Sims and Simulations

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What you are witnessing when you observe a so-called law is a regularity, not a necessity, something that occurs in a certain way simply because it does, not because it is governed by some law-giver, not because things are being obedient to laws, or that they are being told to act a certain way according to some number or rule.

That "law-giver" is the fundamental principles of classical physics. Pissing on an electric fence, watering the lawn with a garden hose or throwing a baseball will all give you the same arc based on velocity and height. But everyone of those examples are different yet yield the same result. So yes, material objects (variables) are all obedient to the laws pertaining to the circumstances they are involved in.

The only thing that changes are those variables but the underlying principle remains the same. Much like a 'Class' in object orientated programming. A class is a set of instructions which contain all the attributes of an object. So whenever there is a variance of an object, you don't need to re-write the code. For example: Video game characters. You don't need to re-write all the code for a different character. The class is just a cookie cutter and can make as many instances of a character as you like, each with their own specific look. But they all adhere to the rules of the video game.

So when pissing on a fence or throwing a baseball, they are following strict protocols each time. Yet each object is interchangeable. So you see Virginia, yes there is a Santa Claus.

a reply to: FlySolo

The law-giver and law metaphor was used because the founders of classical physics believed in a creator. They assumed laws and lawgivers before they even observed regularities. That’s it.

Material objects are not following laws and protocols. Laws do not supervene on states if affairs like a hand of God. States of affairs supervene on laws. Proof of this is the fact that we observe states of affairs long before we develop the laws used to describe them. Laws describe the universe, not govern it. No object observes a law and decides to obey it. This anthropomorphic type of thinking implies more than it describes.

Laws are declared in words. Laws are written by man. Laws can be broken. Laws require a legislator.

States of affairs are not declared in words. States of affairs are not written by man. States of affairs cannot be broken. States of affairs do not require a legislator.

So then how are they laws again?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So then how are they laws again?

Until the day when down becomes up or when pigs fly, everything has laws. OR state of affairs as you like to put it. They existed before "man" interpreted them. You can call them laws, state of affairs, protocols or whatever, but "whatever" they are existed before we could measure them. And these "state of affairs" "evolved" from chaos as "logic".

Laws are declared in words.

You use the same argument with math stating math is only a human construct. We are still discovering ways to decode the "state of affairs". Be it with fancy words or complicated arithmetic.

a reply to: FlySolo

Until the day when down becomes up or when pigs fly, everything has laws. OR state of affairs as you like to put it. They existed before "man" interpreted them. You can call them laws, state of affairs, protocols or whatever, but "whatever" they are existed before we could measure them. And these "state of affairs" "evolved" from chaos as "logic".

You use the same argument with math stating math is only a human construct. We are still discovering ways to decode the "state of affairs". Be it with fancy words or complicated arithmetic.

State of affairs is philosophy jargon for "the way things are", regardless about what propositions are made about it.

If everything had laws it would be easy to find one. But of course, you can only make that assertion and never show me these laws you speak of, and I have to wonder if you are looking at the same reality, the same state of affairs. Every law, equation, number, protocol you show me will be written in ink by a human being and nothing besides. Is this untrue?

Yes, laws, mathematics and logic are human constructs. Man is not the measure of all things, and you won't find any of these independent of the minds of men.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Every law, equation, number, protocol you show me will be written in ink by a human being and nothing besides. Is this untrue?

This is the crux of the argument you're hinged to. Let's use another analogy. When you speak, or rather, just before, the words you choose are only words to articulate the "intent". There's a nano second of the intent but remarkably, we as humans are able to formulate that flash of intent into words. You may be able to talk non stop for 10 minutes, but it doesn't take the brain a fraction of that time to spark the intent of thought. And you may only pause a few times to think of a word but overall, those words just flow out without much thought. Pretty remarkable when you think about it.

So that's what your laws,equations, numbers, protocols written in ink are. The "words" that were formulated after the "intent". It doesn't matter what you use to describe the "laws" 1+1 = 2. Boggidie +boggidie = 2 %+%=2 or Roman numerals. The logic, or intent is always there waiting to be articulated.

The fact that I can drop a ball and a feather in an air free room and have them both fall at the same speed is a LAW.

a reply to: FlySolo

Language is amazing.

Yes, math and logic or your "flash of intent" are dependent of, and products of, human minds. That is what I've been stating all along. Unless you can find this flash of intent elsewhere?

Perfect vacuums don't exist. Air-free rooms are man made. Man creates the conditions of his own devising, completely neglecting such realities as air resistance and other matter, and calls it a "law of nature". The irony is profound. Drop a feather and a brick from a tree and watch them obey their laws.

originally posted by: FlySolo

The fact that I can drop a ball and a feather in an air free room and have them both fall at the same speed is a LAW.

I want to see that! You drop a 200g ball and a 0,2g feather in a vacuum and they fall at the same speed? Ho do you do that? Magic? Or do you mean in a gravity-free-room? But then they both wouldn't fall. But it just got clear where your argumentation is coming from.
Look: to use any symol to describe an event, doesn't make the Symbol the event, catch my drift? Save to say: atoms and gravity and all that would work just as fine even if nobody bothered to describe or research it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Wow, i know it's hard to have discussions with people on the opposite side of the fence, but this is just downright impossible when you're completely unwilling. I think my analogy went over your head. I'm just saying, we don't formulate words when we first have an inkling of an idea. The inkling is first, then we try to understand that inkling by using words. Yes, inklings of ideas are man made, but that wasn't my point. I was drawing parallels with writing and math as describing "universal laws" as to words being used to describe inkling of thoughts.

Perfect vacuums don't exist. Air-free rooms are man made. Man creates the conditions of his own devising, completely neglecting such realities as air resistance and other matter, and calls it a "law of nature". The irony is profound. Drop a feather and a brick from a tree and watch them obey their laws.

Again you are misunderstanding my hypothesis. As I have already stated previously, variables change, such air resistance.
Drop an apple and a brick from a tree and lo and behold, they behave the same as the feather and a ball in a vacuum.
This has nothing to do with man made perfectly air-free vacuums. It has nothing to do with man creating conditions of his own devising. It has to do with a preexisting set of rules.

You sound like an intelligent fellow. Big fancy $5 words and an ability to articulate yourself well. However, you also sound like you just walked out of the 12th century. This is simple physics and my ball and feather act should not be debated. It's science.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

The OP tries to suggest that understanding of wave versus matter is a fringe element, when its not that way at all.
The only difference between some who embrace discoveries, form some theoretical opinions and go into further experiments to prove or disprove and continue this direction because its not disproved, and those who don't embrace a philosophy of this, but maintain to hold up corpses and worship at altars of errors, because that material, big bang theory, faulty science is very Jesuit and Religious and those box's are the real control boxes on earth,is that some theories actually flesh out in the as above so below, and some are full of hot air.

The holographic universe is actually based on a lot of real findings. Its not pseudo science. Real physicists involved and not quite as programmed to feel they shouldn't question the assumptions of those around them. Ignore your findings, ignore any data that doesnt fit on our altar.

www.nature.com...
Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram

arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

www.newscientist.com...
Experiment tests whether universe is a hologram

biophysics.50megs.com...
DNA Hologram - biophysics & energy medicine

www.academia.edu...

www.journaloftheoretics.com...
Author: Benford MS

The case for mind/mind, mind/matter, and mind/energy interactions is well documented with staggering probabilities against chance having produced the results. “The discovery of the non-local quantum hologram, which is theoretically sound and experimentally validated in at least one application, the fMRI, is sufficient to postulate that the quantum hologram is a solution to the foregoing enigma. Further, recognition that the quantum hologram is a macro-scale, non-local, information structure described by the standard formalism of quantum mechanics extends quantum mechanics to all physical objects including DNA molecules, organic cells, organs, brains, and bodies. The discovery of a solution which seems to resolve so many phenomena, and also that points to the fact that in many instances classical theory is incomplete without including the subtle non-local components involved, suggests a major paradigm change must be forthcoming.”12

Further, the recent discovery of the information-containing 3-D spatial-encoding within the original DelaWarr remotely-obtained images, provides compelling evidence that macro-scale quantum holography is, indeed, a replicable and acceptable phenomenon. The intention required by the operator of the DelaWarr system to extract usable information from a quantum hologram forces us to conclude that evolved consciousness is antecedent in producing measurable non-local causal events.

www.scholarpedia.org...
Holonomic brain theory

www.bcs.org/content/ConMediaFile/4902
Quantum Holography - Illustration of the Concepts - BCS


The illusion of third dimension : the universe as a hologram or holographic universe

Its not lack of findings that makes people avoid the idea they're in a simulation. For scientists who are not into ancient myths and religions, they'd be dealing with technology, ie holograms are technology and even intelligent design, and some of them certainly don't want to. The mainstream archaic science delights both religions and athiests alike, methinks.

But its all about belief, the OP has a right to his as well.

a reply to: Unity_99

Ah, I was reminded of an article I read over the holidays when I read macro scale. The discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules in the brain which lends credibility to the theory that consciousness is derived from quantum physics and not via a biochemical process . The brain, a quantum computer if I may be so bold to say.

Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes.. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules.

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

www.sciencedaily.com...


eta: this discovery deserves a thread of its own

a reply to: [post=18932792]FlySolo]

No, math does not describe universal rules or laws. Math is an abstract pursuit. They are descriptions and predictions, not rules for something to follow. Point to me one universal law that isn't expressed in human language.

You are unable to find any law outside of human language supervening on phenomena, and your argument that such and such description is a law that things obediently follow is a load of nonsense, and whatever series of two-cent words and biblical metaphors you use to assert such a claim is nothing until you show me this law ordering an object to do what it does. Until then, your analogies and parallels to laws and rules are without merit. There simply are no laws, math and rules outside of human discourse. I beg you to show me otherwise.

That's right, variables change in the universe. Why isn't this a law, and why are variables such as wind resistance removed from controlled experiments? Because physical laws are generalized statements made about phenomena, not rules objects obey.

a reply to: Unity_99

Then what is a holographic universe? And what does it have to do with the idea we are sims in a simulation?

Last I checked they had no similarities.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I usually so enjoy your misanthropia, no matter its regard or scope. However, I must as this time make an objection in your logic or wont of. Shall we start here:

What we have here is not a particularly new idea; rather, it is an exaggerated old one, rehashed and repurposed to fit the more contemporary, yet still stupid, human mind.

"….the more contemporary, yet still stupid, human mind." What mind would you have us refer to, pray tell, as better, more understandable than the one we;ve been left with? Perhaps you attain to a different mind, represent yourself as having something more than what you've currently described? For that human mind you describe in such terms, is one you presumably share, and is responsible for all our best thinking to date.

Forgive me, if I'm unaware of philosophical minds and endeaverous writings which couch this so, to date, for I truly am. Perhaps this is the gift of being uneducated. But perhaps, as well, if life is cyclical and therefore repetitive, it is only through the "re-doing" this "re-hashing" appears, only, to reign supreme, when in fact, it is simply being able to apply labels when at the first, no such labels existed, but only now, retroengineered. If that's the case, your argument is disingenuous, or so I find it to be, simply in that it's using unfair disadvantage that not every "stupid, human" mind has at its disposal….and so therefore, is specious and disingenuous, for it would only be fair if we all had that advantage of foresight, retroengineering and living again and again to acquire such wisdom, if that's how one would qualify i†.

Following:

I find the sort of casuistry required to keep this ancient idea afloat a sign that one is antagonistic towards life, or perhaps they simply do not experience enough of it to accept it for what it is rather than what they hope it to be. I also find it an underhand way to continue to deny one's responsibility, to leave it all up to someone else so to speak. Yet, despite the fact that centuries of sophistry were dedicated to arguing for this ancient idea, there is rarely a logical nor rational reason to accept it.

Where are the philosophical musings by which philosophers to support that this is "age old argument?" And insofar as your thesis that it's a sign that one is antagonistic towards life, or that we've simply not experienced enough of it to accept it for what it is rather than what we may hope it to be," really? There are plenty of us, I put to you, Les Mis, who've lived often and fully, and find ourselves required to pay double for the doubles (you will find this in Isaih, for one) who don't at all, in no way whatsoever seek to avert our own responsibility, but by definition of what I just described, are simply unwilling to pay for those who appeared to be us, or pay for our "sleeping" times, when it may seem to be reverse engineered that we "enjoyed" such a sleep, after which awakening we found ourselves paying for others and things we did not commit.

Conversely, there are many, many technological, industrial reasons why we are saddled with the prices of those actions which we had nothing to do with. Many. All you have to do is log on to the DARPA site and visit the mind body meld aspects of current technology to understand how this could take place, and then be reverse engineered to appear as a history that someone has incurred who really hash't.

Personally, I've taken responsibility for many years for things which weren't really my responsibility at all. And I happen to have loved life for many years. So, I guess, what I'm saying is I find this to be the least of your logical, theoretical or faithful arguments, even based solely on logic.

In closing, just your title "Sims and Simulations" quite obviously suggests the obvious: that matrix or not, sim within simulation, the whole point of which would be to "retouch" the arguments and hold the guilty innocent and the innocent guilty the obvious conclusion. Otherwise, there'd be no need of sims or simulations. The reason for both is quite simple: something and someone evil, envisioning a dualistic society in which only good and evil survived, wished to hold good responsible for evil. And it's just that simple. And surely all the best, smartest human minds were destroyed in this event. For there is really nothing stupid, nor antagonistic about the human mind experiencing life in all its glory. That, my friend, was totally of the purview of the sim and the simulation, and the retroengineering provided by both being possible.
Regards,
tetra

you are absolutely correct in assessing that this world is a mere illusion/simulation,but i assure you that no one 'else' is creating this illusion apart from the conscious you.

consider if you will, the analogy of a dream,who is creating the dream?
verily its the sub-conscious mind.every aspect of the dream,every experience or story itself it creates,for it is not the conscious you who creates it.
in a dream you can attain lucidity and become aware,all of a sudden and realize(which you also do on waking up)that the dream was but a mere simulation.
life is ,like the dream an illusion and is created by you for your own joy growth and development,the you who is conscious beyond this dream,and when you wake up here,in this simulation you attain lucidity,you become aware of this simulation and the reality of your true self.

a reply to: tetra50

Yes I am human, and I include myself among the species.

There is no conceptual difference between one who creates a universe for us to live in and one who creates a simulation for us to live in.

If you follow the bible, then you follow the same teachings that speak against the world and the flesh in favour of a spirit world and the spirit. Life is composed of the world and the flesh. Death is composed of the spirit world and the spirit. Which do you love more?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You are unable to find any law outside of human language supervening on phenomena, and your argument that such and such description is a law that things obediently follow is a load of nonsense

Gravity.

So if it's ok, I can now say your entire OP is nonsense. Your entire premise (whatever that is) is nonsense. I have nothing further to say to you because according you, everything in the universe will rip apart at any moment and pigs will fly because there are no rules governing the behavior of subatomic particles.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: FlySolo

Crying and stamping the feet will not change the fact that scientific laws are models, not actual laws that things follow. Gravity describes the attractions of bodies, not some universal law called gravity as such.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: tetra50

Yes I am human, and I include myself among the species.

There is no conceptual difference between one who creates a universe for us to live in and one who creates a simulation for us to live in.

If you follow the bible, then you follow the same teachings that speak against the world and the flesh in favour of a spirit world and the spirit. Life is composed of the world and the flesh. Death is composed of the spirit world and the spirit. Which do you love more?

I cannot see that much of what you replied here has anything to do with my reply to you.

However, if it would simplify things, no, I do not follow the Bible. That should fix any other misunderstandings. I love neither, equally so. Those are definitions propogated by the above same text we've now agreed to dispense with, surely. For there must be more to life than death, and more spirit in living than in dying. Which do I love more? Neither. As neither are descriptive of any true reality, as I happen to see it. But then, I'm just a friggin nose picker.
tetra

a reply to: tetra50
Allow me to try again.

I read your post a few times now with a little bit of strain. Perhaps you can help me then. You say I'm being disingenuous and specious in my argument because:

simply in that it's using unfair disadvantage that not every "stupid, human" mind has at its disposal….and so therefore, is specious and disingenuous, for it would only be fair if we all had that advantage of foresight, retroengineering and living again and again to acquire such wisdom, if that's how one would qualify i†.

I do not understand. Please help me with this one. Perhaps I can convince you otherwise.

Where are the philosophical musings by which philosophers to support that this is "age old argument?"

Descartes "Evil Demon". Any intelligent design argument. Any creator argument. Any cosmological argument.

And insofar as your thesis that it's a sign that one is antagonistic towards life, or that we've simply not experienced enough of it to accept it for what it is rather than what we may hope it to be," really?

It was an opinion. Not a thesis. If it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you.

In closing, just your title "Sims and Simulations" quite obviously suggests the obvious:

I call those who believe we live in a simulation "Sims". It's a friendly jab. That's the meaning of the title.

I've given this a lot of thought: My apparent hostile reaction to what you've written here, and tried to understand why it struck me quite the way it did.

There are those who believe we exist in a simulation, that in some far-off place or some far-off time, conveniently tucked into settings we could never observe, is a governing artificer legislating the physics, the chemistry and the biology of the universe. Sound familiar? What we have here is not a particularly new idea; rather, it is an exaggerated old one, rehashed and repurposed to fit the more contemporary, yet still stupid, human mind.

I'm afraid I see much evidence that this life, itself, is a rehash. Some call it fate. I just see it as a controlled farce, mostly. It's a circular, cyclical thing, from my point of view, and extremely controlled and scripted. We relive these events over and over, and the purpose seems to be for the controllers to make themselves appear to be justified and righteous, even when they've engaged in the most heinous of activities. So then we relive the events, so they can recast themselves in a different life, and the rest of us must just suffer through it.

This is how I see it. And within that "simulated" life, whether we, in fact, are "sims" or not, the pain and struggle and strife of it is quite real. Scripted or not, we're still really living through it. Most who inhabit this community are aware, I think, that there are no coincidences, and this is what makes me so very angry......not at you, or anyone in particular I can point at because those who control the circumstances mostly hide their power. But I can promise you that I, and many others like me, felt the pain of every scar I bear on my body. And no, I'm neither deserving nor responsible for that.

I find the sort of casuistry required to keep this ancient idea afloat a sign that one is antagonistic towards life, or perhaps they simply do not experience enough of it to accept it for what it is rather than what they hope it to be. I also find it an underhand way to continue to deny one's responsibility, to leave it all up to someone else so to speak. Yet, despite the fact that centuries of sophistry were dedicated to arguing for this ancient idea, there is rarely a logical nor rational reason to accept it.

I fight every single day for control over my own life....not to control others around me, but to try and stop their attempts to control my circumstances and quality of life and the outcomes of scripted events that seem to happen, at least for me, no matter what I do. Believing and experiencing that as I have and do, I am certainly not the one who has antagonism towards living. I am fighting every day for my own "personhood" because I so respect and revere life. It is to be cherished, revered, appreciated. When people's hierarchy of needs are met, and they are not manipulated by the constant concern over shelter, food, clothing, social status, etc., the creativity possible is incredible.

Why have there been no new Rembrandt's or Mozarts in all these years? People are manipulated daily in thousands of ways, while sociopathic people are the most rewarded and laugh at those who are struggling. There is your antagonism toward life....from those who judge, manipulate and then laugh at the results of what they've helped do to someone.

There is some science to support the idea of a controlled, holographic, quantumly and purposefully entangled life.....such as some of the observations of Penrose and Hammeroff and the "quantum walk" in the photosynthesis of plant life.
If this is an "intelligent design" created situation, it's become more and more usery, where one must step on another's opportunities in order to succeed, more of a vampirization situation daily, and it's totally unnecessary.

Some of us truly are victims of that, and the worst part of what you've written here, is while it's being controlled and you must fight to keep any shred of your own integrity and then be punished for that, this idea gets shoved in your face to blame you for whatever's been done to you. Imagine how awful that is, if you're surrounded by people using you and controlling your circumstances, and then the general consensus is we're responsible for all of that happening to us.

This is a real thing that some people live through.
What you wrote struck a chord in me, obviously, and though it may seem crazy to some, I've been as honest as I can as to why I reacted to what you wrote the way that I did.

No offense to you personally.