Spirituality & Becoming What We Aren’t.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

I'm open to the possibility that we are living in a simulated universe, does that require a spiritual belief? I don't believe it does.

I don't think so—although one could build a metaphysical foundation upon this mere idea and preach spiritual matters based on it. But if it remains a mere idea, not a foundation of thought, it will steer clear of becoming a part of religious motivation.

The fact that there is nothing that shows we live in a simulated reality is probably enough to restrain this idea from getting out of hand.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


The key here is the logical leap from "holographic reality" to 'simulated reality".

In all honesty, "simulated reality" may likely be the most possible....who knows. There is nothing more to support it than the Abrahamic God.....it just offers less comfort in that a simulated reality can intellectually become a "great big nothing".

In any event, there is some evidence for a holographic reality, both mathematical and experimental. For whatever that means.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by dominicus

 

Exactly. Here's a quote from the book Conversations With God which does liberty to the concept you speak of:

God does not reveal Godself to Godself [humans] from or through outward observation, but through inward experience. And when inward experience has revealed Godself, outward observation is not necessary. And if outward observation is necessary, inward experience is not possible.

The idiot who built his cottage industry on that crap claims that God literally uses his hand to write those books in longhand. I wouldn't consult a guy like that on much of anything, since he's either a liar or a mental case.

not saying this is how it is but a more advanced kind of CREATOR Creation group could...

(NaturalNews) There's a lot of buzz in the news about a new scientific study that statistically supports the idea that our known universe is actually a grand computer simulation. This is mainstream science, and the idea isn't a whacky as you might first suppose. I've actually written about this several times in articles about consciousness and the nature of reality. This news, by the way, also supports the idea of a Creator who brought this universe -- and everything in it -- into existence by design.

A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.


Here's what it means in layman's terms
Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.

Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.

Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.

Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?

Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."

The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I have yet to hear your argument against this:

Originally posted by HarryTZ

What is contradictory about it at all? The experience is joy. There is nothing 'deeper' in life (and existence) than joy. When you die, what will have mattered about your life? You will eventually forget it, and it will be as if it never happened at all. You say it is 'self-seeking'. What else do you have, but yourself? All experience is experience that you have, utterly alone. You cannot not be 'self-seeking', because all you have is is yourself. The only reason you ever do anything is because it means something to you. This is unavoidable, no matter how you look at it. Spirituality is true selfishness.

its the power source that is intriguing

reply to post by NorEaster


I'm glad you can make assumptions without any real prior knowledge about the subject.

It's not about *how* the man got the information, anyway. It's about the information itself. Sheesh.

Also, you seem not to understand the nature of the God that he speaks of. He's not some separate entity ffloating around watching everything we do -- God is us. Each and every being has the consciousness of the entirety of God. That's simply what consciousness is.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
not saying this is how it is but a more advanced kind of CREATOR Creation group could...

(NaturalNews) There's a lot of buzz in the news about a new scientific study that statistically supports the idea that our known universe is actually a grand computer simulation. This is mainstream science, and the idea isn't a whacky as you might first suppose. I've actually written about this several times in articles about consciousness and the nature of reality. This news, by the way, also supports the idea of a Creator who brought this universe -- and everything in it -- into existence by design.

A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.


Here's what it means in layman's terms
Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.

Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.

Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.

Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?

Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."

The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

Actually, what this proves is that human computer programmers use logic basics in their own programs that are similar to the logic basics that naturally emerge as a default ramification of contextual confluence, residual information fact sets, cause-effect progressive development, and the increasing limitations on plausible response as time goes by within a contextual reality confine. And why wouldn't they employ those same basics? They work.

Those idiots in the article just have the whole thing 180 degrees turned around and don't realize it.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Actually, what this proves is that human computer programmers use logic basics in their own programs that are similar to the logic basics that naturally emerge as a default ramification of contextual confluence, residual information fact sets, cause-effect progressive development, and the increasing limitations on plausible response as time goes by within a contextual reality confine. And why wouldn't they employ those same basics? They work.

Those idiots in the article just have the whole thing 180 degrees turned around and don't realize it.

edit on 5/26/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

reply to post by NorEaster


so its like learning from the who we ARE

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

The key here is the logical leap from "holographic reality" to 'simulated reality".

In all honesty, "simulated reality" may likely be the most possible....who knows. There is nothing more to support it than the Abrahamic God.....it just offers less comfort in that a simulated reality can intellectually become a "great big nothing".

In any event, there is some evidence for a holographic reality, both mathematical and experimental. For whatever that means.

But it begs the question—what is a holographic reality and a simulated reality? It's merely giving reality a different name. Simulations exist on human computers, requires human programming, requires human input, and requires human-based logical computation. Without reality, there would be no reality to simulate, no reality to program, no data to input.

It's like saying a fish is a submarine because they both appear to swim.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13

Originally posted by NorEaster

Actually, what this proves is that human computer programmers use logic basics in their own programs that are similar to the logic basics that naturally emerge as a default ramification of contextual confluence, residual information fact sets, cause-effect progressive development, and the increasing limitations on plausible response as time goes by within a contextual reality confine. And why wouldn't they employ those same basics? They work.

Those idiots in the article just have the whole thing 180 degrees turned around and don't realize it.

edit on 5/26/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

reply to post by NorEaster

 

so its like learning from the who we ARE

We're mimicking the way that reality is structured. We do this all the time, and always have. Especially when it comes to technology. We mimic the way our own limbs work in our machines, mimic the way that we procreate with hydraulic and pneumatic systems, as well as all coupling devices and even refer to the two connecting parts as "male" and "female". This isn't anything new or controversial.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I'm glad you can make assumptions without any real prior knowledge about the subject.

It's not about *how* the man got the information, anyway. It's about the information itself. Sheesh.

Also, you seem not to understand the nature of the God that he speaks of. He's not some separate entity ffloating around watching everything we do -- God is us. Each and every being has the consciousness of the entirety of God. That's simply what consciousness is.

edit on 26-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)

I've read the books, and if that's God, then God's an idiot. He also repeats himself - word for word - in that first book that He wrote. In fact, He sucks as a writer and as a thinker.

Oh, and consciousness is the active and aware sense of self. Your statement concerning consciousness makes no sense. If that's also God, then I feel sorry for Him.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

The fact that there is nothing that shows we live in a simulated reality is probably enough to restrain this idea from getting out of hand.

Well you would say that, living in such a complex simulation that seems so real. Nick Bostrom from Oxford University makes a very convincing argument for a possibility of living in an ancestor simulation.

The fact that there is nothing that proves a god hasn't restrained that idea from getting out of hand.

reply to post by HarryTZ

What is contradictory about it at all? The experience is joy. There is nothing 'deeper' in life (and existence) than joy. When you die, what will have mattered about your life? You will eventually forget it, and it will be as if it never happened at all. You say it is 'self-seeking'. What else do you have, but yourself? All experience is experience that you have, utterly alone. You cannot not be 'self-seeking', because all you have is is yourself. The only reason you ever do anything is because it means something to you. This is unavoidable, no matter how you look at it. Spirituality is true selfishness.

It was contradictory because you said, using your thoughts, that thinking was "useless", "self-seeking", "nostalgia" thereby making your thought, in your own mind, worthless and not worth a damn. How should I perceive your words if you call them useless? The very act of using thoughts to get your point across, despite your speaking ill of it, is contradictory.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Well...there is that school of thought that places impetus on the observer. And they may be right. If they are, then it could stand to reason that we create the reality we live within collectively.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Removed reply

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

The fact that there is nothing that shows we live in a simulated reality is probably enough to restrain this idea from getting out of hand.

Well you would say that, living in such a complex simulation that seems so real. Nick Bostrom from Oxford University makes a very convincing argument for a possibility of living in an ancestor simulation.

The fact that there is nothing that proves a god hasn't restrained that idea from getting out of hand.

Bostrom argues that at least one of the following statements is very likely to be true:

• Human civilization is unlikely to reach a level of technological maturity capable of producing simulated realities, or such simulations are physically impossible.
  
• A comparable civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will likely not produce a significant number of simulated realities, for any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
  
• Any entities with our general set of experiences are almost certainly living in a simulation.
  

I think this guy should run for public office. He's sure got a knack for not committing to having actually said anything at all.

reply to post by Visitor2012


I have no idea what they perceived. And made no claim of such (reread). I only claim that what they have experienced is the same s the rest of us: what their senses allowed them to perceive.

I know this to be true because you cannot perceive anything you cannot sense, or you would not be perceiving it.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Nick Bostrom from Oxford University makes a very convincing argument for a possibility of living in an ancestor simulation.

Key word here: "possibility". It is also possible, according to Descartes, that we are the playthings of an evil demon, or that we are brains in a vat. This is the mess pure reason leads us to. It requires extreme skepticism towards all evidence to the contrary in order to believe a word of it. It would argue that religions employ the same skepticism, or denial of thought.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

What is contradictory about it at all? The experience is joy. There is nothing 'deeper' in life (and existence) than joy. When you die, what will have mattered about your life? You will eventually forget it, and it will be as if it never happened at all. You say it is 'self-seeking'. What else do you have, but yourself? All experience is experience that you have, utterly alone. You cannot not be 'self-seeking', because all you have is is yourself. The only reason you ever do anything is because it means something to you. This is unavoidable, no matter how you look at it. Spirituality is true selfishness.

It was contradictory because you said, using your thoughts, that thinking was "useless", "self-seeking", "nostalgia" thereby making your thought, in your own mind, worthless and not worth a damn. How should I perceive your words if you call them useless? The very act of using thoughts to get your point across, despite your speaking ill of it, is contradictory.

Thoughts and words will not comfort you - they divide that which is whole - division is conflict.