[deleted]
Once you understand that humans always compare the way the world really works to the most advanced piece of technology at their time, you’ll realize the simulation theory is just the newest edition of that phenomenon
[deleted]
Submitted 4 months ago by Mander@lemmy.world to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Comments
Rhyfel@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Mander@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Except this notion has actually existed since 500 BCE and been repeatedly referenced through mankind’s history. The simulation is synonymous with the concept of the Maya in the Upanishads, part of the sacred texts of Hinduism. This concept of reality being an illusion is also referenced in Buddhism, and in ancient Greece in Plato’s allegory of the cave. Jacobo Grinberg also referenced it in his work and Syntergic theory, which predates Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis.
Rhyfel@lemmy.world 4 months ago
The word simulation is not synonymous with illusion. Saying that the illusion in the Upanishads or Hinduism is the same as a simulation is a fundamental misunderstanding of what those texts were trying to convey about the nature of reality. And in Buddhism the “illusion” isn’t actually an illusion, it’s the falsehood of your own perception. These concepts sound similar on the surface but an actual study of any of these religions will reveal that they are not describing a simulation at all. As for Plato’s allegory, it is similar to the Buddhist concept, it’s most simple form being that you cannot trust your senses without the proper proof and reasoning to back them up. Plato was stressing the importance of a scientific and concrete understanding of the world instead of blind faith in what you see.
And just as you see from reading all of these, the reality of these simulation theories is that they rely on translations and falsehoods of ancient texts without the true context behind them. In Hinduism, reality is presented as an illusion because we are all part of the greatest God made to experience itself, and there really is no difference between us and any other substance. In buddhism the illusion is the falsehoods you’ve built up in your mind about the understanding of yourself and everything around you, meant to encourage self regulation and reflection so that you are not consumed by those falsehoods, and in Plato’s work it is a warning about existing outside of the pursuit of true scientific knowledge and measurement. Your theory dismisses all of these deeper readings in favor of trying to tie concepts together that could be misrepresented as the matrix.
radix@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’ll admit, I only made it through part B. This is where you think that because you are the only one to have this thought, it must be a simulation. It doesn’t actually mean that, but that’s irrelevant anyway because you aren’t: The Anthropic Principle (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) is a well-known part of cosmology and philosophy.
Living at only one point in time doesn’t have any greater meaning. Flip this the other way: imagine you have a minimal amount of hand-eye coordination, and you can hit a dart board, but not enough to hit a specific number. So you throw a dart and hit a 3. The chances of that are 1/20, and the chances you hit the very specific spot on that 3 is astronomically smaller. That doesn’t mean it’s special, it’s just where you hit.
Your observations and experiences aren’t meaningful because they’re planned, they’re meaningful because they’re yours, and you couldn’t have them at any other time.
Mander@lemmy.world 4 months ago
First off thank you for responding logically. The forbidden equation differs from the dartboard paradox in one key way, and it’s that there’s a great significance to where the dart had landed. It didn’t just land anywhere on that dartboard, it landed in the one exact spot where you have consciousness, and everywhere else on that dartboard you do not have consciousness, which is a great significance to you obviously. And really “you” is all we can truly consider here, as anything outside of “I think therefore I am” can be questioned, meaning we don’t truly know if anyone else actually exists. It’s important to make that distinction and separation- that we shouldn’t put so much faith into what can be observed with our 5 senses. Once one considers this could be the simulation Bostrom says it is, or the illusion of Maya as referenced by Hinduism and Buddhism, or the shadows in Plato’s cave allegory, or that they are all one and the same, then instead of a dartboard paradox, the forbidden equation instead serves as a strong indication that this is the truth. Instead of being an extremely improbable anomaly, it now becomes the only sure indication that death does not mean what this reality tells you it means.
It’s really not as crazy as it may first sound. All this is really saying is that time is not linear, which though we perceive it that way, we already are at least partially acknowledging via Einstein’s theory of relativity. I’m suggesting there exists a dimension outside of this one in which time works differently. If time can move in all directions, or is eternal in that dimension, and our consciousness draws from that dimension, then that both solves the forbidden equation and provides an answer as to how our consciousness can continue to exist.
kbal@fedia.io 4 months ago
Youtube videos do not belong here.
Mander@lemmy.world 4 months ago
My bad, new here and I only included it to prevent a substantially larger wall of text. I hope that understandable
kbal@fedia.io 4 months ago
Don't worry about it, other than being in the wrong spot it looks like a fine post to me. I'm not sure where, exactly, would've been better — I only subscribe to relatively few lemmy communities.
Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
I 100% believe that we live in a simulation. I also 100% do not fucking care. Literally nothing I can do to change that. If there is a simulation capable of rendering the entirety of existence in the way that it does, then my gay ass isn’t going to change anything Besides, food still tastes good and dick still feels nice. Don’t care if it is simulated or not. Although I do believe that it is.
Mander@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I know it can come across that way, but I’m not trying to be some egotistical shmuck. I just thought of something that clearly can qualifies as strong logic against the notion of eternal death, and am wanting to discuss it openly. Are you refuting the logic of the argument? I would think as a believer in the simulation you would want to consider this with an open mind.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 months ago
The video makes no sense. It starts with an interesting idea (our observations are limited) and jumps to “therefore, we can’t assume death is eternal” out of nowhere.
And all the clips are kinda AI sloppy. I mean, the video might not be autogenerated, but that and the clarity/consistency of the speaker + new account is very sus.
Mander@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Appreciate the feedback, perhaps I make that jump with too much assumption. The logic behind it is as follows: if the laws of our reality as we perceive it are telling us that the odds are nearly infinite to one that our consciousness should be in a state of non-existence, why do we believe that to be true? Especially when we consider that it is certainly logically possible for reality to be an illusion, and that there’s considerable evidence that is such (the probability argument of Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis, Dr S James Gates discovery of computer code with the equations of supersymmetry physics, and the double slit experiment, etc). We need to make the distinction between the logic of the notion “I think therefore I am” and the empirical observations of the reality around us. That’s why I use the example of loading sentient artificial intelligence into a video game world. They can create a science to explain the logic of that, but none of that logic applies to the truth of their existence.
MrSmiley@lemmy.zip 4 months ago
“If the laws of our reality as we perceive it are telling us that the odds are nearly infinite to one that our consciousness should be in a state of non-existence, why do we believe that to be true?”
“We need to make the distinction between the logic of the notion ‘I think therefore I am’ and the empirical observations of the reality around us.”
“Especially when we consider that it is certainly logically possible for reality to be an illusion…”
“…considerable evidence that is such (the probability argument of Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis, Dr. S. James Gates’ discovery of computer code in the equations of supersymmetry physics, and the double slit experiment, etc).”
Bostram’s Simulation Hypothesis is a philosophical thought experiment, not empirical evidence, Dr. Gates’ work involves mathematical structures in physics, not literal “computer code” proving a simulation and the double slit experiment demonstrates quantum behavior, not that reality is an illusion.
“That’s why I use the example of loading sentient artificial intelligence into a video game world. They can create a science to explain the logic of that, but none of that logic applies to the truth of their existence.”
Conflating Epistemology and Ontology
“The logic behind it is as follows: if the laws of our reality as we perceive it are telling us that the odds are nearly infinite to one that our consciousness should be in a state of non-existence…”
brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 months ago
our consciousness should be in a state of non-existence
Sounds like you’re speaking of the Fermi Paradox, and some related things.
But just because the existence of our consciousness is improbable doesn’t mean you can conclude that it’s literally impossible.
You also seem to be connecting a lot of ideas under the assumption that a human ‘point of view’ is necessarily unique… I think this article touches on a lot of your ideas: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
And, indeed, the bias of a human-centric viewpoint is a huge issue in science and an ongoing point of debate, as seen above.
YoFrodo@lemmy.world 4 months ago
No
www.popularmechanics.com/…/not-in-a-simulation/
This recently publicized study provides support that we are not living in a simulation.\
Also the idea that a shower thought you had 15 years ago that developed into a hypothesis is now somehow ‘concrete proof that we live in a simulation’ is pretty silly on its own.
Mander@lemmy.world 4 months ago
There is a critical flaw with this study though. Why would we assume the math of our reality reflects that of the dimension outside? Also how can you prove that something is not algorithmic? Alan Watts deemed this reality to be a dream, and Hinduism and Buddhism both make reference to the Maya which is the illusion of reality, so let’s use the term simulation loosely here. In this context it is simply to say that this reality is not base reality, and if that’s the case how can one possibly explain the way base reality works using the laws of a created one?
CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Agreed. However the linked article has the same problem with unprovable assumptions. At least in the way they described it to this amateur. The thing that stuck out to me the most was their assertion that everything must be algorithmic in nature. I would say, as someone living in the supposed simulation, it is impossible to determine something we’ve seen or measured is NOT algorithmic in nature, because we have no access to the algorithms.
But yeah… this ain’t a showerhought.
Mander@lemmy.world 4 months ago
“because we have no access to the algorithms.” Exactly this
Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
You say that you’ve found concrete proof. But where is the proof? Where is your evidence? Is your theory even falsifiable? In the absense of proof, it seems all we can fall back on is Hitchens’ Razor: what can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.