₦airaland Forum

Dear LordReed, following our discussion on this thread.

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,

DeepSight:
, 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.

Did you bother reading the passage of 1 Chronicles 29 vs 15 before attempting to equate it to that which is Plato's Allegory of the Cave at all? 🥱🥱

12 You have the power and strength in your hand! And in your hand is the power to make anyone great and powerful!
13 Now, our God, we thank you, and we praise your glorious name!
14 All these things didn’t come from me and my people. All these things come from you. We are only giving back to you things that came from you.
15 We are only strangers traveling through this world like our ancestors. Our time on earth is like a passing shadow, and we cannot stop it. - 1 Chronicles 29 vs 12 - 15

The passage says nothing of the world being a shadow, but rather describes our fleeting time on earth as a shadow traveling through the world like those who came before us did.🥱🥱

May I suggest you re-read Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Why? Because your insistence that it suggests the world is a mere shadow or reflection, leaves me wondering what in the world you are on about. Plato's idea does not describe the world but rather people and how our perception of reality/truth is influenced by our state or what it is that holds influence over our minds. 🥱🥱🥱

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nHj3gL_JN0?si=KJ9HOpg-SuUAkMcF
While some suggest a connection to the theory of forms, this particular allegory focuses on the human mind and its perception of truth.

Kobojunkie:
Did you bother reading the passage of 1 Chronicles 29 vs 15 before attempting to equate it to that which is Plato's Allegory of the Cave at all? 🥱🥱
The passage says nothing of the world being a shadow, but rather describes our fleeting time on earth as a shadow traveling through the world like those who came before us did.🥱🥱

May I suggest you re-read Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Why? Because your insistence that it suggests the world is a mere shadow or reflection, leaves me wondering what in the world you are on about. Plato's idea does not describe the world but rather people and how our perception of reality/truth is influenced by our state or what it is that holds influence over our minds. 🥱🥱🥱

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nHj3gL_JN0?si=KJ9HOpg-SuUAkMcF
While some suggest a connection to the theory of forms, this particular allegory focuses on the human mind and its perception of truth.

+
I hear you, but I was only drawing analogies and not in any case using those examples as facts. And those analogies stand.
I think you may want to dig deeper on Plato's allegory though. It has strong spiritual existential undertones.

DeepSight:
+ I hear you, but I was only drawing analogies and not in any case using those examples as facts. And those analogies stand.
I think you may want to dig deeper on Plato's allegory though. It has strong spiritual existential undertones.

Now you have lost me completely! 🥱🥱🥱

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,

More of what I am trying to explain

That part of illusion like I said is that
"In as much as the world is govern by cause and effect the fundamental nature of reality is an illusion"
Because reality is subject
A bat reality is different from a human in terms of how it observes the world

While the object are illusions
Objects are illusion due to there fundamental nature

Kayouzka:
More of what I am trying to explain

That part of illusion like I said is that
"In as much as the world is govern by cause and effect the fundamental nature of reality is an illusion"
Because reality is subject
A bat reality is different from a human in terms of how it observes the world

While the object are illusions
Objects are illusion due to there fundamental nature

+
I understand you well thats why I mentioned you.

Kobojunkie:
Now you have lost me completely! 🥱🥱🥱

+
I think one may also see in it how the physical world is a mere reflection (shadow) of the spiritual world (outside the cave).
"As above so below."

And how at death we may step outside that cave into the light of reality.

Just thoughts - I am agnostic to these things.

BTW why do you insist on making posts you quote into smaller font?

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.

1

Since you agree that experience is real eyeity, then the difference between real eyeity and delooshun is simply one is a creation in the mind of the deluda

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,

Nice one bro but its kinda of a gish gallop. The discussion on any of these points may need a thread by itself. Maybe you should break them up so we can discuss them 1 by 1.

The funny thing about you is trying hard to convince a goat into thinking and acting like a sheep.

Three categories of people claiming they are atheists:


One~ Individuals who just don't want to do things that doesn't please them they only do things that makes them feel on top so even though their actions affects others negatively they want to believe its the best thing as long as they are on top.
These are the real atheists and for your information they strongly believe that its weakness that makes people think of being nice so they only please themselves no matter who gets hurt to them that makes them tough therefore they will say:
"life is about the survival of the fittest and not survival of the nicest"

Two~ Individuals who gets pissed off due to the atrocities committed by leaders of false religions so they always boil inside them anytime the title "GOD" or the word "HOLY BOOK" is mentioned because they believe it's nothing but scam.

Three~ Individuals who don't understand how faith works so they continue arguing anytime faith in God is discussed though they love to be good and also want good people around them.

So when chatting with anyone try to figure out where such a person belongs first otherwise you will be wasting your precious time talking to a brick.🙂

MaxInDHouse:
The funny thing about you is trying hard to convince a goat into thinking and acting like a sheep.

Three categories of people claiming they are atheists:


One~ Individuals who just don't want to do things that doesn't please them they only do things that makes them feel on top so even though their actions affects others negatively they want to believe its the best thing as long as they are on top.
These are the real atheists and for your information they strongly believe that its weakness that makes people think of being nice so they only please themselves no matter who gets hurt to them that makes them tough therefore they will say:
"life is about the survival of the fittest and not survival of the nicest"

Two~ Individuals who gets pissed off due to the atrocities committed by leaders of false religions so they always boil inside them anytime the title "GOD" or the word "HOLY BOOK" is mentioned because they believe it's nothing but scam.

Three~ Individuals who don't understand how faith works so they continue arguing anytime faith in God is discussed though they love to be good and also want good people around them.

So when chatting with anyone try to figure out where such a person belongs first otherwise you will be wasting your precious time talking to a brick.🙂

+
How does this corelate with this thread?

LordReed:
Nice one bro but its kinda of a gish gallop. The discussion on any of these points may need a thread by itself. Maybe you should break them up so we can discuss them 1 by 1.

+
Pick one point to start with and we take it from there.

DeepSight:
+
How does this corelate with this thread?

Is there any reason why you discuss with people?🤔

MaxInDHouse:
Is there any reason why you discuss with people?🤔

+
Of course to share ideas and also to learn. Sometimes also for entertainment, news etc.

OK i forgot we don't share the same line of thought regarding discussing with strangers!

DeepSight:
+
Of course to share ideas and also to learn. Sometimes also for entertainment, news etc.

MaxInDHouse:
OK i forgot we don't share the same line of thought regarding discussing with strangers!

+
Your point was that there is no point discussing with LordReed. That is not your call to make.

DeepSight:
+
Your point was that there is no point discussing with LordReed. That is not your call to make.

Of course that would have been my point but since you just enjoy discussing on ideas and news i guess it's pointless.

DeepSight:
+
Pick one point to start with and we take it from there.

Alright will do.

DeepSight:
+ I think one may also see in it how the physical world is a mere reflection (shadow) of the spiritual world (outside the cave).
"As above so below."
✓ And how at death we may step outside that cave into the light of reality.
✓ Just thoughts - I am agnostic to these things.
BTW why do you insist on making posts you quote into smaller font?

I am afraid I do not subscribe to such spiritual mumbo jumbo. So, cannot help. I do not believe the Theory of Forms has anything to do with this sort of spiritual nonsense. 🥱🥱

2. At death? What in the world? 😏😏

3. Minimizing the previous post brings focus to the more current where it should belong. 🥱

Kobojunkie:
I am afraid I do not subscribe to such spiritual mumbo jumbo. So, cannot help. I do not believe the Theory of Forms has anything to do with this sort of spiritual nonsense. 🥱🥱

+
It certainly has a lot to do with it but perhaps you are limiting yourself to specific words. The idea of forms, in which there is a perfect form of everything is certainly well co-related to spiritual concepts of the physical being a reflection of the spiritual and the saying "as above so below" mirrored in occult teachings throughout history.

2. At death? What in the world? 😏😏

+
You should be able to read allegories in diverse ways. Yes there is a potential symbolism of escape from the prizm of the physical and the world in leaving the cave to see real forms.

3. Minimizing the previous post brings focus to the more current where it should belong. 🥱

+
Its an egoistic focus on yourself. The reader should be able to see both clearly.

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,

Well done and thank you for the mention.

I see you've put in considerable effort in assembling these arguments, and I want to give your presentation the response it deserves rather than just rushing a reply.

But I'll need to unpack it first before doing so. By tomorrow , I come with a direct response.

DeepSight:
➜It certainly has a lot to do with it but perhaps you are limiting yourself to specific words. The idea of forms, in which there is a perfect form of everything is certainly well co-related to spiritual concepts of the physical being a reflection of the spiritual and the saying "as above so below" mirrored in occult teachings throughout history.
➜ You should be able to read allegories in diverse ways. Yes there is a potential symbolism of escape from the prizm of the physical and the world in leaving the cave to see real forms.
➜ Its an egoistic focus on yourself. The reader should be able to see both clearly.

1. I disagree! Plato was not particularly spiritual, and his Theory of Forms was meant to explain how physical objects are imperfect representations, changing copies of perfect abstract ideas/forms that exist in what he regards as eternal, transcendent reality: the mind.

2. An allegory is not meant as a free-for-all, a platform on which to express your every delusion. It is meant to be focused and limited in interpretation. And this particular focus of this particular allegory is not on what you term spiritual but on the assessment of reality by those alive in it, not spiritual mumbo jumbo. If you pay close attention, those who subscribe to spiritual mumbo jumbo are represented by the prisoners stuck in the cave— the blind, ignorant ones who, because of their deluded state, refuse that which amounts to reality.

3. You thinking it is egotistical is a you problem, not a me problem. I seek to switch focus to my response as I should, and that is all. 🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
1. I disagree! Plato was not particularly spiritual, and his Theory of Forms was meant to explain how physical objects are imperfect representations, changing copies of perfect abstract ideas/forms that exist in what he regards as eternal, transcendent reality: the mind.

2. An allegory is not meant as a free-for-all, a platform on which to express your every delusion. It is meant to be focused and limited in interpretation. And this particular focus of this particular allegory is not on what you term spiritual but on the assessment of reality by those alive in it, not spiritual mumbo jumbo. If you pay close attention, those who subscribe to spiritual mumbo jumbo are represented by the prisoners stuck in the cave— the blind, ignorant ones who, because of their deluded state, refuse that which amounts to reality.

3. You thinking it is egotistical is a you problem, not a me problem. I seek to switch focus to my response as I should, and that is all. 🥱🥱

+
I am surprised you can't see the contradictions in your own post. Anyway, we agree to disagree.

DeepSight:
I am surprised you can't see the contradictions in your own post. Anyway, we agree to disagree.

Oh, do help me see it please!🥱🥱🥱

Kobojunkie:
Oh, do help me see it please!🥱🥱🥱

+
". . . . of perfect abstract ideas/forms that exist in what he regards as eternal, transcendent reality: the mind. . . ."

Look at the words you have used here. Abstract. Eternal. Transcendental. If you can't see it here, there's nothing I can do.

DeepSight:
". . . . of perfect abstract ideas/forms that exist in what he regards as eternal, transcendent reality: the mind. . . ."
Look at the words you have used here. Abstract. Eternal. Transcendental. If you can't see it here, there's nothing I can do.

I cant see what you see!🥱🥱

Yes, Plato strongly believed the human mind—which he termed the soul or intellect —is immortal, eternal, and exists before birth and after death. He viewed the soul as an incorporeal, unchanging entity trapped temporarily within a mortal body, engaging in reincarnation and accessing innate knowledge through recollection.

Kobojunkie:
I cant see what you see!🥱🥱

+
You quoted what you quoted and can't see it? Na wah. No worries.

DeepSight:
➜You quoted what you quoted and can't see it? Na wah. No worries.

That is simple! I don't reason the way you do about such things.

DeepSight:
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.

Lemme tackle this bit first.

I have no qualms in seeing humans generally as being analogous to the men in the cave. Why? Because we don't know all there is to know about the universe as a baseline therefore not everything would be clear to us. Then add to that, our brains have limited processing capacities. That is easily provable. I remember the basketball and the bear experiment where people are asked to focus on a group of people passing around a basketball and told to count how many passes were made. At the end they are asked if they also noticed a man in a bear suit who shuffle dances behind the group passing th basketball. Most people don't and would even deny such thing occurred until they playback the video and quite clearly there is a man in a bear suit shuffle dancing. Our brain makes these shortcuts to keep us going even with its limited capacity so indeed we cannot grasp all the information we receive all at once. But we have now mitigated some of these hortcomings with our progress in science and technology so we don't have to rely on only our limited brains and senses.

However I think the allegory more properly describes people like you and others who see these shadows and see all sorts of monstrous things which could be explained down the line as nothing of such even if at the time there isn't enough information. You more readily leap to these fantastical explanations for the shadows. In time past we thought it was the gods hurling thunder and lightning in the sky. Today we know that isn't the case. Why then should we continue to behave like the ancients who didn't have what we have in terms of science and technology. Why can't we channel our energy to properly finding and understanding these shadows, these missing bits of information which would clarify what we are seeing. I no longer like to leap to any such fantastical explanations since I deconstructed my previous faith so maybe it is just me.

In conclusion, saying the world is illusory just because we don't have all the information is just plain wrong. We can both acknowledge the objectivity of the world around us and our limited capacity to perceive it without devolving into caveman (pun intended) ideology.

LordReed:
Lemme tackle this bit first.

I have no qualms in seeing humans generally as being analogous to the men in the cave. Why? Because we don't know all there is to know about the universe as a baseline therefore not everything would be clear to us. Then add to that, our brains have limited processing capacities. That is easily provable. I remember the basketball and the bear experiment where people are asked to focus on a group of people passing around a basketball and told to count how many passes were made. At the end they are asked if they also noticed a man in a bear suit who shuffle dances behind the group passing th basketball. Most people don't and would even deny such thing occurred until they playback the video and quite clearly there is a man in a bear suit shuffle dancing. Our brain makes these shortcuts to keep us going even with its limited capacity so indeed we cannot grasp all the information we receive all at once. But we have now mitigated some of these hortcomings with our progress in science and technology so we don't have to rely on only our limited brains and senses.

However I think the allegory more properly describes people like you and others who see these shadows and see all sorts of monstrous things which could be explained down the line as nothing of such even if at the time there isn't enough information. You more readily leap to these fantastical explanations for the shadows. In time past we thought it was the gods hurling thunder and lightning in the sky. Today we know that isn't the case. Why then should we continue to behave like the ancients who didn't have what we have in terms of science and technology. Why can't we channel our energy to properly finding and understanding these shadows, these missing bits of information which would clarify what we are seeing. I no longer like to leap to any such fantastical explanations since I deconstructed my previous faith so maybe it is just me.

In conclusion, saying the world is illusory just because we don't have all the information is just plain wrong. We can both acknowledge the objectivity of the world around us and our limited capacity to perceive it without devolving into caveman (pun intended) ideology.

+
Thanks for this.

However -

1. You have a gravely wrong perception of Platos allegory. It was specifically addressing the idea that we dwell in a world of imperfect forms which are reflections of real and perfect forms. Nonetheless I hear your spin on it as I believe we are entitled to do so for any parable or allegory. You are entitled to your spin even if it is not what Plato was saying. If it was, there would be nothing profound about it.

2. Keep at the back of your mind in these discussions that I remain agnostic on existential matters.

3. Sometimes I tire of the high horse materialists tend to climb and the way they tend to mock everyone and every view which suggests something more to reality than matter. Your caveman pun at the end is tiresome in this regard.

4. Citing Plato was at all events a mere analogy. Let's move on to the other points.

DeepSight:
+
Thanks for this.

However -

1. You have a gravely wrong perception of Platos allegory. It was specifically addressing the idea that we dwell in a world of imperfect forms which are reflections of real and perfect forms. Nonetheless I hear your spin on it as I believe we are entitled to do so for any parable or allegory. You are entitled to your spin even if it is not what Plato was saying. If it was, there would be nothing profound about it.

2. Keep at the back of your mind in these discussions that I remain agnostic on existential matters.

3. Sometimes I tire of the high horse materialists tend to climb and the way they tend to mock everyone and every view which suggests something more to reality than matter. Your caveman pun at the end is tiresome in this regard.

4. Citing Plato was at all events a mere analogy. Let's move on to the other points.

Sorry if I came off as condescending, that was not my intention. And the pun was supposed to be light-hearted jab, no offence meant.

LordReed:
Sorry if I came off as condescending, that was not my intention. And the pun was supposed to be light-hearted jab, no offence meant.

+
None taken whatsoever I tell you. Its just an old thing on this board. You are even polite. I remember some posters like Martian and Tudor.