It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Are we in fact living in a simulation? This is the question postulated, wrestled with, and ultimately argued for through archival footage, compelling interviews with real people shrouded in digital avatars, and a collection of cases from some of our most iconoclastic figures in contemporary culture.
Philip K. Dicks belief that we were living in a Digitally created, artificial world sounded like madness in 1977.
But then in 1999 THE MATRIX introduced SIMULATION THEORY to the wider world.
Panpsychism holds that the universe is a web of consciousness – an empty stage in which everything that exists has somehow come into being in order to act out the great drama of life. Panpsychism may soon be replaced by Panconsciousness, if a new paper written by a team of scientists from the Los Angeles-based Quantum Gravity Research Theoretical Physics Institute passes academic, peer-reviewed muster.
This will mean mankind’s whole conception of who we are and how we got here, will take a quantum leap forward. The study is entitled The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics . To say it is ground-breaking is an understatement. In simple terms, it proposes that our physical universe consists of what is called a “ strange loop.”
That body is nothing less than the physical universe. If that alone is not enough, the theory utilizes advanced ideas about quantum mechanics to speculate that our universe is only one of many possible universes, all of which are created by “Mind” itself.
The Matrix is the society we live in. It is this system in which we are so completely dependent upon. Grocery stores, the 9-5 job, the materialistic things we spend that 9-5 cash we earn on. It is the way we live which feeds the system. Our dependecy only feeds the machine. Self sufficiency is the enemy of the system.."
originally posted by: Proto88
I think the Simulation Theory has some merit, but to say it all a big illusion(it is though), or a video game for bored aliens is just simply horrifying for a number reasons.
It might help conceptualize some dynamics of the grand illusion and who knows, make a holodeck too, an humanity will finally be a vegetable.
In Gnostics, it wasn't at all uncommon to think that the material world was inherently Evil, since it came from the Demi'urge', or God from the O.T eventually. Sugars pills are one thing, but Solphism an Matter, is a completely different matter.
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: PillarOfFire
I was reading this:
The Mirror and The Checkerboard – The Aletheon – Adi Da Samraj – Beezone Library
And then saw your thread.
I would be interested in any thoughts.
The entire “world” of apparently “objective” reality is a mirrored (or reflected) thing. What is its Source? What is its Source-Condition, or “Root”-Condition?
There are scientists right now who are working on experiments to answer the question - are we living in a simulation? This future science short video documentary breaks down and explains the simulation theory. Along with why people such as Elon Musk believe in the theory, and is even funding work in the area. We also take a look at the math behind the simulation argument, showing the probability that we are living in a digital world.
Imagine dying, but you wake up in a futuristic arcade room and your friends next to you says “wow, a new record”
What if when we die we wake up from this simulation, and that's when our real existence begins?
Everybody gangsta until someone figure out how to go in creative mode.
When I was a kid, I used to see myself as the only real person in the world, and other people were like NPCs to me, even my family
No one cc ever asks what the simulation is, or Who's Running It!
The simulation argument
In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a trilemma that he called "the simulation argument". Despite the name, Bostrom's "simulation argument" does not directly argue that humans live in a simulation; instead, Bostrom's trilemma argues that one of three unlikely-seeming propositions is almost certainly true:
"The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero", or
"The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their evolutionary history, or variations thereof, is very close to zero", or
"The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one."
Nick Bostrom's premise:
Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.
Nick Bostrom's conclusion:
It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones.
Therefore, if we don't think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.
— Nick Bostrom, Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?, 2003