality, they only determine how we may act and what we choose to do, but it doesn't change physics or biology. In the Matrix movies there is basically no real physics and biology because the ''world'' the trapped peeps are in is a computer programme, so they are all sleeping and dreaming, and act like characters in a video game.

Did you notice that in the Matrix when Neo was flying around in the air, the people on the ground were not necessarily all looking up and pointing at him.
Anyway, one major problem with the Matrix analogy is that when someone dies in the matrix, they die in real life as well. This is where I think Inception is a better metaphor. Just because you see me jump off a building and splat on the ground is no reason I have to see it the same way. We can both have our alternative realities and both be right. The multiverse is so nice and accommodating that way, don't ya think so?

Originally Posted by Siemens

And this messy conclusion would be a simulation too.


My mind IS my consciousness. And I didn’t say that my consciousness creates the hallucination; I said the thing that generates my consciousness creates the hallucination.


Yes, that’s true I have chosen the hallucination as my reality the same as everyone else. What am I doing here? Making experiences in order to develop or have fun like everyone else. (In my case it’s primarily the former)


Yes!


My brain has no validity. I said this many times to you: I don’t believe that the brain does anything – it’s just a mockup. My consciousness, by contrast, has validity because it exists outside the material world.


I think, that the hallucination indeed is a hallucination I created. (See above)


As I already said:

Consciousness is the phenomenological (aware) aspect of this energetic structure in form of conscious experience.

Be conscious of being conscious and be conscious of what you're conscious of.

Originally Posted by ketzer

I have actually seen some research that pushed that back as far as 7 seconds. I think the timing has a lot to do with the urgency of the decision being made. I suppose whether we are or are not capable of conscious thoughts depends on how one defines “ME”. If I look at me as the overall mind, that which is, and is greater than, the sum of those parts, then “I” become aware of my thoughts after “I” create them. Consciousness can and is sometimes talked about as a doing, rather than a being.

The times do vary, I suppose that has to do with definitions as much as anything else and whataver else is going in our heads, or if we're focussed on something else. Sometimes we're not conscious of it until days afterwards and we suddenly remember - at least that's the way it can work with this old noggin.

Are we conscious of what 'ME' is? really? There are any number of theories, and some religions would say we are not the mind. Others would say that in Gestalt Reality - where the sum of the parts is not just greater than the whole but an entirely separate being - the 'ME' is that whole new being. When you start top define 'ME' everything gets very messy very quickly in Spirituality.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Not necessarily. Modern physical theory and recent experiments suggest that two different observers can have two opposing views of reality and neither is wrong.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...ctive-reality/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Efa0mQuNQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cj6oiFDEXc

The rules change with quantum theory, and the latest is that according to Hameroff and Penrose our noggins are quantum capable. That changes all the rules because essentially it disposes of a 'real reality' in favour of a probability field so yes, different observers can have very different realities. It doesn't need an education in black holes and some of the stuff the links are going into, it just needs an understanding of the double-slit experiment and the work Matsuru Emoto conducted when he was imprinting consciousness onto water.

Originally Posted by ketzer

I create the hallucination, though I may not be creating all the data. I am in the hallucination because it is the only place I can exist, which makes it hard to experience things if I don’t, which is why we chose to create and experience it. My consciousness is the only thing that has validity within my hallucination, but then since everything here is my consciousness, so does everything else. My brain and ego are constructed within to give me a first person point of view, which you might say makes the experience a lot more person-al. All hallucinations that I experience are hallucinations that I have created, however, I may be (probably am) getting input from beyond my consciousness to do so. For example, I am getting data and input from you on this forum, though “you” are really just a hallucination within my mind that I am assuming is “not me”. But in a sense that I cannot escape, you “are me” because I must create you first within my conscounsess before I can interact with you on this forum. And thanks to your picture, I have created you to look rather funny. I can create you within my subconscious mind, and then interact with you with my conscience mind, which is nice, otherwise I would feel like I am talking to myself…… which I sort of am ya know.

I'm guessing that by using the word 'hallucination' you're talking about the physical Universe? If so, then quantum theory creates the reality and collapses the wave function to make it solid matter, so it's not an hallucination after all. And to be honest I've done the 'matter is an illusion' bit to death.

Everything here is not your consciousness though. In part it's what your mind creates via the egoic construct so yes, your first-person perspective. But the other p[art of your reality is what you're conscious of, and that is perceptually separate yet interconnected to your consciousness. You can become conscious of being conscious and that your consciousness 'sits atop' the egoic construct (being the first 'layer) and what you are conscious of (being the second layer). You can follow through that line and ascend layers of what you are conscious of but your consciousness is always a layer above.

You don't create me and I don't create you, but what we might do is create a mental picture of what each other might be in 'real Life'. Almost invariably it'll be wrong and I'll have you know that my avatar is a nod to a very special Soul. So it's not me who looks funny, although he'd appreciate the humour anyway. But that's the hallucination we create, the mental pictures of each other and it's human nature to do so. Had one of us never come to this forum we would not have been conscious that the other existed, but we would still have our own consciousness regardless. But now we've interacted and become conscious of each other, consciousness can become conscious of itself. We can also be conscious that we're creating mental pictures - or not.


The thing is, this thread isn't asking the right questions and it's come from a mentality rather than an understanding. The question that makes sense of everything is "What colour is consciousness?" No it doesn't have a colour, or shape, which means it's simply not possible for the human mind to grasp it. If it doesn't have form or past experience there's no point in the mind trying to understand it, but that doesn't mean our consciousness can't be conscious of itself.

I've also had essentially out-of-body experiences when the consciousness was completely separate from the egoic construct, and surprisingly enough it's quite common. The consciousness, what we are conscious of and the mind are three very separate yet interlinked aspects of ourselves.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well, that is a question not yet completely answered, IMO. But for one big thing, you are conscious of this, and it would seem that your consciousness is quite the mathematician.
https://futurism.com/this-is-the-clo...f-the-universe

But of course, this is not really the theory of "everything". Even if complete it would only answer the "how" of physical reality. It cannot even touch the real question that we all want to know. "Why?" Or as this thread started out, "What is life about?" That, perhaps, I certainly hope so anyway, cannot be captured in a physics equation, no matter how complex. How our reality is created is, I think, fascinating, but less important then what we do with it. Is is not the stage, the theater, or the dancers that are most important to the ballet, it is the dance. That cannot be conveyed in an equation, it must be experienced.

To be honest mathematics leaves me cold, and I have my limits with science too I'm afraid.

Spirituality is the "What?" and science is the "How?" so they both answer their own questions. "Why?" is the wrong question, the question that truly seeks wisdom is "What are the reasons?" The Universe doesn't like implications so saying that "Why?" implies reasons doesn't work. So the answer to Life, the Universe, Everything becomes 42 because we didn't understand the question in the first place. While so many are banging on about the Matrix they've missed the classics that do all the explaining. So of the answer is 42, what is the question?

You see, we already create the dance that we experience but we are not conscious that we do it subconsciously. When we are conscious that we can create it more consciously the dance changes to our tune.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

When you start to define 'ME' everything gets very messy very quickly in Spirituality.

Yes, I don’t try to define it so much anymore. I am. That is about as far as I can get with any degree of certainty. Anything further is just for the fun and art of speculation.

I'm guessing that by using the word 'hallucination' you're talking about the physical Universe? If so, then quantum theory creates the reality and collapses the wave function to make it solid matter, so it's not an hallucination after all. And to be honest I've done the 'matter is an illusion' bit to death.

Yes in the copenhagen interpretation the wave collapses, but I actually prefer the many worlds interpretation, where the wave itself does not collapse. The problem with solid matter is that upon closer inspection, there is nothing solid about it. It is, I believe, the observer who selects what reality they will experience from the infinity of possibilities contained in the information within the wave. The wave itself remains, but for that observer (and those entangled along with it), those other possibilities are no longer available. Like the signal for the television set, the electromagnetic spectrum contains any number of video or audio signals, and they do not collapse just because someone tunes into one of them.

You don't create me and I don't create you, but what we might do is create a mental picture of what each other might be in 'real Life'.

Yes, that is what I am saying. And that is the only you I could ever be acquainted with. Even if there is such a thing as an objective independent reality, I can not access it. I live forever in the dream universe created within my own mind / consciousness. There is where I create you (either from scratch or from the information you provide me, actually both) and that is the only you I can interact with. My you is more me than you and always will be (which is why my you looks like that funny elf looking character).

To be honest mathematics leaves me cold, and I have my limits with science too I'm afraid.

Well, mathematics is just supposed to give you space, time, matter, force and movement. I suppose you could find some heat in all that, but that kind of warmth is a bit out of its realm. Science has its limits as well, but I suppose it is good to have one's own limits for those occasions when some scientists take it beyond those limits.

You see, we already create the dance that we experience but we are not conscious that we do it subconsciously. When we are conscious that we can create it more consciously the dance changes to our tune.

Yes, that is true. I suspect in more, and more profound, ways than most are conscious of.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by Altair

I don't know why we keep using this Matrix-trope to discuss the nature of reality. Have people seen those movies or just re-imagining 'facts' about it, as in a sense of cultural *hands-on*, ''knowledge of the streets'' understanding of the concept of the matrix without having watched the movies carefully.............?

We can believe as hard as we want a fall from a high tower won't kill us but as a matter of fact, unless we have parachute or jump in some deep enough body of water beneath it, we will simply die. In the Matrix movie this is not necessarily the case, it's all about the power of mind. In the real world this is not the case because the mind doesn't have that power even though it wants to imagine at times that it can do whatever it pleases (usually when it's on drugs).

That's why the entire Matrix analogy is kind of silly. Our world isn't like the matrix at all, and our beliefs do not determine reality, they only determine how we may act and what we choose to do, but it doesn't change physics or biology. In the Matrix movies there is basically no real physics and biology because the ''world'' the trapped peeps are in is a computer programme, so they are all sleeping and dreaming, and act like characters in a video game.

I didn’t say that we live in a matrix EXACTLY as in the film “The Matrix”. I thought this were clear. I just used the word synonym to the words virtual reality, simulation, visualization, hallucination, or dream.

I agree that it’s not probable that we live in a matrix as shown in the film. But it’s very likely or almost certain that the physical world around us is nothing more than a virtual reality.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

We suffer because we are not conscious of how we create our own realities.

No, we suffer because certain conditions that are painful transform us in a positive way. But the painful experiences we make as humans are chosen deliberately.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

If Spirituality is to be believed why would a perfect Soul need to evolve?

I do not adhere to the notion of a ever perfect soul.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by Dan_SF

God is like Sun, and we are like Sunbeams. We are the power of light, which our source is using to expand itself. This is its joy, and it is the Creation of God.
....
This one sun-particle, would represent our Soul, which is unchangeable in itself.

At the moment I can’t rule out that I – as a conscious being – am just the product of a universal god soul. But an explanation that feels more plausible to me is that I am the source myself; independent from other sources or a universal god-soul. I do not believe in god in the sense of something that is perfect, includes everything, and is the source of everything.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by ketzer

I have begun to notice events (some rather major) taking place in my life that seem a bit too difficult (though not impossible) to ascribe to random chance.

I made a lot of such experiences too.

Originally Posted by ketzer

This leads me to think that what is actually going on within my consciousness is multidimensional in nature and impossible to fully grasp with the restricted viewpoint of my mind when limited by the brain and egoic construct

Okay, I see you are not as consequent in your virtual-reality-way-of-thinking than I am. Do you assume that atoms are virtual or not? If yes, how could your “mind [be] limited by the brain” if the brain is just part of the virtual simulation?

[Altair]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Just because you see me jump off a building and splat on the ground is no reason I have to see it the same way. We can both have our alternative realities and both be right. The multiverse is so nice and accommodating that way, don't ya think so?

It's called alternative thoughts, not alternative realities. A believer and a non-believer may jump off a building, and they both splat on the ground, so there's not really a 'multiverse that way that accommodates to us. In the Matrix it is different, but that movie is fiction.

Originally Posted by Siemens

I agree that it’s not probable that we live in a matrix as shown in the film. But it’s very likely or almost certain that the physical world around us is nothing more than a virtual reality.

That 2nd sentence contradicts the 1st!

A ''virtual'' reality?? How's that work, that would make it like the Matrix movie.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by Altair

That 2nd sentence contradicts the 1st!

There is no contradiction in:

"It’s not probable that we live in a matrix as shown in the film. But it’s very likely or almost certain that the physical world around us is nothing more than a virtual reality."

With the first sentence I meant, the VR we live is isn’t based on a technology shown in the movie. The fictional laws in the matrix in the movie don’t exist in our VR. For example our consciousness doesn’t die, if our avatar dies in the simulation.

We most likely live in a virtual reality but the background isn’t exactly like in the film.