It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do we live in a Simulated Reality?

page: 16
65
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In any case, what is the ultimate point? WHY would any intelligence create this incredibly complex deception? AND, what kind of beings could accomplish this feat???


To play.



Reminds me of something Bill Hicks said:

"Today a young man realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves."




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
if men did not create mental/virtual constructs (realities) like religion
then we would be in a real-world Darwinian/survival-of-the-fit dimension...

Aspiring to higher levels of thought, living, interaction are some of the results of all these
virtual realities (think diplomacy, religion, health-services, et al)
that men have found were 'good' & then built upon and incorporated into our civilization....

call it unreal or virtual or fictional...
but santa claus, easter bunny, tooth-fairy, messiah, savior, benefactor, religion, buddhist ideaology.....all are feel-good constructs that diverge from the dog-eat-dog reality of the beastal/animalistic 'man'

and something to set-us-aprart & aspire to...
codes of conduct - become realities...
even If made-up & tenuious 'grasps' at moral & mental evolution...

thanks
_________________________________________________________
Add:

What i see/ fear happening... is a great 'backlash',

seeing as how the Lawyers, Politicians, Business-men & tycoons have created hard to understand Abstract worlds that operate aside the common man's simulated - or - virtual worlds of work & love & moralistic 'character'...

will any 'stimulus plan' get directed into building Guillotines in every
city, town, village, & hamlet in the global community... to cleanse the society of these unrepenting, self-assuming Aristocrats ?




[edit on 18-4-2009 by St Udio]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Personally, I can view reality as a form of language that is spoken. It's that perspective, seeing reality as a composite of language which opens up simulation theory quite nicely for me.

Obviously, the link between dreams and reality share some very common bonds. They both contain us, we are the consciousness observing both reality and our dreams.

Within this, our physical reality is composed of a myriad of cells, molecules, atoms and fields reaching the depths of Quantum Mechanics.

And our dreams composed of thought, taking on the shape and form of the dream reality.

Since dreams are thoughts, and inherently, a form of language of which we dream in.

In simulation theory, what creates a dream for us during those moments.

And if what we dream, one day later comes true, how does this simulation theory apply to that nature of dreaming?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   
SkY floating....

Why are you posting things im trying to figure out?

get out of my mind!!

i just posted something yesterday on reality, yet i come here, you have it laid out nice and neat.... THANKYOU!

Reality, is perception, reality is a view on how YOU as an INDIVIDUAL interpret it....

Its all about perception... perception makes YOUR reality....



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
We dont live in a simutalted reality..

why? well you cant simulate something you dont understand for a start.,.

reality is not simulated is a mess ! why is it a mess? lack of understanding of the very nature of life.. to many people look outside and inside when infact the answer is alot more simple than you think..


we have life.. seflrepictatin.. babies trees whatever dont matter, that relates to the connection. interaction of atoms.. and god

what is god? the unknown. what is a question? unknown what is infinity ? the result of the question

Life is here for a reason and its not simulated.. "for if it was then we are infact not here and life means nothing" when infact that is an elogical statement for yout o be here to ask the question would infact debunk your own question as you are the one asking if its a simulation in the first place

you see ITS VERY VERY REAL getting you head round the meaningless aspect of your own ego is the human races downfall

hope that helps



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   


f men did not create mental/virtual constructs (realities) like religion then we would be in a real-world Darwinian/survival-of-the-fit dimension...



This statement means a lot more than you think

look at it close

IF MEN ... that is called agrogance , by virtue of your own self importance.. and it lacks a lot..

If men! no not men sir LIFE men/women ARE NOT LIFE.. do not put you essance in the same box as your phsyical body this is a BIG mistake

Your mind has no shape has no end has no start.. your body on the other hand has a start and an end

the law of man stops at your skin! the start is an infinity that dwels deep inside that head of yours.. and where it does sit is the very thing you look up at

the cosmos = ur thoughts.. think im crazy? mm well you are here i think your crazy not to notice it.. but then again who is to say im right? who is to say im wrong?

the fact is our life "our pressance" has a meaning.. its pointless if you relate it to any human aspect of current day thinking other than repoduction

we are here to keep out little universe going THAT is our only job..

and its NOT a simulated reality... sorry sky but your argument is flawed based on the word "simulated".. life does not infact simulate itself it does tho infact "self replicate"

maybe your are abit confused



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
sorry sky but your argument is flawed based on the word "simulated".. life does not infact simulate itself it does tho infact "self replicate"

maybe your are abit confused



Skyfloating's speculations are not flawed - they are speculations based upon probabilities that have been determined by others far more qualified than all of us to make such determinations.

You say life doesn't simulate itself.....

We simulate ecosystems and biospheres all the time with the use of computers.

We even simulate genetic changes, and nuclear explosions. We have simulations for most things - most are quite accurate when the proper data is inputted.

As we are "life" capable of simulating other life and making accurate predictions based on those simulations; your statement to the contrary is incorrect.


Edit: You are correct when you state that life does self-replicate - but that is obvious and is common knowledge.

Computer viruses also self-replicate - their ecosystem is in cyberspace; their habitat is hardware. Humans made these viruses, which self-replicate and evolve. (These viruses are not 'simulations'; they have no worldly counterpart, despite the name they are ascribed.)

Could computer viruses be considered a form of life?
- they do have a habitat, they self-replicate, evolve, share data with other incarnations of themselves, they use logic systems, they thrive within certain niches. That they are artificial in origin does not negate these properties - properties which are associated with lifeforms...


(Even real-world lifeforms are based upon a system of genetic coding that has been programmed to facilitate replication, functionality and evolution within this Environment. I would like to see an example of the spontaneous Genesis of a computer virus as it would make an interesting analogue to the theorized terrestrial version of the event...)

Cheers!



[edit on 19-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


no please dont get me wrong i understand your aruguement

a simulation is a reinactement of something that was what? life?

life or our reality is not a simulation.. in order for that to be true would require a modele and a hypotherisis and paramaters

How can you have a simulations based on nothing? nothing??

do you know who we got here or how life was made? NO so that means the hypothersis of simulations is flawed

or what is it you are simulating?? ?

understand the question not the answer kiddo
~

alot smarter than my grammer and spellings



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
This theory answers ALL the problems of physics, metaphysics, cosmology, philosophy, ontology, etc.

It's an ego-centric idea to believe that THIS reality is objective and fundamental. Period. Plus how do you know what's real? All you know is your small slice of the world called your experiece. To think humans are the center of the universe, or other universes, is flawed and extremely limiting.



[edit on 19-4-2009 by tobiascore]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


no please dont get me wrong i understand your aruguement


"Argument"?

I'm not making any argument, therefore you could not possibly understand my nonexistent 'argument'..

I am here to speculate and discuss - I have drawn no conclusions and I make no argument towards any position in this discussion.

*Are you here to argue?

I would like to speculate and discuss - that is why I am here and not in the debate forum, which exists for that purpose.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


sorry but i was not arguing, i was making a point in order for it not to become one.. you questioned me so i gave my answer

If you are spectulating then you will inherently will take a side
you said the word simulation was not flawed and i pointed out "in my opinion" it was.

no argument just points of view



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


"Simulated" in this sense means fake, appearance or a movie-stage-like set-up without depth, without being the prime absolute.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Just started reading a book about the same time as this thread and it seemed a bit serendipitous. The book is by Tom Dekker entitled Black Red White. It's about a guy who's living in 2 separate realities. Each seems equally real and he can't figure out which one is "real" and which one is a dream. Both realities say the other one is the dream.

Equally disturbing is that in one reality a DNA-altering, virus based vaccine mutates to become an airborne killer that wipes out billions of people in 3 weeks time sometime in the early part of the 21st century.

The book explores the same questions and issues raised in this thread. How would you know if what you thought was real was a "real" reality? And how could you depend on the rules or science that explains a particular reality to provide you with the tools necessary to prove or disprove your theory.

I don't know anything about computer games but does the game tell you it's just a simulation?



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


There was a great post about this by another person i think its badmedia? or someone "sorry if its not you badmedia"

but he was saying that life is like a film real of some kind ill try find were it was.. kinda on the same lines as your thinking.

But its not a simulation - its word i have a problem with not the theory



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
Just started reading a book about the same time as this thread and it seemed a bit serendipitous. The book is by Tom Dekker entitled Black Red White. It's about a guy who's living in 2 separate realities. Each seems equally real and he can't figure out which one is "real" and which one is a dream. Both realities say the other one is the dream.


LOL.... Yes you are onto it... but it is very easy to distinguish, which experience is which.

As all things in existence, exist in pairs...

There are two experiences of different Worlds or Programs...

It all has to do with "Inners" and "Outers"...

The Experience and the Observer of that Experience...

When you understand the make up, of what I refer to as the Matrix, we find (Nothing to do with good or bad), We find an "Upper World" and a "Lower World" or Programs...

The "Upper Programs" represent the "Outer World" and the "Lower World" the "Inner" in some cases.

While in other programs, we find frames of squares, that are Registers and appear in a form, similar to in appearance of the Odeum of Herodes Atticus, or the Theatre of Dionysus in Athens.

In other Words formed in Layers similar to the seating around the stage.

These appear sometimes as Rings of Octagons, while at other times, appear as in the form of a Square Frame, made of squares.

Each set in the form of a frame inside one another.

These produce like a square theatre, instead of a round or semicircular structure.

In each case the Registers are arranged in sets, i.e. an "Inner" Set and an "Outer" Set.

And in other cases Hexagonal Registers are used, sometimes in a similar fashion...

In reality, we look into our Universe from an "Outside" Origin through the Eyes and experience this universe through the human form as well.

Our Consciousness, is on One face of a Disc, while the Holographic Universe is manifested on the other Face of the Disc.


The book explores the same questions and issues raised in this thread. How would you know if what you thought was real was a "real" reality? And how could you depend on the rules or science that explains a particular reality to provide you with the tools necessary to prove or disprove your theory.


Well put....

This is exactly my point... How do we apply tests to this???

I know the Outer Program experience, is similar to this world in some ways, and just like this world, is experienced in another (From another Outer again).

Some may ask but where does its Limits Lay???

The limits are only determined by the knowledge of its Self, as all has been the result of the manipulation of its on Concepts so size has nothing at all to do with its limits.

Size is only of reality when 2 or more entities exist...

If all is contained conceptually how does size come into it?

It doesn't! LOL..,..

How do you measure the size of a "Conceptual Manifestation", other than being able to compare two or more entities within a single Concept (World), and not with anything outside that Single Concept (world).

The Universe we see is as endless as a never ending story as it is purely Conceptual in Nature.

It is only the Laws or Rules, and boundaries, within the Program, that allows us to be lead into believing, that this is all real and the only reality... LOL..

But to understand its true make up, it (existence) is all only based on Concepts, both in its manifestation and workings in Consciousness, that has No Size or Shape.

So really this Universe appears within (Conceptually) something, that has No Size or Shape.

3D has been Created by something, that has self discovered and used that knowledge, to produce a huge program using geometry, to produce these illusions which appear as a Universe or World.

Please don't imagine I am underrating the make-up of the Universe we see, but rather I can appreciate the concepts of its simple foundation, (Conceptual Geometry) that manifests its self, in such wide and varied complexities...

But because this Program that produces the Illusion, seen as this Universe, is so well written, it causes us to believe all, is Real in this Illusion, rather than the true Reality, of our Consciousness and where it (Consciousness) really resides.


I don't know anything about computer games but does the game tell you it's just a simulation?


I agree with you on these statements....

Thanks for your letter...

I'll get back to you when I get a Chance...

Sorry I have Not read Sefir Yetzirah book/s.

Perhaps one day I may get around to it... Sounds Interesting though by what you said..



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Well, I believe that we live in a simulated life ... but we just cannot know who created it ... the whole universe could be a simulation, ... actually I think everything is a simulation ... life as a simulation ...

It is possible to make a device for us to live in a created world? Right now, NO! But I think it will be possible when we understand how our brain works, we could redicted our senses to a computer deivce, so we could live in a created reality... and that would be very possible with enought processing power that we could achive from quantum computing ...


but, this is all just speculation ... we cannot know and if the aliens doesnt know, we will never know how everything works ... maybe they know and they could share with us ... our civilization is just too young to advance in this matters ...


I think if we knew that we lived in a simulation reality, everything would change, people wouldnt care what the others think, they would do whatever they feel it will make them happy, so it WOULD be a caos ... and the simulation would loose its purpose



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Would you behave differently if you knew for sure that you are living in a simulated reality? How could you tell for sure?

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. 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".

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 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

www.Simulation-argument.com

www.simulism.org...

www.unmuseum.org...

As you can tell I am a huge believer in the theory that we are living in a simulated reality, I truly and honestly believe this.



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Maybe none of this is actually real, maybe none of us exist, maybe all of this is just a program running on a super computer ran by post-humans or an advanced alien civilization.

I'm a World of Warcraft fan, and I used to play the game constantly, but one of the quotes from a female human /silly makes me ponder. It's this: "Do you ever feel like you're not in charge of your own destiny, like, you're being controlled by an invisible hand?"

That makes me think. How do I know I'm not being controlled, and that all of this isn't some insane MMO played by advanced aliens who get entertainment out of all this, much like we get entertainment out of controlling a character in a game?

It's probably not the Matrix story of us being used as batteries. It's more likely that they just run this simulation to see how we interacted with each other, thousands or millions of years before them. They are literally looking at their ancestors. I'm sure someone somewhere, far above in the physical world is looking at this conversation and laughing at us mindless peons pondering if we're really in a simulated reality or not.

But what's interesting about the theory of living in a simulated reality, is that there's a chance there's an afterlife, that the creators took mercy on us and made some other program once we die, where we all go. Or maybe they were bastards and just made it happen like when you delete a file from your recycle bin, gone forever, non-existent. Did we ever make a afterlife for all the enemies you kill in World of Warcraft? No. Too much effort and they're so intellectually inferior to us that we don't care. Would they think the same? I personally hope not.

There's also a chance that this is all one massive MMO, sure, it's far-fetched, but I like thinking about it. I mean, does my character in World of Warcraft know he's being controlled? What if he thinks everything he does is on his free will, everything he says he just randomly thinks up, and when I log him off he's asleep or in a state of limbo? I mean someone could be making me type this, but the program is making me believe I'm actually typing this on my free will.

Another fun question: are our creators in the "physical world" REALLY in the real world or yet another simulated reality? Will we get to the point of running a simulated reality, a universe such as the Sims series, but much more evolved? Yes, actually, we will. Someday in the distant future we will have computers fast enough to run such a program, and we will be able to see our own little worlds, evolving, growing, and perhaps living long enough to make their own simulated reality. And then the process repeats.

Maybe our creators were nice enough to give us an afterlife. Free of pain, free of confusion, of course until we're taking up too much memory and they have to delete. There's no way to actually find out. For all we know, everything around us could be a projection our brain has created for us to cope with whatever reality we are really in.

Okay, believe it or not but listen, one day we will be able to create completely simulated realities. Does it have to be that day when we stop and ask ourselves "Hmm. This is oddly familiar. Feels like I've been here before." Personally, I don't think it should be like that. We're on the verge on a technological age beyond any other and very soon we will be able to create completely intelligent universes. Look at the GAMES we already have: Sims, Spore, Little Big Planet, and those are just games. Can you imagine when we can actually create entire digital planets and even universes, not for entertainment but for observation and what-if scenarios? Will no one ask before then if we're actually just living in such a simulation?

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 raises the question: Are we already in such a reality? Have we merely forgotten that we are?

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

Nobody actually knows where they are from or who they were before birth? It's 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".

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. Perhaps it's the same with reality. Perhaps our memories have been removed for our own enjoyment of the experience.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Cross-posting this from a similar thread
in hopes it touches upon the subject at hand.


Originally posted by MillionEyedMask
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 
...I have found that this is one of the most difficult ideas for people to grasp. The Big Bang did not occur at a point in space. It was the origin of space, as well as time.


Because it goes against every common, verifiable experience you've ever had. So no wonder people perceive it as implausible.


Here's whats bugging me with the current Big Bang theory:
The Universe, time and space came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago when something unimaginably small that held all the mass of the Universe exploded everywhere at once because everything that is something is inside it.

Before this there is no before, because time did not exist, and there is no something, anything, because 3d space did not exists until only after it went bang. Yes? So how can there even be an "it" (the source of the big bang) if it doesn't even exist until it explodes. It occupies no dimensions because there aren't any yet, it has no history because time is not time yet. Only thing it has is mass. One dimension.

Then ( well actually not then, because "then" does not yet exist ) Boom and taaa-daaa "I have exploded into Universe"

This sounds suspiciously like a religion. "That which has no beginning or end and which doesn't have a maker or reason for existence made the Universe and all living things." Hardly anyone can understand the concept upon anything they can verify on their own and only a handfull of people posses the math skills to mathematically prove the theory is correct. Everyone else has to take their word for it.

Apart from calling myself stupid just now, I do believe I am capable of at least some logical thinking and the entire theory seems wrong.

BUT... there's always a but.


But, on the other side, I can think of a place where existence comes into being from seemingly nothing and time does not exist before of after. And the bang only has one dimension before it bangs.

I've given this a lot of thought, but feel free to call me nuts at any time. The only place I can think of that fits the description is computer memory.

Think about it.

Until it is powered down, the only dimension it has is it's size, capacity, mass. Even that is indistinguishable until the CPU is powered up. There is no time, there is no space, there is only capacity.

Click - or Bang if you prefer.

The computer is powered up and memory is allocated almost instantly practically defying all laws of physics when viewed from the inside. Suddenly there IS.

Time start as the CPU begins to cycle in flops, but before that there was no time. Not if you're experiencing life from the inside of the machine.

Memory is a one dimensional gadget so dimensions appear to be created out of nothing, but only when memory is instructed to do so by the CPU. 3, 4, 5 dimensions... it doesn't matter how many. Ask any competent programmer and you'll be told that there is no limit to the number of dimensions. It's only one number in one line of code, but from the inside of the computer these numbers appear to be the Laws of Physics upon which the entire Universe is balanced.

I imagine the background radiation we hold so dear as proof of the Big Bang is only the empty regions of memory still being fed minuscule amounts of energy by the system.

Everything living inside computer memory would appear to be made of finely arranged energy. And the speed limitation would be the the speed of transfer of said energy i.e. the speed of light. But, the allocation of memory i.e. the expansion of the Universe, can and does happen much faster than that. There is no "outside the universe", because everything inside memory is a construct and can not exist outside memory. There is no outside for such a form.

So if the Big Bang theory is spot on, I'd be interest about who's SIM City, woops pardon, Sim Universe, we're inside and if it has a broadband connection to the interwebs.



Kind regards, M.



[edit on 30-4-2009 by Manawydan]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Deus Ex Machina 42
 

Excellent post.

Wouldn't the ultimate game be the one where you could project your entire consciousness into and play as if you were actually there? What would happen if the game was so bloody entertaining and addictive that you forgot you were actually playing a game and your consciousness (that's a long word to type over and over again, lets call it "soul" It's shorter ) just kept jumping from one character to another, death being the character selection screen.

Would it start to feel like real life after a while?

Kind regards, M.




top topics



 
65
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join