₦airaland Forum

chieveboy:
I told you I get how your brain works...by mentioning me...hold on...

Lets even assume you didn't mention me i5n that instance. In an open forum that this is, I can cut across and respond to whatever is going on here. A'fter all, the respondents would still give you their feedback. heck you could even let it be in the spate of the moment, but you see you being you....




...nibbling on on this one also. I even saw where you were arguing the English of it...




Lol, the most important thing is what really is the very very big deal in me responding that made you to particularly react to that



This man



lol, so if I can reply which I did, and with every effort Seun made to ensure the UI/UX is very self explanatory to the point of being too basic, where each thread, each mention leaves unambiguously explicit footnote and trail, how did we end up getting told one can reply but one cannot reply because it will confuse some imaginary and confused strangers?



Yea, I can be quite direct. But lets not make it about that. I am hoping to leave you with a prognosis of some sorts about how to be make wisdom from the knowledge. Your mind works rather linearly. Symptoms are excess reliance on second class information among others I wont point out.

Example:

I wrote exactly this: " 'backverting' ". If your mind works 'fractally' to the slightest degree or in this case linearly indeed, you would firstly grasp that when this occurs, the word is special when enclosed in apostrophes. It means it might be a totally invented word, is portmanteau, or the user is under 'license'. You will not for one bit eve dwell on grammar which on that instance was an issue to do with your lack of perception in a lateral or fractal manner. You think in straight line, hence you expect a book somewhere o have to mention it before it is a fact for you. And this goes to whatever you will accept as a scientific effort.

A 'linear' mind is not good or bad, it only gives you results which I referred to as "the symptoms". You become unable to grasp things like poetry or what I will refer to as 'abstraction of reality' or when you hear a proverb, you run to the market square saying someone lied. Its a nuance thing.


Bonus: If you saw someone's wife returning from a trip, and you heard the husband tell someone else his "baby girl" just arrived, fight will burst. Why? you will swear the man is lying, that it was in fact his wife who came and not his wife. This is the issue with you, and it is replete in your earlier response about me responding.

This is all noise and a deflection.

You invented the word "backverting". Yes, but once you do such a thing, you are expected to explain what it refers to since it is not found in any dictionary. When you fail to do so, you are simply talking to yourself whether it is in quotes or not.

Demonstrate the "backverting" and provide evidence for the syntactic operation you carried out for flow. It is as simple as that.

If you can't do that , then you invented that word to hide so you don't admit your mistake and apologize.

And you are not the only one I copied. So why making this all about yourself. When you replied to Deepsight, did you not also.mentiom me and another person?

You are free to reply my post especially if I quote but wrong to answer for another person a personal question meant for them alone.

Your problem is your don't like admitting your mistake.

chieveboy:
you probably mentioned me by mistake on what you directed at the others. as for the rest of the above, l see how your brain works.

You're not the only person I copied.. I also copied Lordreed. The reply was meant for Deepsight not you. The statement " you and Kayouzka" was directed to him, but you took it personally as if it was meant for you. Please go back to see for yourself that I quoted Deepsight to reply him.

Now demonstrate your "backverting" and bring evidence for your syntactic operation for flow you did. Don't use this as an excuse.

It is normal here to copy others whom you want to read your post. Copying you is not the same as quoting you directly.

You should know the difference. By responding the way you did you created confusion. Any person new here would conclude you are the same as him.

I'm not saying you cannot reply . You can. But don't hold brief for him for answers I demanded from him. I wanted to be sure where he stand on the matter hence the personal question directed at him " what does he believe , not what you believe or know

And what do you mean "I see as your brain works?

Instead of you to defend what you wrote, you want to condescend.

chieveboy:
Always permit me when I come in having laugh..., its just funny.

Its frustrating however that the bots kept deleting your response to me. I would have loved to see it especially your response to my assertion that we merely 'agree' sort of to accept that we "Saw or perceived reality" despite that this really didn't occur at all in a more deeper 'realer' sense and reality. My take is reality can only be perceived on the level it exists in its raw 'unpainted' form where when done, it looks nothing like an orange at all and all those who concluded on the orange they saw as the reality would be disappointed if they actually get to see it in the real sense of seeing.

This is why the idea of throwing a "How do you know" or "It happened in your head" as a jab cracks me up because the thrower is boxing on smoke.

Please ,I was addressing Deepsight, not you , when I said "you and Kayouzka struggle to answer Lordreed's question" . I want to know where exactly he stands on the matter, I already know your position, but his, I'm not sure of. So please don't react to that part as if you're him or holding up for him.

And there is nothing wrong in asking "how do you know" . The question is the foundation of all genuine inquiry. It is the use of ones critical faculty, not the same as the skeptic's dismissive, "It's in your head" used to brush aside spiritual experiences

Authentic spiritual traditions welcome this question. They don't run away from it. They usually like to respond with , Here's the method. Practice it and verify it yourself ".

As for my hidden posts, what they contained was me demanding that you provide proof of the "syntactic operation " you claimed to have carried out for flow. No such operation exists. Syntax is word arrangement, not word modification, which you actually did

You also claimed the meaning didn't change after your so-called syntactic flow". How can that be ? It was illusion you threw at me there. . And you then invented the strange word "backverting" , which is not found in any dictionary, as your supposed proof. So I requested that you demonstrate this "backverting" and let everyone see if what you claimed is true. But my reply was hidden each time hence my suspicion you weaponised the report button, because the original statement itself needed no fixing. It was perfect. I'm certain you can't defend what you claim or demonstrate your "backverting

Now , look at the difficult to read explanation you gave in this response of yours. Why not edit it for syntactic flow since you claim to be so good at it. writing in such a convuluted manner together with the strange words you invent and use, shows lack of respect for your readers

Oh come on now. I cannot believe you said the later part. I wish to let you know all major spiritual paths propagate all the above without exception:

Please provide proof, not your personal interpretation of spiritual metaphors.

I said exactly that no authentic esoteric traditions teaches simulation. If you claim otherwise, bring the evidence, Specific quotes , Clear teachings. Not vague references. Not your reinterpretation of ancient words through modern technological lens. Like claiming that since the ancients mentioned small particles in their writings, they were actually referring to atoms.

That they ,"all teach it without exception" is your own personal conclusion, not evidence . What reliable source or sources can you provide for corroboration?

Computer below, computer above

1a: Soul or consciousness the actual knower which operates the mind while not being local to the physicality of the mind and all its paraphernalia (cortico-enteric brain, myofascial system and the body generally ). This gives you a case of second-class observation via instrumentation...yea?

If there is death or birth, something or someone must be coming and leaving, Near-deathers prove to us something retains consciousness. This then is akin in all tone and fiber as using a Virtual Reality Headset. User is non-local to what they see, yet are 'moved' anyways and all the same!

1b: Heck its even a simulation in a simulation which occurs in harmonically organized 'octavia'. The mind too has its own chambers and inner ones which are equall to the CPU (computer). Buddhists, Sikhism, Eckankar and other eastern religions have words for this chambers and would they operate like the computer or we have to wait till they expressly say "dear NLander, it is a computer"? Lets see:

-Manas: Lower mind responsible for input and data. Input/Output

-Chitta: Storage/ memory literally

-Buddi: CPU, decision making and even AI. I would even call this one AI++. Hack this one for yourself and you can turn water to wine practically. This is an openly guarded secret in the occult.

I don't know how old Sikhism and Buddhism are


Trapped Souls[/i]

2: While the 'literal' one exists above in the upper regions of the physical plane, most walk in human bodies. The feeling is feeling trapped and thats a trapped soul. No need to complex it with the earlier one. A mystic side to this is that when the person feeling trapped dies, they likely gravitate to regions which these feelings exist. This is their heaven and it would feel exactly as it was here...oh: eternity is here and now. Heaven is now. Above is below now. If it is possible to feel trapped, now and here, then it obtains above

You are projecting modem technology onto authentic esoteric teachings and then claiming they support simulation.

What you describe up there about the soul is a distortion of the truth. The pulmonary system in your body moves air. A bellows moves air. Does that then mean your lungs are belows? Of course not. They perform a similar function though entirely different means.

Manas processes information through consciousness while computer through its hardware. Chitta holds impressions as a field of awareness while computer through storage/memory. Finally ,Buddhi, makes decisions through direct intuition while computer through CPU and Algorithms.
These are not the same. A field of awareness is not a hard drive. Intuition is not algorithm. Stop conflating them to prove that the world is a fake code. Eckankar has not taught you that. It's "all in your head ". lol

[i]Loosh[/b]

3: Lol, better take Jesus Christ serious if you haven't. This is going to be condensed knowledge from Eckankar and other eastern religions: Loosh is just simply a naming a last of something we all partake in but do not have a name for. There is something in science better than this illustration: Examination of loosh can be found in EEG where electrical signals produced by photons is captured as an image. If there is no better tool in science that allows us to capture non-local events that occur as result of this electric event, we would manage, but I have to let you know reality is harmonically "octaval" and produces ripples or echoes along its gamut.

This said, Loosh is a negative or positive after-effect of karma (action) that has an [b]emotional vector. As you must know, a vector has what and what again...? Good!

Scientists if memory serves me right have conducted a job with detached DNA of a person whose emotions reflects or affects the non-local DNA. That said, if gold is precious metal, I wish to let you know that emotion would fetch you a full wheel barrow of gold or better in the lower worlds especially the Astral downward.

For instance, you must have heard of organ maiming and harvesting, animal sacrifice, etc but not know what is being mined. As simple as it might sound to obtain, it is emotion aka loosh. It is a tangible, scientific, technological input as uranium to scientists, and it works for whatever end-use it is put to.

There are forms of life advanced yet not so advancd enough who put it to 'good 'use here and there. They tail or hang around a human who proves to be a good source of it and the rest is history as they say. This is why Jesus said be careful (of your thoughts and emotions becasue) "the devil is like a roaring lion seeking whom to devour". Loosh is good as gold, it alone is preconfigured code/karma... its a 'vectored intention' the way computer programs or codes are.

Lol, ritualist are really not uninformed or stupid as you think. There are some who obtain it my smashing as in the famed bado cult...

I'm sure you have another Jesus in mind that you are taking seriously, not the one in the Bible. Jesus said:

"Be sober minded, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour"

I

This is a warning about spiritual vigilance, about staying aware of temptation and moral weakness. It is a metaphor about the dangers of staying from righteous living.

It is not a scientific description of invisible beings harvesting emotional energy from humans. You have taken a spiritual metaphor and literalsed it into fear mongering. No one can harvest your "loosh" without your permission ". Yes, nothing can happen to you without your permission". The truth as its taught within true paths is that there are more benevolent beings everywhere doing everything to help souls come to the realisation of its true nature. And what is soul? If you really know what it is , you would stop this fear mongering.

And where did I say ritualist are stupid?. I never did. I asked Deepsight whether he subscribed to the simulation mythology. I didn't comment on the intelligence of ritualist. You invented that to create an argument I never made.

This is what you do repeatedly. You strawman my comments, then argue against what you wish I had said instead of what I actually said


Finally, I never argued that "loosh" or anything like it doesn't exist. I asked him whether he subscribe to the simulation mythology, the narrative that advanced beings invaded our world in the past, trapped souls, wiped their memories, and since then have been harvesting their emotional energy..

That is a very specific set of claims, but you have now spent paragraphs upon paragraphs to make loosh sound scientific, EEG, DNA experiments , " emotional vectors". "octave harmonics", while completely avoiding the main question. Does Deepsight believe this or not?

You are not Deepsight, so stop answering for him. You are free to respond to what I have said but allow him to answer for himself question that I directed to him personally..

I will respond later to your own reply
.

DeepSight:
+
Fair enough.


+
Nonetheless logic remains the pillar for these discussions.

But logo is not truth, nor is it evidence. I'm certain you know this.

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.

Yes,, it's natural to have differing viewpoints in philosophy, precisely because philosophy relies on logic, reason, and mental speculation, not direct experience.

And this is why you and Kayouzka. struggle to answer Lordreed's question:: "How do you know?. You have no direct experience of the reality you describe. To your credit, you're honest about this. Others pretend otherwise.

But please make clear your position on this topic. I think you're being ambivalent about it. If you're not strictly advancing simulation like the others, state clearly what you believe. Currently, I assume you have embraced not just simulation but also the surrounding mythology of advanced beings, trapped souls and , "loosh " harvesting. This is exactly why I said no authentic esoteric traditions teaches simulaton .

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 never mentioned "older traditions" in that way. I mentioned authentic traditions like Vendata, which began in the distant past but continue to exist today , teaching exactly what they always taught about the makeup of the world how it came to be.

Nothing has changed. If you know what they actually teach and place it alongside simulation, the difference is very clear.

Authentic traditions teaches that the world is a manifestation or "reflection " of consciousness while simulation argues that it is a fake code created by external beings.

Authentic traditions describes a living, organic process. Simulation describes a mechanical, technological creation.

What authentic traditions teaches has remained unchanged for millennia. Simulation is a modern invention of the computer age.
It is a modern science myth, like the 17th century idea that the universe is a clockwork mechanism. People project their dominant technology onto the cosmos. In the past, it was clocks, now computers. This tells us more about the times we are living in than about reality .

The ancient traditions are still here. Nothing has changed. Study them directly, not through the lens of modern technology

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 -

This is where you are greatly mistaken. You think simulaton is an ancient idea because both simulaton proponents and ancient traditions refer to an inner something beyond this world. But this is a misreading of those ancient texts, texts that still exist, still teach, and still guide spiritual seekers today. .

Ancient traditions ( Vendata , for instance) says the world is a "reflection" in quotes. It has provisional reality pointing to a deeper source, divine consciousness. Simulation, on the other hand, argues that the world is a simulation, literally fake code.



What I will do next is this: I will take each ancient idea you assembled below and provide their correct interpretation, not as isolated quotes, but as living teachings understood by those who practice the "hidden" principle they contain

For example, the full quote for "As above, so below" that you keep bringing up is; "As above, so below; so below, so above". This is not a one -way statement. It is bidirectional.

It means; As above,so below. What exists in the higher realms is reflected in the lower realms. As below, so above. What exists in the lower realms is also reflected in the higher realms

It is referring to correspondence, a two-way relationship. The principle teaches that what is true on one plane of reality is equally true on all planes. So there' is no "original" and "copy". No "real" or. " "unreal ". Everything is. There is only one reality expressing itself at different levels of density and consciousness

What is true spiritually is true physically. What is true physically is true spiritually

What is true in the macrocosm ( the universe) Is equally true in the microcosm ( the individual) , and vice versa

So then, which one reflects the other? Your answer please.

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.

No. They are not rich with it. You have misread them completely as I have already proven with Hermeticism..

Cc Lordreed, Chieveboy.

tctrills:
So, let's understand this, if a Muslim made that statement, it will only be wise to decide the meaning from the islamic context. Same goes for a Buddhist or any other religion.
Paul a follower of Jesus Christ made the statement and now you suggest we interpret in multiple ways across different traditions throughout history. That will only get us confused and we will never get an answer.

Now, why did I use AI? I use AI for things that humans don't need to waste their effort on. AI is better suited to go through data and look for context.

On nairaland we don't exchange direct experience and genuine spiritual exploration. We exchange ideas and information and that was what I did using 3 different AI sources and they all gave me about the same information.

Now, instead of you or my good friend Deepsight telling me that AI got it wrong, I would love to listen to your argument. Show me why I am wrong, don't just tell me that I am wrong.

You have misunderstood me. I have not said you are wrong. I said don't take Gemini response has final authority to win a debate or insist whatever it gives you cannot be challenged.

You can still question it on what it has given you. You accepted its responses because it resonated with. . You didn't query it for contrary opinion. Do that and learn something new today.

tctrills:
Actually, I didn't ask as a Christian. I only mentioned the verse in the bible and asked it to provide the original greek and to provide a contextual meaning.

Again there is nothing wrong in asking from a Christian angle since we are discussing a verse from the bible.

I said Gemini responds based on how you ask. It is how these systems are designed. You don't need to announce you are a Christian. It analyse your query to determine context, which includes detecting your religious background .Your word choices, your spelling patterns, and the way you frame a question, influence the response. Gemini picks up on these signals and tailors the response accordingly

I never said there's anything wrong with asking as a Christian. I said you shouldn't treat AI's answers as final authority the way you have done here. The response Gemini gave you wasn't "the truth" (I have put truth in quotes). It was the answer that matched the framework you provided, meaning that if someone from a different tradition asked the same question, they would get a different answer

The same verse, "in Him we live and move and have our being, has been interpreted in multiple ways across different traditions throughout history. An AI cannot settle that debate for you. Only direct experience and genuine spiritual exploration can.

How she sees it from her position.

tctrills:
Deepsight is looking at it from a different angle. He is looking from the angle of us being like a virtual reality playing out or simulations.
I do not necessarily agree with your beliefs but you and Deepsight do not seem to be saying the same thing

Ok then. Let's wait for him to respond before passing final judgement.

tctrills:
Now you are pulling on to straws. Even you know that you are using an extremely weak argument.
From the above, it seems like Gemini also did a copy and paste with little variations to what I explained.

Live: Our biological life comes from Him.

Move: Our ability to act and progress is sustained by Him.

Are (Being): Our fundamental identity and existence are rooted in His will.

So don't just hold on to one word, Atmosphere and claim you are in line with the above.
Please let's all be intellectually honest.

Compare Gemini to myinitial comments
In whom we live = He give us life
In whom we move = gives us the strength to move
And have our being = we belong to Him

Gemini responds based on how you ask. You asked as a Christian, seeking a Christian interpretation, and it gave you exactly what it was programmed to give, a response that aligns with mainstream Christian theology.

If someone with a different spiritual background, say, a Vedanta or a Sufi, asked the same question, they would receive a response that aligns with their understanding.

This is what we call "garbage in , garbage out". Gemini doesn't have direct knowledge of truth. It has been trained on human texts, including theological writings, and it generates responses based on patterns in that data. It will confirm whatever framework you feed it.

That is why people are advised not to treat AI as final authority. It can give different answers to different people asking the same question from different perspectives

tctrills:
Actually that's not what he is saying. You can go back and review this thread, he isn't talking about being created in the image of God or that we share His attributes.

I think you're talking past each other. The idea that we're cells in the body of God is a metaphor which you have interpreted literally..

This understanding comes from Vedanta, the ancient spiritual philosophy of India, which teaches that the same divine consciousnesses (Brahman) exist in all beings. So we are not separate from "GOd", we are expressions of it. "God" is not a person but spirit or what science calls pure energy and we are all energy beings occupying a physical body.

Unless Deepsight has another interpretation, the people who use the figurative expression don't recognise a separate invisible being living in an invisible plane, heaven, who created the world and everything in it. They say that each individual, you and I, is an inseparable part of Spirit, "God", divine consciousnesses. This should not be confused with a supreme deity we must worship from a distance. In the words, the God we are worshipping and praying to is the same as us.

The separateness we sense, according to them, is created by the illusion of the physical body we are occupying .We are one with God whether we realise it or not.

Jesus came to this realisation, hence the statement "I and the Father are one". Which Father? Spirit, divine consciousnesses, pure energy. But this truth he taught has been submerged in traditional church teachings.

tctrills:
I have moved the discussion to the new thread but if you are looking for excuses to hate Christianity, don't you realise that there are more holes in the doctrine you are entertaining.
The doctrine of man being God's cells.
If this is true, it means that we make up God and God is a summation of our personalities, actions, beliefs, weaknesses, strength, and morals.
It makes God imperfect, weak, jealous, full of hate, fearful and all other human traits both good and bad.

Is that your position on God? Let's discuss.

I don't think Deepsght is saying we are literally cells in the body of God. That statement is metaphorical reference to something that is even contained in the Bible: "we were created in the image of God" that is, we all share the same attributes of that we were created from or are part of. "Ye are gods"

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.

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

Ok. I await your come back.

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.

Here

The first others will come.

Why the simulation theory is pseudoscience

Sabine

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

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.

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:
+
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?

On Plato's cave allegory, you claimed the shadows came from "beings outside". of it. But this is not what Plato wrote.

Let me quote the actual text from Republic Book V11:

"Behold human beings living in an underground den.... Like ourselves, I said, they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave"

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

The original text says the fire is inside the cave. The objects, the prisoners, the shadows, exists within the same cave. The outside only appears when the prisoners escapes.

What you did was to move the shadow-casters outside to make the story fit your simulation or reflection narrative. But that's not what Plato intended. As scholars have explained, (I researched this to be sure) the cave symbolises the "world of sight", our physical reality. The shadows aren't "projections or reflections from another dimension". They are ordinary appearances we mistake for all of reality.

The cave represents the world of sensory experience, not a "simulation" of another world. It is the only world they have ever known. The prisoners aren't hallucinating. The shadows they see are real shadows of real objects in the sane cave, but behind.

Plato himself makes this very clear right after the allegory, he writes:

"This entire allegory you may now append to the previous arguments; the prison--house is the world of sight...... the journey upward is the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world". (Republic: 517b)

So why did you change it? Because of this, I researched the other things you cited, and discovered the same pattern of repurposing what a scientist has said ,or findings from an experiment to fit your simulation narrative. The continuation will highlight them. Later

Cc Deepsght, Lordreed

Here we go. But first, I want the clarify something very important because I think I have been misunderstood.

I'm not scoffing or dismissing the idea that the world may be more than what we think it is. I'm familiar with the concept. I've encountered it in various traditions I've been part of, and through reading materials produced by great teachers on the topic . So I know what it's all about and can easily separate the wheat from the chaff anytime anyone anywhere starts to talk about it

However, my issue with Kayouzka wasn't that he raised the topic, but that he presented it in a way that guaranteed misunderstanding. When I decided to join Lordreed in demanding he jump or walk through a wall, it was to highlight that his descriptions pointed to something he likely didn't intend, that the world is a collective hallucination where physical laws don't apply.

Most people understand an "illusion" to mean something that is not there, not real, hallucination, "you can't hold it or touch it". If you try any of those things, you touch nothing. When you ignore this common understanding and openly declare, "the world is an illusion" not real, you're either taking it for granted that others will instinctively grasp what you mean by that term, or simply don't care because to you they are not "awake" and can only understand when they "wake up. That's not the behaviour of someone who wants to teach something they believe others can benefit from. It's intellectual arrogance, a great put off that will cause your audience to disregard you

But as the conversation progressed in the other thread, I realised the problem goes even deeper. He wasn't just unclear, he continued to conflate two very different things, and from the evidence in this thread you just created, you're also guilty of the same conflation. I'm referring to the spiritual understanding of the world as "illusion" (Maya, a projection, a shadow) and the modern conspiracy theory known as "simulation theory". They are not the same or related in any way. No authentic esoteric tradition teaches that we live in a computer prigram created by some invisible beings. The idea is a New Age invention that has only gained traction because its proponents falsely claim if finds scientific support.

I reject simulation theory completely and I ask you to do the same for a reason I will explain later.

[b] Now, to the meat of the thing. I will begin with your definition of what is "Real". You define it as something that "exists" in substance by itself as opposed to something which is only put on: as opposed to a set of images, feelings or sounds cast before the experiencer "

But this definition is not only vague and unhelpful, it is also a trick. You tell us what "real" is not, it's not images, not feelings, not sounds, not what's "put on". But you never tell us what it is. What is this "substance" that makes "real" real?. What'is it made of? How would we recognise it?

You set up a definition where, "Real" has "substance" , while this world lacks"substance"

Since you never define "substance" positively, you can easily claim this world lacks it without having ever having to prove what "it" is. The claim is an unfalsifiable claim. You can't be proven wrong because you haven't told anyone what to look for[/b]

The material world has its own kind of substance, matter, energy, quantum fields, call it what you will. It's measurable, consistent, and affects us. If you say this is not substance, then please tell what is it?

To be continued tomorrow. The next is the cave allegory. Does it prove simulation or illusion?

Cc Deepsght, Lordreed

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.

SporaD8:
Lolz! Agreed!
That's why we all can't be teacher - I have a demanding business to tend outside of NL.

That's not an excuse to help your friend make clearer what you are also describing here.

I said, his use of the word illusion is pointing to the opposite direction, and have shown that.

Read the last part of what I wrote up there about his use of the word, and come back tell me what you think.

SporaD8:
Great is thy patient man - I wish I have all the time to engage him as you do.

An impatient teacher is never a good teacher

Kayouzka:
Some characters in a computer are npcs (non player characters) just programs.

Some characters are conscious
The conscious characters know they are in a game.
They are in this world but not of it.

A game for example, You are the player you know you are playing a game and there npcs those are just programs

Some conscious players can forget that they are in a game because the game is immersive

Think about a VR set very immersive. If you had also lived in a VR world you'd think it reality.

How much more this.

What else could this world be if not a simulation
Since it governed by mathematical and scientific principles.

You're conflating players with characters. In a computer game, the players are outside the game, conscious, using a controller. The character is just a digital representation on screen. NPC'S are programs with no consciousness.

If we're in a simulation, which are we?

If we're characters, we have no more awareness than NPC's. If we're players, then we're not actually in the simulation, we're outside it, controlling avatars. You can be both

So which is it?. If you're a player, how did you get inside the game to be having this conversation with me?

You have evaded the question I asked. If some characters are "conscious players" who know they are in a game, simulation, tell me, how did you become one?. What was your awakening experience? When did you realise this world is a simulation, and what convinced you?

Characters in game don't just "wake up". Players enter the game knowing already. So which one applies to you?

In any case, we shouldn't be having this conversation if you understood me at first. I'm not against your claim the world is or might be an illusion or a simulation, I'm saying your description is pointing to the opposite of what you intend to describe.

Most people understand "illusion" to mean something that doesn't exist, a hallucination, a trick. If something is an illusion, it shouldn't affect you consistently. You should be able to walk through walls defy gravity, or at least demonstrate the " illusion has no real power over you

So you're using the word, "illusion" to mean something else , perhaps that the world is temporary, or that it proceeds from something deeper. If that's what you mean, simply say so. Otherwise, you will keep being misunderstood by everyone reading you.

Kayouzka:
Walking through walls infact would make it even more real

Our world has code and boundaries just like a computer game

When you play a computer game the characters don't just do whatever they like because you want to, rather they can only express thereselfs within the boundaries of the game

So how is that different from our world?

Our world is a construct with boundaries and codes

That is why everything can be analysed with a computer because it a computer simulation

Yes it has to seem real because we experience it

But on a fundamental level it is an illusion

Let me reiterate

The world is an illusion
Because nothingness is the only thing that is but nothingness must convince itself that it something thus is the illusions

A more realistic world would bare no limits

Your computer game analogy is a false equivalence.

Characters in a computer game don't suddenly wake up and understand they are in a computer game. No instance of that has ever happened. So how did your "awakening" happen?

I not done yet. I will come back later to reply to the other things you detailed.

LordReed:
It is even worse than I thought. LoLz.

Hehehe

It is "worse" because of the way he is describing it.

Please search for this book.

"The holographic universe" by Michael Talbot.

This book started it all for the general public. If you read it, you will understand better what he is trying to explain all this time.

Kayouzka:
Okay now what is an illusion?

An illusion is a misrepresentation of that which exist it is the opposite of reality.

We can know what illusion is if we can know what is real

The only thing real is the here and now

The only position that exist is here
And the only moment that exist is now.

What exactly does the "here and now" refer to as you have used it?

Is the "here and now" not part of the same world you say is an illusion?

The concept you're discussing is something I'm very familiar with, but which you have greatly misconstrued, hence the reason both you and Lordreed are talking past each other

You don't seem to realise that what you've described about our world is not only outlandish, but actually points to the opposite of what you're trying to explain. It is why he asked you to try jump from a 16th storey building to prove it.

Your description suggests that since the world is an illusion, those of us living in it could simply walk through walls easily like in a dream. But this is not what happens. The reason is that the world exists as a creation guided by definite laws which make that impossible

The world is not an illusion as long as it continues to exist. However, there are two main reason people describe it as illusion.

The first, is the belief that the universe emerged from "nothingness" and will one day return to it. I call it belief because this isn't a settled fact, but a view held in certain quarters, including some scientific interpretations

The second, is that our perception of reality is incomplete. We don't perceive the world as it is, but only as we're equipped to perceive it. The colour a "red" apple, for instance, isn't red in itself. It reflects certain wavelengths we interpret as red. In this instance, the perception is real, but it's not the full reality of the object.

So, the world is both real and not real, real because it exists, not real in how we perceive and relate to it. That's very different from referring to it as illusion you could simply walk through , which is what you described but not conscious of.

NEWBIN:
Wherever I go people hate me
They conspire against me always even when they don't know me

What accounts for this

No. It's not possible for "people to hate" you wherever you go . The probability that every single person, or even most people, you meet everywhere, for no reason, is engaged in a conspiracy against you is statistically zero. The only logical conclusion here is that the problem exist in your mind, which is why you are interpreting harmless behaviour from others as evidence of hate.

Our minds can sometimes develop powerful filters that make us perceive the world in a way that is far removed from reality. A neutral glance from. a stranger becomes a "hostile stare". "Someone laughing with a friend as you get closer becomes "they are laughing at me". A colleague in the office who doesn't say hello becomes "proof they hate me"

Even your own anxiety, which may cause you to act awkwardly or defensively can actually lead some people to react coolly toward you, which you then take as further proof of your belief that you are hated by everyone.

Have you ever considered speaking with a therapist or counselor?. They are trained to help people understand these patterns your mind is producing and find a way to a more peaceful state of mind. What you have described is an incredibly painful and isolating way to experience the world.

Please seek professional help. You deserve to feel safe and at ease. And this is not a spiritual problem, seeking therapy is the wise and courageous path forward.