Do we live in a Simulated Reality?

page: 1
65
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+21 more 
posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   


Could our entire reality be simulated (similar to how we create virtual realities) to an extent that we are not even aware that we are in a fake reality construct?

I´d like to propose that there are some "dead giveaways" that point to this being very possible.

_____________________________________________________________

Some well-known movies that have explored the idea:

The Matrix (by The Wachowski Brothers)
Waking Life (by Richard Linklater)
Vanilla Sky (by Cameron Crowe)
Existenz (by David Croneberg)
The Truman Show (by Peter Weir)

_____________________________________________________________

...points for consideration...

We create virtual realities to be real as possible...

We are today only starting to create virtual worlds such as Second Life, always with the goal of making these worlds more realistic, more indistinguishable from real life.
Currently its pretty obvious whether you are in a virtual world or not. But futurists are already predicting the virtual reality that is just about as real as our "reality". This automatically raises the question: Are we already in such a reality, created millennia ago? Have we merely forgotten that we are?

If we follow the "As Above, So Below" or "As in the Big, so in the Small" principle, us creating virtual realities may be nothing more than an "imitating the Gods".

Who are its Masterminds?

And if so: Who are the masterminds that created the simulation? Did we ourselves create it as a game that implies the necessity to forget that its a game, to forget that there is a superior reality-domain above? Or was it created by other beings, extraterrestrial or extradimensional and are we merely their pawns?

Why does nobody know where they are from?

A "dead giveaway" that we may very well be in a simulated reality is the fact that nobody actually knows where they are from or who they were before birth.

Amnesia.

Whats even funnier is that everyone walks around acting as if they knew who they are.

Its easy to see how we`d be unable to accept this reality (or game?) as "real" if we would not have this amnesia of "what was before". Likewise, nobody wants to watch a movie while constantly being reminded that "its only a movie" or constantly being distracted by what goes on in the theater room itself rather than the screen.



Would you behave differently if you knew for sure that you are living in a simulated reality? How could you tell for sure?

Ancient Game Manuals?

The idea of us living in a simulated reality is not new. Especially ancient buddhist doctrines and the ancient Vedas (India) make plenty of references to our reality being an Illusion, an artificial creation and even "a game". According to these doctrines, the act of "Incarnation into a Body" means leaving the real world and entering the illusionary world or the "secondary world".

To be continued in the next posts...

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Skyfloating]

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Skyfloating]




posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
continued from opening post...

What some scientists say about the Simulated Reality Theory. Excerpts:



Nick Bostrom's argument uses the premise that given sufficiently advanced technology, it is possible to simulate entire inhabited planets or even larger habitats or even entire universes as quantum simulations in time/space pockets, including all the people on them, on a computer, and that simulated people can be fully conscious, and are as much persons as non-simulated people.



Prof. Tipler identifies this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity with God. According to Prof. Tipler and Prof. David Deutsch, the implication of this theory for present-day humans is that this ultimate cosmic computer will essentially be able to resurrect everyone who has ever lived, by recreating all possible quantum brain states within the master simulation, somewhat reminiscent of the resurrection ideas of Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov. This would manifest as a simulated reality. From the perspective of the inhabitant, the Omega Point represents an infinite-duration afterlife, which could take any imaginable form due to its virtual nature



Some theorists[4][5] have argued that if the "consciousness-is-computation" version of computationalism and mathematical realism (also known as mathematical Platonism) are both true our consciousnesses must be inside a simulation. This argument states that a "Plato's heaven" or ultimate ensemble would contain every algorithm, including those which implement consciousness. Platonic simulation theories are also subsets of the multiverse theories and theories of everything.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I actually think you're correct. I don't know why really, just too many unexplainable events that have happened in my life. I have searched for years to find answers for, but I have never come across any.'



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Well, if one looks at how the human body is designed and how our "minds" work,it's fairly obvious that we have more in commo with a computer than we'd like to admit. Of course, most of this is philosophical, but I do believe there is some truth to it.

Honestly, I view life as being much like "God's dream." Death is nothing more than our "mission" being completed. Once God's dream acheives what he chooses for us, we "die."



[edit on 17-1-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
It's certainly worth thinking about and inevitably ties the brain into Gordian Knots
What constitutes reality? What is the definition of reality? Who's reality? What constitutes simulation? What is the definition of simulation? The concept of 'life' is liable to change as AI evolves. It all becomes philosophy.

I've thought about it in the past and erred on the side of empiricism just so I can sleep at night. Solipsistically, a simulated reality can be plausible. That the 'I' is involved in simulated reality is supported by experiences of dreams and pscilocybe induced hallucinations. Reality is subjective to us all. Another example could be schizophrenics. They don't imagine voices, they hear them as clearly as if we are talking to each other. The voices are 'real'.

Skyfloating, you need your butt kicking for posting this type of question. I'm already wondering if there's any aspirin in the house. I'll leave it at that and read other responses.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
It's certainly worth thinking about and inevitably ties the brain into Gordian Knots
What constitutes reality? What is the definition of reality? Who's reality? What constitutes simulation? What is the definition of simulation? The concept of 'life' is liable to change as AI evolves. It all becomes philosophy.



The word "Reality" is derived from the Indo-European root of reg. Tellingly, so do words such as, "Ruler," both as in measuring instrument and the king.. So "Reality" is typically defined by those who "rule" over the masses.

Ironically, the word "Fantasy" is derived from the Indo-European root of Abha, which means "to bring to light."



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
A simulated universe seems likely, although I don't believe there's a "real" one at the top. More likely the original simulation created itself and it's all a big fractal now. Each simulation would share definitive similarities of the universe it's simulated in, hence fractal.

It sounds like a tall order, simulating the universe and all, but in the earlier stages it was probably simpler and therefore easier to simulate. That also means creating itself in the first place probably wasn't that hard.

Imagine many simulated universes... connected by ladders. I wonder if black holes are these connections.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
The fact is, and most people don't come to this realization, is that everything we experience is a simulation of reality, not reality itself.

Our brains take nerve signals transmitted by our various "senses" (eyes, skin, ears, nose, tongue) and construct a simulation of the world around us. The screen you are "seeing" right now is something that your brain is creating based off the input from your optical system. We trust the information our eyes are sending us and (more importantly) the simulation of the screen our brain is constructing.

But sometimes we don't trust the simulation...

We can test this with optical illusions (the simulator makes mistakes), communication breakdowns (the brain reassembles auditory information incorrectly, or the voice system outputs incorrect information), and other various situations. We can also observe other humans whose simulators don't function properly, like schizophrenics for example, who hear and see things that aren't "really" there.

However, for the most part, "normal" people can trust the simulation as being real. The simulator is so good at reconstructing the outside world that we call that simulation "reality".

But I understand that what you are suggesting is perhaps this "outer reality" is in fact not "real" itself, or that it isn't what it appears to be.

The only way to find out is with science.



[edit on 17-1-2009 by harrytuttle]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 



The word "Reality" is derived from the Indo-European root of reg. Tellingly, so do words such as, "Ruler," both as in measuring instrument and the king.. So "Reality" is typically defined by those who "rule" over the masses.


Thanks. I didn't know the root origins of the word. I'm a firm believer in the idea of interpellation. The origins of the word reinforce that belief. A dominant ideology dictates society's interpretation of reality based on it's own definition. The dominant ideology would naturally feature a figurehead; thus 'ruler.'



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
We can also observe other humans whose simulators don't function properly, like schizophrenics for example, who hear and see things that aren't "really" there.



Well, those peole are only deemed "insane" because they speak of that which the powers that be wishes to keep in the dark... You are deemed "insane" if you believe that there are things which the "rulers" claim are not real. As I stated previously, the "rulers" are generally the ones who define "reality."

[edit on 17-1-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

The word "Reality" is derived from the Indo-European root of reg. Tellingly, so do words such as, "Ruler," both as in measuring instrument and the king.. So "Reality" is typically defined by those who "rule" over the masses.

Ironically, the word "Fantasy" is derived from the Indo-European root of Abha, which means "to bring to light."


You guys have provided some really kick-ass responses. This one being especially interesting.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Well, those peole are only deemed "insane" because they speak of that which the powers that be wishes to keep in the dark... You are deemed "insane" if you believe that there are things which the "rulers" claim are not real. As I stated previously, the "rulers" are generally the ones who define "reality."


Well, yes and no. "Insane" is actually not a clinical term, it's a legal term. Our "rulers" have realized that since they can't deem some perfectly healthy person as "clinically" insane, they can call them legally insane and have them locked up in a mental ward even if the person NEVER did anything illegal. It's a rare method used most recently demonstrated in that latest Angelina Jolie movie "Changeling".

But this "insane" legal term backfired, so now murderers (who aren't mentally ill) only have to "prove" they are "legally insane" to avoid the death sentence.

That being said, there are in fact people with mental illnesses. We can use various methods to record a schizophrenic alone in a room having conversations with people who are simply not there
.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
A simulated universe seems likely, although I don't believe there's a "real" one at the top. More likely the original simulation created itself and it's all a big fractal now. Each simulation would share definitive similarities of the universe it's simulated in, hence fractal.



This might indicate that all secondary universes have qualities and characteristics of the original universe.

I often get the idea that what us humans create "in the small" is an imitation of what the original architects have created.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Questions to ALL:

Ever look out of an airplane window, down at our planet...what does it all remind you of?

Would you change your behavior if you knew everything is simulated?

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Somewhat related: Universe a Hologram

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The words "reality" and "universe" are both very difficult to define.

For example, as I mentioned above, most people ascribe the word "reality" to what they experience. But as con-artists and magicians know, what you experience isn't always "reality". Some describe reality as everything that is, regardless of whether you observe it or not. In that sense, the OP is asking the WRONG question because if our world (or universe) is a simulation, then the word "reality" would include that larger machine (or whatever) which is creating the world around us AND the place that larger machine exists in.

And this is where the term "universe" is also slippery. "Universe" is supposed to mean absolutely everything. Now some are claiming there is a "multiverse" with parallel universes, etc. But in the true sense of the word, that is the wrong way of describing it. The "multiverse" would have to exist inside the larger Universe, no matter how many parallel "multiverses" exist.

What really happens is that we are just discovering more parts of the Universe, not that there is anything larger than it, because that's impossible. If there is anything "larger" than what we currently observe, then that "larger" part is also just more of the Universe.

So, the words "reality" and "universe" are based on ancient, simple concepts, but they don't always mean the same thing to all people.

But if reality is meant to mean everything, then it is synonymous with Universe.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Thank you, Sky



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 
Please don't be too quick to dismiss mental illness. It's well documented that totalitarian States have used it to remove dissidents. Despite this, mental illness is real. Schizophrenia is an unpleasant and disturbing condition for the sufferer and their family and friends.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
If this is virtual reality it is on a changeable molecular basis and we are trapped inside it until our passing. So even so, it is still as real as well reality. We can manipulate the elements within our reality, and also our own body composed of these same elements will at some point cease to function as a living machine, and return to the original elements it was composed of.

So the big question is, if this is true, then why are we subject to this so very real/unreal reality?

And as you said Skyfloating, who were we before this embodiment.

And what did we do for the Creator to encase our consciousness inside these bodies that breakdown over time.

I don't know if too many people who are not Christians know this, but God says He knew us even before we were born.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Yes we do,light is the information and our brain the decoder.Much like a programmng language is decoded by the cpu and gpu for computers.As for insane people,yes they are not sane,the voices images they hear imo are not reality,just a numbers game.Stick 300 million what we call sane people in a room,and one insane man who hears voices,he will be the only one who hears it,you could repeat that and it would be consistent which imo seals the deal and shows it is not a process of analyzing information from outside but all inside his head.





top topics
 
65
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join