₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
I didn't sy it wasn't. I maintain that the wave function DOESN'T collapse. Change in intensity is not that same as the wave function collapse. There are several ways of changing the interference intensity so it definitely not the same as the wave function collapse.

+
This is an effect on outcome and even if thats all you grant, my point is still proven.

DeepSight:
+
Even if that is the case, you claimed that what I presented did not show wave function collapse whereas it says -

"In this context, the act of focusing attention to photons passing through the double-slit appears to collapse their wave function thus causing a shift toward particle-like behavior reflected in a decreased intensity of wave interference."

So what's the implication then?

DeepSight:
+
This is an effect on outcome and even if thats all you grant, my point is still proven.

Yes. I know about this, but it doesn't prove our individual thoughts is creating objective reality we are experiencing right now.

DeepSight:
+
But you must perforce agree that there is an effect once you say there is a variation in intensity.

DeepSight:
+
This is an effect on outcome and even if thats all you grant, my point is still proven.

I can grant it (even though it is in dispute) because it doesn't take away from the fact that the wave function doesn't collapse which is what I said.

Now that we have that settled, what about consciousness affecting this experiment then means the universe is a simulation or illusion or however you want to describe it other than real?

DeepSight:
Dear LordReed, following our discussion here -

https://www.nairaland.com/8617978/real-truth-world-13-years

I promised to open a new thread to specifically discuss the idea that we live in a simulation.

So here goes.

Let me start by saying that the idea that the world is a mere "shadow" or "reflection" of a kind is an old one in history, philosophy and indeed religion. Plato's Allegory of the Cave springs to mind in this regard, where he describes a scenario where some men are imprisoned in a cave all their lives and only ever see the shadows of real beings passing by outside the cave.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave describes a group of prisoners chained in a dark cavern, facing a wall where they see only the shadows of objects carried before a fire behind them. Having known nothing else, they mistake these flickering silhouettes for reality itself. When one prisoner is freed and dragged into the sunlight, he is initially blinded and pained by the brilliance of the true world, eventually realizing that the Sun is the source of all life and truth, while the cave was merely a dim reflection. However, upon returning to the cave to enlighten his peers, he is mocked and rejected, as the prisoners prefer the comfort of their familiar illusions over the difficult ascent toward objective knowledge.
---Culled.

Indeed the same idea of the illusory nature of the world is ubiquitous in religion as well. The Holy Quran describes the world as a shadow. Al-Hadid Surah 57:20. And so does the Holy Bible - 1 Chronicles 29:15.

The Question of Reality

Now the question is just how "real" our reality is. At this juncture I would like to correct your notion of illusion. You should note that even a hallucination has some reality to the extent that it is an experience. Even a video game has some reality to the extent that it is experienced. Thus it seems to me that when you place the test as asking one to jump off a building and see the result, you are missing the point. That we are having an experience in this world of some kind or the other is beyond cavil, the question is just how substantial in reality that experience is. For me, it is clear that we cannot proceed without establishing what we mean by something that is properly real.

The definition I work with is something that exists in substance by itself as opposed to something which is only put on: as opposed to a set of images, feeling or sounds which are cast before the experiencer merely to experience and which can be removed in the same way as one may wake from a dream, or one may remove a VR Headset, or one may come out of a video game or a movie or the like. It is my contention that this life is similar to a contrived set of experiences cast before us but lacking in the substantiality of its own base realness.

You have to ask yourself, for the day is surely coming, when Virtual Reality technology will be so advanced as to be completely indistinguishable from our reality - you have to ask yourself if such VR experiences will thus be "real." You see, in such VR experiences there will still be cause and effect just as jumping from a building and falling down, and you could even be made to feel pain therein.

Now, let us examine the fundamental argument for Simulation Theory.

Simulation Theory

What is Simulation Theory?

Simulation theory is the philosophical and scientific hypothesis that our entire reality—including the universe, Earth, and all conscious beings—is actually an artificial construct, such as a highly advanced computer program. Rooted in Nick Bostrom's 2003 "Simulation Argument," the theory suggests that if a civilization achieves the "post-human" stage of technological maturity, they would likely have the computing power to run "ancestor simulations" indistinguishable from reality; therefore, statistically, it is more probable that we are living in one of many simulated environments rather than in the original "base" reality.
----Culled.

Think about the above. It is logically sound and rationally consistent. The statistical likelihood of us living in what would be "base reality" is close to zero. This is something that many serious thinkers understand and acknowledge and thus I wondered at the slight edge of mockery with which you seemed to be approaching the subject in the other thread.

As argued by Philosopher Nick Bostrom: If any civilization eventually develops the power to run "ancestor simulations," they will likely run millions of them. This means there would be millions of "fake" realities and only one "real" one, making the odds that we are in the original "Base Reality" about one in a billion.

Other Arguments for a Simulated Reality

Binary Code: In the other thread, I showed you the discovery of binary code in the background of our physical universe. You and others have interpreted it to mean that the scientist was merely describing reality using binary code. This is not the case at all. The reason that there is that binary code similarity is because he actually saw in the base background of the physical universe repeating patterns in binary form. The fact that he then describes them as such does not take away from the fact that those patterns exist. Dr. James Gates Jnr explained that he found "doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block codes" embedded in the theoretical equations that describe the universe.

But beyond this, let me extract for you other key arguments -

Beyond the binary code discovery by Dr. James Gates, the most prominent scientific argument for a programmed reality comes from the field of Digital Physics, specifically centered on the idea of Computational Efficiency. The strongest suggestion today isn't a single "smoking gun" like a line of code, but rather a series of "coincidences" in physics that mirror how we optimize modern video games.

1. Quantum "Lazy Rendering" (The Observer Effect) In high-end video games, the computer doesn't render the entire world at once; it only "draws" the room the player is currently in to save processing power. Physicists like Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom point out that the Observer Effect in quantum mechanics works exactly like this. A particle exists in a blurry state of "probability" (the wave function) until someone looks at it, at which point it "collapses" into a definite state.
----Culled.

The Double Slit Experiment

This here is where I bring in the double slit experiment. I was shocked to my bone that you claimed it had nothing to do with consciousness. The experiment is well known to have unveiled the way outcomes change based on whether there is conscious observation or not. Your arguments about instruments are neither here nor there for always the instruments were only aids for observation by conscious beings. And it remains puzzling till this day how that "observer effect" works out in quantum physics. However it strongly suggests that our reality is only rendered before us upon observation and thus that it is not intrinsically there - thereby destroying your claim on object permanence. And yes sir, I say this as an adult and not a child and the scientists who discovered all these were not children either.

The object permanence you observe is obviously a built in factor of the program, just as if you store something somewhere in a video game, you will return to meet it there when you log in. This does not mean that the thing was anywhere there or anywhere in fact while you were logged out. It was not.

I will post separately on the double slit experiment in order to nail the point that conscious observation was central to outcomes and this alone hammers home the point that this reality is an artificial construct.

2. The Universe's "Pixel Rate" (The Planck Scale) In a digital world, you can only zoom in so far before you hit a pixel—a minimum unit of space. In our universe, there is a theoretical "smallest" possible length called the Planck Length.T he Sim Argument: If the universe were truly "natural" and analog, you should be able to divide space infinitely. The fact that there is a hard "resolution limit" suggests our reality may be discrete (made of bits) rather than continuous.
----Culled.

This is why I mentioned how our reality is pixelated. Zooming in one can see that it is so constructed in bits. This again is a pointer.

3. The "Processor Speed" (The Speed of Light) Just as a computer processor has a maximum clock speed that limits how fast information can travel across a circuit board, our universe has a universal speed limit: the speed of light.

4. The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis: Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at MIT, argues for the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH). He notes that the deeper we look into reality, the more the "physical" stuff disappears, leaving only mathematical structures behind. The Argument: If you look at a video game character, they look like a person, but they are actually just a collection of numbers and equations. Tegmark argues that since our universe is perfectly described by math, it may literally be a mathematical structure (or a program) rather than a physical thing that math just happens to describe.
-----Culled.

Let me leave these as my opening arguments on this matter. Further down the line I will introduce other arguments, some may be scientific but beware that I will also dive into the metaphysical and philosophical in discussing this matter.

But before I close this post I must comment on your argument that there doesn't exist enough energy to create the simulation that is our world. Are you telling me that you know the sum total of all energy available in the universe or even all reality? I pointed out to you not only that it is impossible for a being within any given reality to know the level of energy it takes to render that reality, it cannot possibly even know the kind of energy.

It surprised me that this was lost on you because it is as simple as saying you cannot assess or access what is outside your universe, or can you? It is utterly impossible and inconceivable.

One thing for sure is that we are experiencing this reality be it real or artificial so somehow or the other sufficient energy exists to have presented it. The trouble with your supposition is that the particular calculations of scientists in terms of how they would believe a virtual reality such as this can be rendered must be the way it is in fact done, which is nothing but ridiculous assumption.

Over to you for now.

cc: OurTruth, SporaD8, Kayouzka, triplechoice,

Your entire point here is that you are a simulation in another being's reality. You are programmed.
But then, to understand you better, let's differentiate two things.
Many of us on the religious side believe we are creations.
You believe you are a simulation.
Can you make definitions and differences between the two?
Because at the end, we just might be saying the same thing.

tctrills:
Your entire point here is that you are a simulation in another being's reality. You are programmed.
But then, to understand you better, let's differentiate two things.
Many of us on the religious side believe we are creations.
You believe you are a simulation.
Can you make definitions and differences between the two?
Because at the end, we just might be saying the same thing.

+
I like this post.

The truth is that I remain agnostic to this reality and its essential nature. Frankly I dont think we can ever know it while we are here.

Nonetheless the idea that we are "thoughts" in the mind of "God" is one I am acquainted with and frankly feel might just be the case. The very imagination of a divine or transcendental being. Its possible. That would be different from simulation theory but honestly the line is very very thin. Also it could well be that we are the "dream" of another being. It could well be that we are the "living and biological" projections of a mind that we cannot understand. It could also be that we are in a virtual reality spawned by someone else or something else out there.

I do have this persistent feeling though, that death is a pointer to the truth. Because the way the fire just goes out of the candle and the body rots is quite something to reflect on. I often feel it is a pointer to the fact that this world is some sort of fleeting contrived reality. If you have ever experienced the sudden death of a person close to you, it will strike you more poignantly, you will feel that effect of something being suddenly deleted or removed in an incomprehensible way which does not feel on all fours with the true existence of a living and real being.

To add to this the constants and details required to sustain this reality are far too specific such that one is led to believe that there is a design or program of some sort out there. What its purpose is, is hard to tell, but I also have the feeling it may just be an experiment of one kind or the other, a highly advanced experiment by cosmic beings we cannot understand.

There are many possibilities to ponder but even just looking at the workings of ants in an anthill, I will never believe this world is a work of chance.

DeepSight:
+
I like this post.

The truth is that I remain agnostic to this reality and its essential nature. Frankly I dont think we can ever know it while we are here.

Nonetheless the idea that we are "thoughts" in the mind of "God" is one I am acquainted with and frankly feel might just be the case. The very imagination of a divine or transcendental being. Its possible. That would be different from simulation theory but honestly the line is very very thin. Also it could well be that we are the "dream" of another being. It could well be that we are the "living and biological" projections of a mind that we cannot understand. It could also be that we are in a virtual reality spawned by someone else or something else out there.

I do have this persistent feeling though, that death is a pointer to the truth. Because the way the fire just goes out of the candle and the body rots is quite something to reflect on. I often feel it is a pointer to the fact that this world is some sort of fleeting contrived reality. If you have ever experienced the sudden death of a person close to you, it will strike you more poignantly, you will feel that effect of something being suddenly deleted or removed in an incomprehensible way which does not feel on all fours with the true existence of a living and real being.

To add to this the constants and details required to sustain this reality are far too specific such that one is led to believe that there is a design or program of some sort out there. What its purpose is, is hard to tell, but I also have the feeling it may just be an experiment of one kind or the other, a highly advanced experiment by cosmic beings we cannot understand.

There are many possibilities to ponder but even just looking at the workings of ants in an anthill, I will never believe this world is a work of chance.

So you are simply saying that you really have no idea but somehow, your heart just leans towards this theory.
If that is the case, there is no argument to be made here.
In a way, this is your religion. Like many others, you have no evidence but you just depend on faith. That's why you entertain such beliefs.
Basically, you think we are a movie playing in the mind of a God.

Again, to my question, how is this different from creation.

tctrills:
So you are simply saying that you really have no idea but somehow, your heart just leans towards this theory.
If that is the case, there is no argument to be made here.
In a way, this is your religion. Like many others, you have no evidence but you just depend on faith. That's why you entertain such beliefs.
Basically, you think we are a movie playing in the mind of a God.

Again, to my question, how is this different from creation.

+
I repeat, I am agnostic. I don't know. I am having this discussion with LordReed primarily to show him that its a serious possibility worth considering and not a fringe lunatic idea to be laughed off as he seems to think.

As to whether there is a difference between creation and being thoughts in the mind of a God, no there isn't much of a difference.

Small question. What if we are like little cells in the body of a God?

DeepSight:
+
I repeat, I am agnostic. I don't know. I am having this discussion with LordReed primarily to show him that its a serious possibility worth considering and not a fringe lunatic idea to be laughed off as he seems to think.

As to whether there is a difference between creation and being thoughts in the mind of a God, no there isn't much of a difference.

Small question. What if we are like little cells in the body of a God?

Ok, you don't even believe this but you having this argument just for the sake of it.
So let's go on, even if we are cells in the body of a great God, were we created? When we die, does the God lose cells?
Let's develop this theory as much as we can.

DeepSight:
Dear LordReed, following our discussion here -

https://www.nairaland.com/8617978/real-truth-world-13-years

I promised to open a new thread to specifically discuss the idea that we live in a simulation.

So here goes.



Now, let us examine the fundamental argument for Simulation Theory.

Simulation Theory

What is Simulation Theory?

Simulation theory is the philosophical and scientific hypothesis that our entire reality—including the universe, Earth, and all conscious beings—is actually an artificial construct, such as a highly advanced computer program. Rooted in Nick Bostrom's 2003 "Simulation Argument," the theory suggests that if a civilization achieves the "post-human" stage of technological maturity, they would likely have the computing power to run "ancestor simulations" indistinguishable from reality; therefore, statistically, it is more probable that we are living in one of many simulated environments rather than in the original "base" reality.
----Culled.

Think about the above. It is logically sound and rationally consistent. The statistical likelihood of us living in what would be "base reality" is close to zero. This is something that many serious thinkers understand and acknowledge and thus I wondered at the slight edge of mockery with which you seemed to be approaching the subject in the other thread.

As argued by Philosopher Nick Bostrom: If any civilization eventually develops the power to run "ancestor simulations," they will likely run millions of them. This means there would be millions of "fake" realities and only one "real" one, making the odds that we are in the original "Base Reality" about one in a billion.

First, your title "Simulation Theory" is a misnomer. The correct term is "Simulation Argument" or Simulation Hypothesis, as found in the very sources you took it from. In the sciences, a "theory" is a well-tested explanation for phenomena supported by evidence. A "hypothesis" is an educated guess awaiting proof. Yours is the latter. It lacks empirical evidence. Changing hypothesis to theory inflates its status and mislead your audience.

Second, Nick Bostrom himself never concluded we are living in a simulation. He presented a trilemma, three possibilities, at least one of which must be true, but he does not know which one. He has stated that, in our current state of ignorance, we should apportion belief roughy evenly between them. But you repurposed his thought experiment into a conclusion he never endorsed.

Third, "logically sound and rationally consistent" is not evidence or proof of anything. It is merely the minimum requirement for any argument. History is replete with ideas that were perfectly logical and coherent at the time, but later turned out to be nonsense. Logic without evidence is just story telling

Fourth, you point to philosophers debating the idea as proof it deserves serious consideration, not mockery. But philosophers debate all kinds of ideas, many of which turn out to be fiction. What is important is not those discussing it, but whether there is evidence. In this case, there is no shred of evidence we are living in a simulation. The Idea has been rejected by numerous philosophers and top scientists who call it exactly what it is; myth and pseudoscience

For instance, Philosopher Norman Swazo concluded that because there is "no reasonably admissible evidence to count for the task of falsification," the simulation hypothesis is "only speculative and not scientific".

The theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has called it pseudoscience, stating that belief in it requires faith, not logic, and is "Indistinguishable from religion"


And again, Cosmologist George FR Ellis declared it " totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint", adding that its protagonists "seem to have confused science fiction with science. Late night pub discussion is not a viable theory"

Fifth, the Idea lacks any spiritual or philosophical support. No authentic esoteric tradition has ever taught that we live in a computer prigram run by invisible beings. Those spreading this falsehood have misinterpreted genuine spiritual teachings, like "the world is an illusion" or "As above, so below" both metaphoric references, and grafted them onto a modern sci-fi or Sci-Sp narrative.

Finally, what we're left with is a work of fiction. An interesting thought experiment, nothing more. It has no evidence, no scientific support what so ever, no spiritual foundation, and is rejected by the very experts whose fields it tries to borrow from.

So when you see criticism of this idea, please don't take it personally. The mockery is not directed at you, but at an idea that presents itself as profound but collapses under the slightest scrutiny


To be continued.

Cc Lordreed, Deepsght,

I will provide references later.

Here

The first others will come.

Why the simulation theory is pseudoscience

Sabine

https://bigthink.com/thinking/why-the-simulation-hypothesis-is-pseudoscience/

triplechoice:
Here

The first others will come.

Why the simulation theory is pseudoscience

Sabine

https://bigthink.com/thinking/why-the-simulation-hypothesis-is-pseudoscience/

The man, the legend of "pseudoscience" itself .

Its interesting watching you from afar finding it difficult to wrap your mind around the fact that what you (would) call science is interestingly the very joke on your "logical soundness and rational consistency not being prove of anything". You obviously never caught the entirety of that statement in all its ramifications especially how that statement liberally or universally applies itself to even 'Proof' itself which you for one would admit as fact or science.

While the above might be another topic, lets talk about this science in your words

Scientific proofs or scientifically proven, are rational explanation for phenomenon. In other words, they're very detailed or step by step explanation of how exactly something works so everyone can understand it

.

Sounds familiar? Any second thoughts in view of your quote on rationality and consistency? Lets move on.

The question we all need to be asking and answering is who lived/died and made any body of individuals the canonical one for what passes as science? Whats that body called? 'Peer Review'? I laugh in Hindi...

Guys, here is a what that thing actually was and is today:

In the past everyday people, societies, etc practicing whatever would need a place to publish their findings. They look for what would pass as a news paper today to have it published, some have other ways they did it, not necessarily for it to be (peer) reviewed. They didn't have "peer review", yet what they had and did was SCIENCE by every right that we quote some of them today.

It was not until around the 70s when you began having "peer review" as a de facto standard for what passes as "scientific". Whats the purpose of it?

The average authority-gobbler like who sounds like you would think it is to check, verify phenomena and claims, and if it comes out well it becomes 'Science'. This is the biggest mistake and illusion one experiences when they reason like that.

Today Peer review is:

-You cannot even send a paper for review in the first place if you are not in an 'academic peer'.

-If you are, they decided whether your work is of 'interest' or not

-It is NOT a system made to catch errors as we thing. I repeat it is not, at least not for the 60-70% of it! It is so bad that the British Medical Journal had to do a research on this, guess what, about 40-50% falsehood passed as fact in the outcome. Another test of the so called peer review thing was 'The Grievances Studies Hoax'. Catastrophic this one for so-called "its scientific". This s not to talk of the ones deliberately made to mislead while checking out as true because it can be manipulated and it gets done most of the times.

These means triplechoice here can go screenshot one of those papers that is "science" and present to us here as some scientific fact and how it refutes some "pseudoscience" and of course that "science" will be "logically sound and rationally consistent". It is baptized in the almighty name of the (subjective) lens of Peer Review, The sponsors and The Interests.

Ultimately my contribution for this thread with you as the conductor is this:

1: No such thing as "pseudoscience" because fundalmentally, "logical soundness" (repeatable procedures with rational outcomes) are surprisingly subjective from varying angles and all angles. This goes for what you call reality and how any instance of it is not IT but an agreement that it is it. I have a thread on that and I hope it lays the foundation for your understanding that reality is indeed a simulation, in a 'computer'. All serious spiritual workers assert this publicly while knowing so internally counter to your earlier claim elsewhere. All reality is subjective in a simulative environment availed with a collective-observance properties or interfaces at which the agreements or acceptances are done.

2: Any outcome of any research can be manipulated into other direction of outcomes if the skill, knowledge, and tools are available or right. This goes to all scientific 'constants', Laws, Theories and whatnots.

3: Most fantastic sciences or information in the public domain called or those people are hoodwinked into calling "Pseudoscience", are for a fact what several governments, scientific bodies, corporations have as established facts or Science. I have told you this before.



In the light of the above, Peer Reviews and what makes it to the text books today which you L-O-V-E to call Science is simply what aligns with interests of those involved (even as the procedure is), or if it is 'harmless' in being open, or too late to conceal or de-baptize as pseudoscience. This is where we delve deeper into all conspiracies to fact-check this assertions. A few are:

1: Former Pfizer boss admits corporations sponsor most researches and require only certain outcomes. This one is awful what they do.

2: Document EFTA00080475 of the released Epstein files is perculiar in terms of what people find online or in text books as science versus a working science that is referred to as Pseudoscience. I mean the so-called mainstream science, there is no technology around using radio waves to induce emotions of sex, anger, and others at a distance. You would also like to accept that (your) science is "Scientific proofs or scientifically proven, are rational explanation for phenomenon. In other words, they're very detailed or step by step explanation of how exactly something works so everyone can understand it"

3: Did any of you research the Twitter Files which exposed what "Science" is today and how it is run? Findings buttresses all conspiracy theories basically.

4: Any science released to the public domain in our modern day is either already toned down, re-mixed, or so. Most goes to defence or are heavily monetized and jealously guarded via an literal army (on and offline) of 'fact-checkers' there to mock, attack, and de-brand independent scientists and give them names.

CC: Deepsight, Lordreed.

*Unedited for errors and punctuations.

chieveboy:
The man, the legend of "pseudoscience" itself .

Its interesting watching you from afar finding it difficult to wrap your mind around the fact that what you (would) call science is interestingly the very joke on your "logical soundness and rational consistency not being prove of anything". You obviously never caught the entirety of that statement in all its ramifications especially how that statement liberally or universally applies itself to even 'Proof' itself which you for one would admit as fact or science.

While the above might be another topic, lets talk about this science in your words .

Sounds familiar? Any second thoughts in view of your quote

No. I won't accept that the above "might be a topic for another day". I see clearly what you did there, and want to address it before we talk about "this science in your own words" .

As you were "watching" from "afar" , the difficulty you thought you observed was not from me . It was from your own inability to comprehend what I commented on, "logically sound and rationally consistent", and my statement that "it's not proof of anything". Yes, that's correct. It isn't.

The exact words are, "rationally consistent". Not your edited version, "rational consistency", which you modified to suit your agenda.

You deliberately, or let me say, innocently, edited, "rationally" in the phrase to " rational" and then placed it side by side with my past comment from another thread where I defined "scientifically proven" as a "rational explanation" of phenomena. Your goal was to imply I contradicted myself and don't know what I'm saying.

But "rationally consistent" and "rational explanation" are not the same grammatical structure with the same function.

"Rationally consistent" is an adjective phrase telling us what kind of argument it is. It is one that is logically sound or one that follows the rules of logic. That's all. It says nothing about whether the argument corresponds to reality. Logic alone is not truth. It is also not evidence. An argument can follow the rules of logic perfectly but still completely false if it is built on a false premise.

"Rational explanation" , on the other hand, s a noun phrase. It answers the question: What kind of explanation is this?. Answer: One that is both logical and grounded in evidence. In scientific terms, that is what it truly refers to.



Your other mistake is that you interpreted "rational explanation" the same way creationist misinterprete the word, "theory" in science . And then argue ignorantly that " theory of evolution" is "just a theory, "just an idea", not proven. But they don't know that in science, a "theory" is a well-tested explanation supported by overwhelming evidence.

So when you quote my definition of "rational explanation" and try to apply it to Bostrom's argument, you're making the same mistake as someone who quotes the dictionary definition of "theory" and applies it to evolution. Context matters a lot. Scientific terms have specific meanings. You can't strip them of those meanings and then claim contradiction.


Bostrom's simulation argument is "rationally consistent", and "logically sound". But it is not a rational explanation of reality, because it lacks evidence. It offers no testable predictions, no observable phenomena, no method of verification. In fact, Bostrom himself in his 2009 paper, explicitly states, "I do not argue that we should believe that we are in a simulation. In fact, I believe that we are probably not simulated" So even the creator of the argument disagrees with how people are using it.

I did not contradict myself or had "difficulty" with anything. Just a distinction you missed, and now a grammar lesson you didn't expect. I will address the other points you raised later. But please address this first.

triplechoice:
No. I won't accept that the above "might be a topic for another day". I see clearly what you did there, and want to address it before we talk about "this science in your own words" .

As you were "watching" from "afar" , the difficulty you thought you observed was not from me . It was from your own inability to comprehend what I commented on, "logically sound and rationally consistent", and my statement that "it's not proof of anything". Yes, that's correct. It isn't.

The exact words are, "rationally consistent". Not your edited version, "rational consistency", which you modified to suit your agenda.

You deliberately, or let me say, innocently, edited, "rationally" in the phrase to " rational" and then placed it side by side with my past comment from another thread where I defined "scientifically proven" as a "rational explanation" of phenomena. Your goal was to imply I contradicted myself and don't know what I'm saying.

But "rationally consistent" and "rational explanation" are not the same grammatical structure with the same function.

"Rationally consistent" is an adjective phrase telling us what kind of argument it is. It is one that is logically sound or one that follows the rules of logic. That's all. It says nothing about whether the argument corresponds to reality. Logic alone is not truth. It is also not evidence. An argument can follow the rules of logic perfectly but still completely false if it is built on a false premise.

"Rational explanation" , on the other hand, s a noun phrase. It answers the question: What kind of explanation is this?. Answer: One that is both logical and grounded in evidence. In scientific terms, that is what it truly refers to.



Your other mistake is that you interpreted "rational explanation" the same way creationist misinterprete the word, "theory" in science . And then argue ignorantly that " theory of evolution" is "just a theory, "just an idea", not proven. But they don't know that in science, a "theory" is a well-tested explanation supported by overwhelming evidence.

So when you quote my definition of "rational explanation" and try to apply it to Bostrom's argument, you're making the same mistake as someone who quotes the dictionary definition of "theory" and applies it to evolution. Context matters a lot. Scientific terms have specific meanings. You can't strip them of those meanings and then claim contradiction.


Bostrom's simulation argument is "rationally consistent", and "logically sound". But it is not a rational explanation of reality, because it lacks evidence. It offers no testable predictions, no observable phenomena, no method of verification. In fact, Bostrom himself in his 2009 paper, explicitly states, "I do not argue that we should believe that we are in a simulation. In fact, I believe that we are probably not simulated" So even the creator of the argument disagrees with how people are using it.

I did not contradict myself or had "difficulty" with anything. Just a distinction you missed, and now a grammar lesson you didn't expect. I will address the other points you raised later. But please address this first.

Talking of grammar lessons, what you had up there which to me was a huge miss on your part was merely a fair grammatical compression of “logically sound and rationally consistent.” I Converted an adjective phrase into a noun phrase merely for syntactic flow. This is not semantic distortion unless the meaning changes. In this case, it doesn’t. How you know is via a simple 'backverting' of my statement based on the flow and it gives you exactly what you had. It was so simple and technically sound that I never expected an issue on the grammatical side of it. The proof (even as used mathematically) is in the surrounding words, before and after. Missing those thin lines or subtleties are what makes the chef not know their onions...

More so and regardless of how I presented it, the fact that my impression, motive and further action around that statement clearly was ne'gative of both the semantic and pragmatic implication, and ultimately the philosophy of both the original version of the phrase as used by you, me, and Bostrom himself down to your buffer argument on what "Theory" is to "scientists".


You probably didn't get me asserting 'the main the main 'in the later parts of the above where I said "the joke was on you" and by extension oga Bostrom and the so-called scientists.

I was saying that that "It offers no testable predictions, no observable phenomena, no method of verification" is invariable semantically, lexically, lingo-cally to the original of logical soundness and rational consistency as you would have it-- they offer no rational explanation of reality all the same if one factors higher knowledge and even sciences or realities. This means however semantics and pragmatics is applied; it comes back to Bostrom's, and there in lies the joke.

Nothing is isolated, ironically all so-called scientific theories are events or conclusion which occur as a result of isolated interaction with a larger reality or phenomenon which makes up that isolated reality or theory. Isolated interaction admissibly is the only way the human experience can be possible (the joke intended). If man isn't in the quest of "finding answers" as in getting to the roots of it all as in the venture into quantum physics especially, one would say the theories and laws are 'super' as in absolute. This is not even touching on the unavailability or inefficacy of tools, techniques and data which may result to these comparably false positives we call reality, theory,law.

This is why said in there and the other thread I said I have that we cannot have reality as it is but rather have 'agreements' to the reality of our reality that a social, philosophical, scientific, theory, law etc is reality. This is where Bostrom et all gets checked. This means we (unconsciously) are participants of the concept that we merely are 'agreers' that relative to our physical and biological instrument and instrumentation, whatever we have (theories and all) are real, but not necessarily...this is in the same sense that if not for the ears, the current human-ears detectable sound spectrum would not be a reality despite that it exists. Science I am sure (should) have space for the plus factor, if so, then the bird at hand is not worth the thousands on the trees, we only agree it is.

The above buttresses the "simulation" abstraction of reality, which is a way of saying everything is subjective, relative, and never objective...but of course! The qualia phenomenon is one scientific pain in the butt to any attempt about and around objective reality.

triplechoice:
First, your title "Simulation Theory" is a misnomer. The correct term is "Simulation Argument" or Simulation Hypothesis, as found in the very sources you took it from. In the sciences, a "theory" is a well-tested explanation for phenomena supported by evidence. A "hypothesis" is an educated guess awaiting proof. Yours is the latter. It lacks empirical evidence. Changing hypothesis to theory inflates its status and mislead your audience.

Second, Nick Bostrom himself never concluded we are living in a simulation. He presented a trilemma, three possibilities, at least one of which must be true, but he does not know which one. He has stated that, in our current state of ignorance, we should apportion belief roughy evenly between them. But you repurposed his thought experiment into a conclusion he never endorsed.

Third, "logically sound and rationally consistent" is not evidence or proof of anything. It is merely the minimum requirement for any argument. History is replete with ideas that were perfectly logical and coherent at the time, but later turned out to be nonsense. Logic without evidence is just story telling

Fourth, you point to philosophers debating the idea as proof it deserves serious consideration, not mockery. But philosophers debate all kinds of ideas, many of which turn out to be fiction. What is important is not those discussing it, but whether there is evidence. In this case, there is no shred of evidence we are living in a simulation. The Idea has been rejected by numerous philosophers and top scientists who call it exactly what it is; myth and pseudoscience

For instance, Philosopher Norman Swazo concluded that because there is "no reasonably admissible evidence to count for the task of falsification," the simulation hypothesis is "only speculative and not scientific".

The theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has called it pseudoscience, stating that belief in it requires faith, not logic, and is "Indistinguishable from religion"


And again, Cosmologist George FR Ellis declared it " totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint", adding that its protagonists "seem to have confused science fiction with science. Late night pub discussion is not a viable theory"

Fifth, the Idea lacks any spiritual or philosophical support. No authentic esoteric tradition has ever taught that we live in a computer prigram run by invisible beings. Those spreading this falsehood have misinterpreted genuine spiritual teachings, like "the world is an illusion" or "As above, so below" both metaphoric references, and grafted them onto a modern sci-fi or Sci-Sp narrative.

Finally, what we're left with is a work of fiction. An interesting thought experiment, nothing more. It has no evidence, no scientific support what so ever, no spiritual foundation, and is rejected by the very experts whose fields it tries to borrow from.

So when you see criticism of this idea, please don't take it personally. The mockery is not directed at you, but at an idea that presents itself as profound but collapses under the slightest scrutiny


To be continued.

Cc Lordreed, Deepsght,

I will provide references later.

+
Thank you, I will come back soon.

DeepSight:
+
Thank you, I will come back soon.

Ok. I await your come back.

LordReed:
I can grant it (even though it is in dispute) because it doesn't take away from the fact that the wave function doesn't collapse which is what I said.

Now that we have that settled, what about consciousness affecting this experiment then means the universe is a simulation or illusion or however you want to describe it other than real?

+
High Eminence Reed. Apologies for appearing to drop out of this conversation, the last two weeks have been rather trying for me.
Now to answer the bold, its very simple: the minute we can show that consciousness affects what is rendered, then a question mark on object permanence pops up naturally. Because the suggestion then becomes cardinal that what is rendered may be determined by what is observing. This calls into question any assumption that we are living in some sort of fixed or "real" reality and surely advances the cause of the argument that our reality is rendered based on a set of given factors which include the observer/ observation.

Now I know very well that you may dispute this, but I would like that you at least see the reasoning even if you disagree with it, and at all events whether you agree or disagree I would like us to move on to other points because there are many and we should not get stuck here.

triplechoice:
First, your title "Simulation Theory" is a misnomer. The correct term is "Simulation Argument" or Simulation Hypothesis, as found in the very sources you took it from. In the sciences, a "theory" is a well-tested explanation for phenomena supported by evidence. A "hypothesis" is an educated guess awaiting proof. Yours is the latter. It lacks empirical evidence. Changing hypothesis to theory inflates its status and mislead your audience.

+
Fair enough.

Third, "logically sound and rationally consistent" is not evidence or proof of anything. It is merely the minimum requirement for any argument. History is replete with ideas that were perfectly logical and coherent at the time, but later turned out to be nonsense. Logic without evidence is just story telling

+
Nonetheless logic remains the pillar for these discussions.

Fourth, you point to philosophers debating the idea as proof it deserves serious consideration, not mockery. But philosophers debate all kinds of ideas, many of which turn out to be fiction. What is important is not those discussing it, but whether there is evidence. In this case, there is no shred of evidence we are living in a simulation. The Idea has been rejected by numerous philosophers and top scientists who call it exactly what it is; myth and pseudoscience

+
In philosophy it is natural to have differing viewpoints. Indeed I would say that is the very life blood of philosophy. One thing which I want to make clear here is that i am not here to strictly advance Simulation Theory (or hypothesis if you like) in the way it has been propounded by others. Rather I seize upon the core idea that we may not be living in a real or base reality, that there may be something conjured or artificial about this reality and I would like to discuss that notion in different directions, via science, philosophy and even religious thought. LordReed please note.

Fifth, the Idea lacks any spiritual or philosophical support. No authentic esoteric tradition has ever taught that we live in a computer prigram run by invisible beings. Those spreading this falsehood have misinterpreted genuine spiritual teachings, like "the world is an illusion" or "As above, so below" both metaphoric references, and grafted them onto a modern sci-fi or Sci-Sp narrative.

+
My dear friend, how on Earth would any older traditions advance the notion from the computer angle when no such thing as computers existed until the 20th century?

It should be clear to you, following from my comment in red above, that when I say this idea has existed for millenia, I am referring to the basic idea that this world is only a reflection or shadow of more real worlds. And there is no doubt that this is an ancient idea.

I already cited Plato's Allegory of the Cave and it is pre-eminent in this regard, but here, I dug up a list of other ancient ideas which align -

--------
1. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave (Ancient Greece)
Perhaps the most famous "shadow" metaphor in history, Plato argued in The Republic that humans are like prisoners chained in a cave, watching shadows flick across a wall.

The Concept: The shadows are the physical objects we see daily. The "real" world consists of the Theory of Forms—abstract, perfect versions of things (like the concept of "Beauty" or "a Circle " ) that exist in a higher plane.

The Takeaway: Our senses deceive us; we are looking at the projection, not the projector.

2. Maya in Advaita Vedanta (Ancient India)
In Hindu philosophy, particularly Advaita Vedanta, the concept of Maya describes the world as a powerful illusion or a "magic show."

The Concept: The material world is not "non-existent," but it is not the Ultimate Reality (Brahman). It is often compared to a "superimposition"—like mistaking a coiled rope for a snake in the dark.

The Takeaway: The physical universe is a temporary, shifting reflection of the eternal, unchanging consciousness.

3. Gnosticism and the "Kenoma" (Hellenistic Period)
Gnosticism, a collection of early mystical religious movements, took a more radical approach to the "shadow" idea.

The Concept: They believed the material world was the Kenoma (the Void or Emptiness), a flawed reflection of the Pleroma (the Fullness of the divine spiritual realm).

The Takeaway: We are "sparks of light" trapped in a lower, shadowy imitation of the true divine realm, created by a lesser deity known as the Demiurge.

4. Hermeticism: "As Above, So Below" (Ancient Egypt/Greece)
The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus provides the foundation for the idea of correspondence.

The Concept: The "Microcosm" (our world/ourselves) is a direct reflection of the "Macrocosm" (the divine/universe).

The Takeaway: Everything on Earth is a symbolic mirror of a spiritual truth. If you want to understand the heavens, look at the patterns in the dirt—and vice versa.

5. Sufi Mysticism: The World as a Mirror (Ancient Persia/Middle East)
Many Sufi poets and philosophers, such as Rumi and Ibn Arabi, described the universe as a series of mirrors reflecting the attributes of the Divine.

The Concept: God was a "hidden treasure" who desired to be known, so He created the world as a mirror to reflect His own beauty and light.

The Takeaway: Objects in this world have no light of their own; they are merely surfaces catching the "sunlight" of a spiritual source.
----Culled

Thus, above you can see that you are wrong when you claim that there are no ancient philosophical ideas that rhyme with what I am saying. There are. Indeed, ancient philosophy and mysticism are rich with this very idea. cc: Tctrills.

So when you see criticism of this idea, please don't take it personally. The mockery is not directed at you, but at an idea that presents itself as profound but collapses under the slightest scrutiny

+
I dont mind criticism and I should emphasize that I am not saying that I know the world to be a simulation for a fact. I am saying it is a serious proposition to ponder with sobriety and not a silly fringe idea to be mocked. It has deep roots in ancient thought and Simulation Theory is not the first variant of the whole idea, its just one modern variation based on possible computer science.

tctrills:
Ok, you don't even believe this but you having this argument just for the sake of it.
So let's go on, even if we are cells in the body of a great God, were we created? When we die, does the God lose cells?
Let's develop this theory as much as we can.

+
These questions belong in the realm of the unknowable surely.

chieveboy:
Ultimately my contribution for this thread with you as the conductor is this:

1: No such thing as "pseudoscience" because fundalmentally, "logical soundness" (repeatable procedures with rational outcomes) are surprisingly subjective from varying angles and all angles. This goes for what you call reality and how any instance of it is not IT but an agreement that it is it. I have a thread on that and I hope it lays the foundation for your understanding that reality is indeed a simulation, in a 'computer'. All serious spiritual workers assert this publicly while knowing so internally counter to your earlier claim elsewhere. All reality is subjective in a simulative environment availed with a collective-observance properties or interfaces at which the agreements or acceptances are done.

+
A most interesting take. You generally agree that this world is a sort of artificial rendition or simulation?

LordReed -

So in the OP, I had also highlighted these. Can we quickly run through them before moving on to general thoughts free-hand.

2. The Universe's "Pixel Rate" (The Planck Scale) In a digital world, you can only zoom in so far before you hit a pixel—a minimum unit of space. In our universe, there is a theoretical "smallest" possible length called the Planck Length.T he Sim Argument: If the universe were truly "natural" and analog, you should be able to divide space infinitely. The fact that there is a hard "resolution limit" suggests our reality may be discrete (made of bits) rather than continuous.
----Culled.

This is why I mentioned how our reality is pixelated. Zooming in one can see that it is so constructed in bits. This again is a pointer.

3. The "Processor Speed" (The Speed of Light) Just as a computer processor has a maximum clock speed that limits how fast information can travel across a circuit board, our universe has a universal speed limit: the speed of light.

4. The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis: Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at MIT, argues for the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH). He notes that the deeper we look into reality, the more the "physical" stuff disappears, leaving only mathematical structures behind. The Argument: If you look at a video game character, they look like a person, but they are actually just a collection of numbers and equations. Tegmark argues that since our universe is perfectly described by math, it may literally be a mathematical structure (or a program) rather than a physical thing that math just happens to describe.

DeepSight:
+
High Eminence Reed. Apologies for appearing to drop out of this conversation, the last two weeks have been rather trying for me.
Now to answer the bold, its very simple: the minute we can show that consciousness affects what is rendered, then a question mark on object permanence pops up naturally. Because the suggestion then becomes cardinal that what is rendered may be determined by what is observing. This calls into question any assumption that we are living in some sort of fixed or "real" reality and surely advances the cause of the argument that our reality is rendered based on a set of given factors which include the observer/ observation.

Now I know very well that you may dispute this, but I would like that you at least see the reasoning even if you disagree with it, and at all events whether you agree or disagree I would like us to move on to other points because there are many and we should not get stuck here.

I am not sure why such an effect would call into question the reality of our shared world. We are all art of the universe so interaction is to be expected in one form or another.

Sure we can move on.

DeepSight:
+
These questions belong in the realm of the unknowable surely.

Lol
You criticise the things you don't know when you don't like them, e.g Christianity. And then you promote the things you have no idea about when they somehow appeal to you.

We humans are all the same. We all seek something to believe in

tctrills:
Lol
You criticise the things you don't know when you don't like them, e.g Christianity. And then you promote the things you have no idea about when they somehow appeal to you.

We humans are all the same. We all seek something to believe in

+
Christianity, barring the elevated teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, has clear problems. Teachings such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the Trinity and the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ for remission of sins are all self evidently absurd and contradictory.

DeepSight:
+
Christianity, barring the elevated teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, has clear problems. Teachings such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the Trinity and the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ for remission of sins are all self evidently absurd and contradictory.

Lol
You only find problems with what you don't like.
If you can entertain the idea that you are a cell in the body of a God buts a virgin birth somehow becomes a bridge to far for you. You are the absurd one here.

You are open to crazy ideas just not Christianity.

But I have no problem with you because you are just like most human beings, you act based on feelings and emotions. And it's not necessarily a bad thing

tctrills:
Lol
You only find problems with what you don't like.
If you can entertain the idea that you are a cell in the body of a God buts a virgin birth somehow becomes a bridge to far for you. You are the absurd one here.

You are open to crazy ideas just not Christianity.

But I have no problem with you because you are just like most human beings, you act based on feelings and emotions. And it's not necessarily a bad thing

+
It defies divine justice to claim that the sins of one person are forgiven because another person is killed. It is also akin to ritual human sacrifice.

DeepSight:
+
It defies divine justice to claim that the sins of one person are forgiven because another person is killed. It is also akin to ritual human sacrifice.

So are you saying that the sacrifice of Christ was unjust to Him or unjust to mankind?

Now, this is clearly your opinion and you adapted this opinion because of your dislike for the religion.

First, Jesus Christ's sacrifice was a willing sacrifice because of His love for us.

Secondly, in nature, it's very common to seen the actions of one having consequences for many.

Third, you are looking at death from a limited and narrow angle. This is what Jesus Christ said about His death.
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.

It seems you are just vigorously searching for a reason to fault Christianity.

Now if the wages of sin is death, it would have been unjust if that sin is forgiven without the wages paid? So you seem to have it completely mixed up.

Jesus Christ's sacrifice showed 2 things.
1. God's Justice in that the wages of sin was fully paid.
2. God's mercy in that through the atonement of Christ all mankind can be saved.

DeepSight:
+
A most interesting take. You generally agree that this world is a sort of artificial rendition or simulation?

I will come back later to answer your reply up there, but in the meantime, please do me this favour, which will benefit you too..

My replies to Chieveboy are being hidden despite containing no violations of forum rules. I suspect he has weaponised the report button to trigger auto-moderation for obvious reasons: he cannot defend his position and admit he deliberately edited my comments to misrepresent me.

So please ask him this on my behalf;?

If he claims to be saying the same thing being discussed here, that authentic esoteric traditions teach simulation, then why does he place the words "computer" and "simulation" in quotation marks every time he reference the idea?

This question is part of what my hidden replies contained. I ask him directly but my posts keeps disappearing .

Putting words in quotes like that signals that he is not taking them literally. It means he has a different understanding, one that he won't openly state because he wants to appear in agreement with you while actually holding a different position.

I know what Eckankar teaches concerning the nature of this world because I was once part of the group. They teach that the world was created by Divine spirit as a training ground for souls to attain spiritual maturity and eventually become a co-worker with God. Nothing in their teaching says the world is a computer simulation created by advanced beings


Does he believe this world is literally computer simulation or does he mean something else? And if something else what is it?

I cannot ask him directly myself because my replies are hidden. But perhaps you can.

Thank you.

triplechoice:
I will come back later to answer your reply up there, but in the meantime, please do me this favour, which will benefit you too..

My replies to Chieveboy are being hidden despite containing no violations of forum rules. I suspect he has weaponised the report button to trigger auto-moderation for obvious reasons: he cannot defend his position and admit he deliberately edited my comments to misrepresent me.

So please ask him this on my behalf;?

If he claims to be saying the same thing being discussed here, that authentic esoteric traditions teach simulation, then why does he place the words "computer" and "simulation" in quotation marks every time he reference the idea?

This question is part of what my hidden replies contained. I ask him directly but my posts keeps disappearing .

Putting words in quotes like that signals that he is not taking them literally. It means he has a different understanding, one that he won't openly state because he wants to appear in agreement with you while actually holding a different position.

I know what Eckankar teaches concerning the nature of this world because I was once part of the group. They teach that the world was created by Divine spirit as a training ground for souls to attain spiritual maturity and eventually become a co-worker with God. Nothing in their teaching says the world is a computer simulation created by advanced beings


Does he believe this world is literally computer simulation or does he mean something else? And if something else what is it?

I cannot ask him directly myself because my replies are hidden. But perhaps you can.

Thank you.

+
Chieveboy I am asked to refer this post to you for your comments.