World Is A Simulation

[PureExp]

A snippet from my blog. Food for thought

The advent of virtual worlds generated via computers has rekindled an interest in theories that propose non-existence of a material world. These days the simulated worlds look as real as the real world, especially when high end hardware is employed. Total sensory immersion into a simulated world is not a fiction, it is inevitable. As we know, these extensive, rich and life like worlds on our screens are nothing but numbers. What makes us suspect that our everyday world is also nothing but numbers? There are many reasons. Quantum description of the matter immediately suggests that there are no actual entities, only values. In other words, the matter is just numbers.  Strangely, the physical universe satisfies many requirements of a simulated world. A short list of such requirements is as follows:

* Things are quantized, finite and limited.

* Processes are algorithmic, logical and mathematical.

* A VR appears out of nowhere, however it can evolve via evolutionary algorithms and can go from simple to complex.

* There is a limit on the "frame rate". In other words, things take time to happen and the effects appear after a delay. In the case of our world the speed of light is the limit.

* There would be some constants, some global fixed values, that appear for no obvious reason. E.g. there are physical constants like c or G or h that appear in many equations.

* Some phenomena would appear non-local. A program can modify two values together without simulating the mediating behaviour. So we have things like entanglement.

* Loading of processors can happen when there is a huge amount of data to be crunched. We see such effects near very large bodies, such as stars, where time slows down near their surface because there are too many particles to compute.

* Statistical nature. Some outcomes are predicted instead of being calculated exactly. This is faster but less accurate. So we have laws of thermodynamics, gas laws or fluid dynamics, probability distributions and uncertainty principle.

* Instances of entities may appear. If there are trillions of entities, a program can simply use instances of one model or a class to create those trillions. This saves enormous amount of memory and computing but the result is that all those trillions of entities are exact clones. We have electrons, protons and all such entities here, that are identical in every way.

* Strange phenomena may appear. Such as apparitions can appear out of nowhere requiring no cause, no matter and can disappear leaving no traces. Its the special effect equivalent.

* Strange effects like healing via intention or placebo effects can happen, as it would be possible to steer a program in desired direction if one can manipulate the inputs.

* Non-virtual (real) entities can assume discard-able virtual forms. Avatars in gamespeak. In physical world we have bodies - the avatars for non-physical players.

There are more similarities. There are experiments to prove the simulated nature of the universe, such as the famous double slit experiment and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. There are theories and proofs for the simulation hypotheses.  However, there are some ridiculous assumptions too. Once you say that the universe is simulated, there arises a need for a simulator, a computer and operators of that computer. So people imagine all sorts of things from aliens to future humans. It is perfectly possible but highly improbable. Plus there are big holes e.g. the presence of avatars, if the avatars are aliens or humans from future, they would know beyond any doubt that they are playing a game. The only possibility left is that we are just bots, dummy players, which is not anyone's experience as far as I know. Bots would mean no consciousness or subjective experiences. No amount of simulation would produce that.

So far only Thomas Campbell comes close to a satisfactory answer, which is - the consciousness itself is the computer, aka the simulator, of this universe. And since it is simulating the stuff out of itself, it is only natural that everyone experiences a consciousness behind oneself and everything else. This is my direct experience and also of many of you. This is the original claim of non-dual teachings, that are unchallenged since thousands of years.

Useful links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

http://www.my-big-toe.com/

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

http://www.theuniversesolved.com/evidence.htm

[Lumaza]

* Instances of entities may appear. If there are trillions of entities, a program can simply use instances of one model or a class to create those trillions. This saves enormous amount of memory and computing but the result is that all those trillions of entities are exact clones. We have electrons, protons and all such entities here, that are identical in every way.

Some of these Entities could also be the computer's "repair crew". I have always believed we are being "micromanaged". If that is true, then I am sure there is some "hands on" tweaking needed from time to time. Computer programs do have their flaws from time to time.
People report seeing "nuts and bolts" ships, but also some of these Entities that just seem to just appear and disappear, as if they are walking through a dimensional portal of some kind.

What I love about this practice of Astral Projection is that we are learning what "They" already know or should I say "relearning" what we already know too. Yet they are "Masters" at their craft. We are learning how to traverse other realities and the multiverse like they do and on some level they are the ones guiding us to do that.

From time to time I see things in people's posts that show me that they are being led to something greater. At the time they don't see it themselves. By "observing" here and other Astral related Forums, I can see who they are. I just wished they would see it earlier themselves. Then we could start combining our efforts and be able to discover and learn so much more.
One day perhaps!  

[Stillwater]

In other words, the matter is just numbers.

I think this is sort of a confusion of language. In some sense, the base constituents of the actual matter are pretty evasive; the further down we go, the more structure we see... so lacking any view at substance, we use numbers as representation. But this is very different from saying the matter IS numbers as its identity. It is sort of irresponsible to make that conclusion... more responsible would be to say that the ultimate nature of the material is not known.

We have electrons, protons and all such entities here, that are identical in every way.

This actually isn't true. Every proton and neutron is slightly different. The mass of a nuclear particle changes with the atomic number of of the element in question. This is why it is fairly trivial to perform a chemical reaction, but nuclear reactions require massive shifts of energy inward or outward. The Protons of Helium are a hair smaller than the ones in Hydrogen; part of the mass was burned off as energy in the fusion process.

There would be some constants, some global fixed values, that appear for no obvious reason. E.g. there are physical constants like c or G or h that appear in many equations.

It is pretty strange how arbitrary the universal constants are, no? Or for that matter, what causes them the change slightly over time and space... one of the great mysteries of this world...

Loading of processors can happen when there is a huge amount of data to be crunched. We see such effects near very large bodies, such as stars, where time slows down near their surface because there are too many particles to compute.

This is sort of a stretch... we have a pretty good answer for why time dilates in response to velocity and gravity in relativity, and relativity's predictions hold across many domains.

Statistical nature. Some outcomes are predicted instead of being calculated exactly. This is faster but less accurate. So we have laws of thermodynamics, gas laws or fluid dynamics, probability distributions and uncertainty principle.

This may also be a matter of accuracy. The real events may be so obscure to us that the outcomes APPEAR statistical. There are many other interpretations of quantum behavior, such as Bohmian mechanics, which suggests that quantum events are indeed classically regular and deterministic, and not subject to chance.

--------

I actually don't disagree with the simulation theory on the face of it. There are many strong philosophical reasons to suppose this reality might be a simulation embedded in another reality (which I can get into, if you'd like). I would just caution against taking observations about the world, and bending them to the service of an idea when they don't really fit. It is really hard to avoid confirmation bias when there is concept we are fond of. There are many very good reasons to think this world might be simulated. We don't need to invent new ones to artificially bolster what is already a strong idea.

This is the original claim of non-dual teachings, that are unchallenged since thousands of years.

Both Monisms are more appealing than dualism, I agree. I think idealistic monism (of mind) is an easier position to hold, because it has a lot less explaining to do. It is much easier to explain that a material world can be an idea held by a mind (thus unifying them) then to explain how a material world can give rise to a mind (when they are quite dissimilar).

[ThaomasOfGrey]

There are more similarities. There are experiments to prove the simulated nature of the universe, such as the famous double slit experiment and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. There are theories and proofs for the simulation hypotheses.  However, there are some ridiculous assumptions too. Once you say that the universe is simulated, there arises a need for a simulator, a computer and operators of that computer. So people imagine all sorts of things from aliens to future humans. It is perfectly possible but highly improbable. Plus there are big holes e.g. the presence of avatars, if the avatars are aliens or humans from future, they would know beyond any doubt that they are playing a game. The only possibility left is that we are just bots, dummy players, which is not anyone's experience as far as I know. Bots would mean no consciousness or subjective experiences. No amount of simulation would produce that.

I find simulation to be the most satisfactory answer to the mysteries of this material universe.

The need for a simulator isn't such a huge issue even for the average skeptic I think. If we treat dreams as our own personal simulation it sets the precedent for a reality experience computed by consciousness.

Many people believe that there are aliens or future humans participating here that are partially or fully aware of their circumstances. I suppose the idea that these governing entities are the only ones that would participate in their creation would create a hole - but if you look at the purpose of the simulation deeper it makes sense that many players would either be fresh or have their minds compartmentalized in order to have a seemingly fresh experience.

We could be bots. Some spiritualists think that very few people are soul participants in this reality and that other entities are just "matrix bots". I think the concept is a bit egotistical and doesn't make a lot of sense from a practical outcomes standpoint. Never the less it is really difficult to prove that we have free will. The best we can do is to imply it should exist logically. Ultimately ones entire life experience can be scripted bot adventure and we would have no way of proving otherwise that I can tell.

[EscapeVelocity]

It is funny that I missed this thread as well, it is a reasonably presented set of questions/assertions that start a great discussion.

I agree with Stillwater that a fundamental confusion can be that of language, which can then lead down dark and twisty roads.

The 'simulation model' operating within a hierarchy of levels is fairly apparent at least within my current experience. If I accept the idea that my 'Higher Self' is creating my personal dreamspace and providing simulations in which to learn, is it not reasonable to speculate that a higher order of thinking (consciousness aggregate) is providing a 'simulation context' for my Higher Self? And so on, and so on... I can only speculate as to the next level 'above' me, but this idea is explored within my current reading material which over the last year has included the bulk of the Dolores Cannon books and today I am halfway through The Sphere and The Hologram by DeMarco and Warren. Both works speak of interacting with 'channeled?' material and very similar information and conclusions; both also provide interesting contrasts between one another.

DeMarco/ Warren are experienced TMI explorers and are in contact (through DeMarco in a relatively light F10 Focus) with what they term as The Guys Upstairs/TGU who appear to be an aggregate of roughly 30 souls/soulgroups who appear somewhat more or less focused around the TMI activities of Frank DeMarco; and this is the 'channeled?' group that Rita Warren, through DeMarco, has multiple question and answer sessions with back in the Summer/Fall/Winter of 2001. It always appears to be roughly the same group because of the locus of/around DeMarco. The broader message is that each of us seemingly individual entities has a Higher Self which consists of multiple lives in this and other Dimensions and Timelines; or at least some of us do... These Higher Selves are also associated with other Higher Selves which is how we get the conglomeration that is Frank's TGU, or something roughly along those lines.

In Dolores Cannon's case, the bulk of her work involves hundreds of clients and a technique involving deeper, hypnotic regression where she encounters what she describes as the Subconscious/Collective or Jungian Subconscious. Here she obtains many of the same answers and information that I have found with the DeMarco/Warren work, with minor discrepancies and allowances for language and definitions.

Overall I find their works to be arguably parallel and valuable to the questions we are currently asking. I will offer a few noteworthy points.

DeMarco's TGU provide information and perspective that is well beyond what most people know and reasonable confirmation for what many consciousness explorers suspect. But they freely admit that their knowledge is limited. For instance, Rita Warren asks that if they are the next 'layer' of knowledge beyond the individual, then can they speculate as to the next layer above them? And they admit two things: One, that they do not know, and Two, that the idea had never even occurred to them to think about that. This example points to an excellent analogy that they describe as the difference between us (the individual) and them (this apparently somewhat limited collective), that they have access to a much greater and wider spread base of knowledge, but they cannot narrow their focus down to the laser-point focus that an individual human being can. They have a greater expanse of knowledge available in a sort of diffused sense, while the human has a much more concentrated perspective albeit within a much smaller field of knowledge. TGU admit that they suspect there is God or Source or some directing force, but they don't know much more than we do.

Dolores Cannon listens through hundreds of individuals and, through the course of her books, comes to realize that she is in contact with a 'collective' group of minds that has somehow followed her from person to person, wanting to assist in her work...This 'group' eventually begins welcoming her as she moves from client to client, and the 'group' picks up their prior discussions as if the person, time or place really makes no difference. This 'group' points to many of the same ideas that DeMarco's TGU describe. They may have wider access to more souls/Higher Selves/Amoebas (as TGU analogically refers to them) than TGU; their speculation on a Higher Principle may go a bit further due to their potentially wider database, but even they admit to a ceiling they are attempting to move beyond.

So far, I can happily recommend both works. They are good efforts to stretch our perspective.

Another issue that both works appear to offer similar points of agreement is one that is of interesting concern and really drove me to add to this thread tonight. This concerns an aspect of how 'computer-like' much of our world can be described.

PureExp and Thaomas mentioned it...I just happened to be reading about it the last day or so...gotta love synchronicities...

How many of Earth's human population are 'bots?
Cannon's last Convoluted series book mentioned 'shadow players', 'background people': Human characters that just play roles and are moved from place to place, environment to environment, world to world...she even likened them to a kind of 'slave character group'.
In the middle of the Sphere and the Hologram, a section discusses human personalities that fail to develop sufficiently within a lifetime; they fail to fully 'individualize' completely...and therefore are mixed back into the 'soup' of the Higher Self, their characteristics to be re-combined in a new mixture at some future date, to try again.

These ideas bear directly on an idea I began exploring a couple years ago about the importance of developing our NP Personalities. Now a new idea I can add to that is the necessity for 'consolidation' of our personality...

Just how that is done I am working on...

TGU offers the idea of being constantly aware, being in the 'NOW'.

[ThaomasOfGrey]

Cannon's last Convoluted series book mentioned 'shadow players', 'background people': Human characters that just play roles and are moved from place to place, environment to environment, world to world...she even likened them to a kind of 'slave character group'.
In the middle of the Sphere and the Hologram, a section discusses human personalities that fail to develop sufficiently within a lifetime; they fail to fully 'individualize' completely...and therefore are mixed back into the 'soup' of the Higher Self, their characteristics to be re-combined in a new mixture at some future date, to try again.

A personality that fails to individualize in a lifetime seems like nonsense to me. For that to really be true you would require a fresh consciousness that comes in without any initial conditions and has a duplicated experience to another entity to every detail.

Say the experience is 99% the same - would the governor of the "soul soup" make the judgement that this entity is no longer worth having? Such a decision would only be possible for a low quality consciousness since they are establishing themselves as being superior, a flaw that guarantees non-superiority.

Shadow people seems like a waste of potential - this reality is supposed to be a sea of learning for real entities. I suppose it is conceivable that they would have something to add but why not real entities that can mutually benefit from the experience?

Our dreams tend to be populated with shadow people for the purposes of ad-hoc learning scenarios. I feel like this reality has stricter rules though; wouldn't shadow people mess with the continuity and or make this reality into a play pen for external entities that feel like throwing some drones into the mix. We have such limited access to even communication from the outside let alone matrix agents.

I am happy to be proved wrong though. How can we understand the logic behind this stuff?

[Lumaza]

I am happy to be proved wrong though. How can we understand the logic behind this stuff?

You can't. The only ones that can understand an Alien's mind is another Alien themselves. 

There is many things the Human mindset cannot comprehend. Our answers based on current "Science first" has proven to be broken logic. In another 100 years, what I am saying will be agreed on, because in a hundred years, we will also have a different mindset.

[EscapeVelocity]

You can't. The only ones that can understand an Alien's mind is another Alien themselves. 

If that comment is pointed anywhere towards me, I am only too impressed and offended at the same time, my friend.

Thaomas- I initially agree wholeheartedly with your response, with a few minor exceptions. The larger point is to be open to these wider perspectives and to consider what they are indicating. This is the stretch of perspective that we need.

We, as humans, consume multiple lifeforms for our sustenance- plants and animals. If we give even the slightest acceptance to their having some credence to life and consciousness, then what does that say about our consumption, much less our casting into the trash elements we don't want to consider further? How is that different from a greater consciousness casting back into the 'soup of consciousness' some undesireable bits of us that haven't worked out to their expectations? What makes us so special?

Both DeMarco's book and Cannon's books stretch our perspectives into new areas of consideration. I am admittedly uncomfortable with some of this but will point out the similarity between them and therefore the consistency. How about the topics of moral relativism and the conflict of Good versus Evil? How about the necessity of man-made catastrophic events such as 9/11/2001 or pick any school shooting or terrorist attack? Consider how these insane events may serve to move Mankind forward in its evolution.

If these are relatively new considerations then I would whole-heartedly recommend The Sphere and the Hologram. It will challenge your thinking up to the next level. A complimentary work would be Dolores Cannon's 'The Three Waves of Volunteers and the New Earth'. Personally-speaking, 'Three Waves' confirmed for me where I am in the 'mix'.

The 'logic' isn't always apparent at first. We also need to add in a mix of feeling and intuition...and give it time to percolate.

[Lumaza]

If that comment is pointed anywhere towards me, I am only too impressed and offended at the same time, my friend.

Lol. You know better then that. That last comment was in response to Thaomas's post. I even quoted it before I replied! 

The 'logic' isn't always apparent at first. We also need to add in a mix of feeling and intuition...and give it time to percolate.

EXACTLY!

That is what Science lacks. They (the Scientific community) won't allow their logical brains to except anything else. Even if they were shown the truth, it would be beyond their comprehension and for that ridiculed as false. Tesla and others have tried and look where that got them! 

[ThaomasOfGrey]

Alien mind!?

Are we talking about philosophically alien entities, something born and native to the non physical, or the spirits of extra terrestrials from other planets in ours or similar universes.

Thaomas- I initially agree wholeheartedly with your response, with a few minor exceptions. The larger point is to be open to these wider perspectives and to consider what they are indicating. This is the stretch of perspective that we need.

We, as humans, consume multiple lifeforms for our sustenance- plants and animals. If we give even the slightest acceptance to their having some credence to life and consciousness, then what does that say about our consumption, much less our casting into the trash elements we don't want to consider further? How is that different from a greater consciousness casting back into the 'soup of consciousness' some undesireable bits of us that haven't worked out to their expectations? What makes us so special?

With respect to our consumption I suppose it means we have found ourselves in an unfortunate predicament where the only way we know how to stay alive is by destroying other life forms.

I think there are major differences between that and the greater consciousness idea. If we kill and eat a wild animal we aren't enforcing a true death upon that being and our motive is coming from a place of necessity rather than judgement or a sense of superiority.

I somehow suspect that greater consciousness isn't in a rat race predicament such as the one "they" created for us wherein they have no choice but to eat us. I don't think anything makes us special except for maybe our niavety?

What makes the greater consciousness special? Higher perspective, higher responsibility, leading by example, respecting beings and not controlling them for personal gain.

We in the spiritual community are told not to fear death and that there is no true death, however, this is probably false! If your consciousness doesn't measure up to expectations you will experience true death as your consciousness is forcibly modified. "John, today you will become Jake. It will be as if you were always Jake and all recollection of John will be gone".

Indeed, my attitude is fiery, but I don't want to give the impression that I am bitter about any of this. It is just a fun debate for me.

Both DeMarco's book and Cannon's books stretch our perspectives into new areas of consideration. I am admittedly uncomfortable with some of this but will point out the similarity between them and therefore the consistency. How about the topics of moral relativism and the conflict of Good versus Evil? How about the necessity of man-made catastrophic events such as 9/11/2001 or pick any school shooting or terrorist attack? Consider how these insane events may serve to move Mankind forward in its evolution.

If these are relatively new considerations then I would whole-heartedly recommend The Sphere and the Hologram. It will challenge your thinking up to the next level. A complimentary work would be Dolores Cannon's 'The Three Waves of Volunteers and the New Earth'. Personally-speaking, 'Three Waves' confirmed for me where I am in the 'mix'.

The 'logic' isn't always apparent at first. We also need to add in a mix of feeling and intuition...and give it time to percolate.

I am pretty excited by that book. I haven't managed to get a copy of it yet but the preface sounds like it is right up my alley.

Negative events definitely hold the potential to move us forward. It is kind of the fundamental rule of this reality. Bluefirephoenix says that it is better to get to the path forward in the outset rather than walking the dead end and turning back after realizing. I would be disappointed if someone would carry out an attack like 9/11 to try and make man kind evolve. Put the energy into something positive!

[Lumaza]

Alien mind!?

Are we talking about philosophically alien entities, something born and native to the non physical, or the spirits of extra terrestrials from other planets in ours or similar universes.

Either or. Take your pick.
To fully understand a Human's mind, you need to be Human as well. So, why wouldn't it work the other way around?

[ThaomasOfGrey]

Either or. Take your pick.
To fully understand a Human's mind, you need to be Human as well. So, why wouldn't it work the other way around?

I guess I view extra terrestrials as cousins of humans with a comparable, but more complex and higher level, consciousness. We can understand what life might be like to a limited degree for another physical matter reality incarnated being.

A celestial being on the other hand is totally outside of our frame of reference to even imagine in my view. The reason I make the distinction is that it is odd to think that extra terrestrials are governing our minds when they may be just co-operative players in the same game we are playing.

I do agree that an extra terrestrial would possibly have trouble understanding our minds. A celestial on the other hand should have the ability to be our mind - see every detail - and have a greater understanding than we do ourselves.

It should be well and truly possible to understand a human mind or an alien mind with basic levels of psychic ability shouldn't it?

[Visitor]

Huh?  I would wager that we all celestial beings....incarnated in matter (earth body) to be bound in sticky time band to learn how to use energy in a blow by blow manner. 

All it is likely is we all homesick.....