tag

If you take an Augustinian view of things that is correct.  However, what if you throw reincarnation and universalism into the mix?  I.e., the earth is but a school and we take many classes to learn over many lives?  Plato suggested as such several thousand years ago.



 

Very interesting thread. Tag.

God help us all if Windows is involved.  











Would be an epic 'blue screen of death', however.  

It's what really killed the dinosaurs.  



 

This thread....  



Prying that bitch open.  

And Bill Hicks may actually be another dead hero.

another one, a good bit shorter, that goes over the same topics at a level more people can easily understand.

especially interseting is starting at 4 minutes, discussing time dilation effects as equivalent to load in VR sim.

but i wonder how this concept lines up with einstein and simultaneous events

That's an interesting question.  I was googling it in relation to the simulation hypothesis but didn't come up with much.  I think the problem is resolved in that the perceived reality only exists when you look and once observed the object behaves as if it always had properties as if it was observed regardless of the observer's frame of reference.  So, we invent the reality by observing it.

so what constitutes observation?

i'm not being snarky--this is an important question.  we can trace a series of physical events from, say, photon to neuron to visual cortex to a series of computations to reasoning.  what then?  is observation just that series?  does the series itself exist even though it (the series) isn't observed?

this poses a pretty serious problem--if we invent reality be observing it, then the process of observation cannot be real...in which case there can be no observation.

what am i missing here?

The process of observation exists outside of the simulation.  Think of the universe like Schrodinger's cat writ large.

ETA

Remember, the mind you're using to post this is subject to the same rules we're applying to the photons.

Going back to the computer simulation analogy, it isn't the act of observation that triggers the rendering, but the potential for the player to interact with the environment which does so (hence loading screens).  So you wander around Skyrim and most of the "map" is just ones and zeros.  Then you move into area "A" and it is all rendered in 3D as far as you can see and interact with the environment.  So it wouldn't be that observation is creating reality, but that observation is one of a series of predetermined triggers which tells the program to turn the possibility wave into a single data point.  



 

i don't think the first part of your post dissolves the problem, because of the second part.  you're postulating 2 different sets of rules in your first sentence, then arguing that there is only one set of rules in the edit.  in any of these conversations, we need to differentiate between the mind and the brain.  

we have arrived back at leibniz's and descartes' mind/body problem.  in order for any of this to work, you have to commit to the idea that the brain is irrelevant to the mind.  since the brain is a part of reality (and therefore doesn't exist unless it is observed) we don't require it in order to do observations.  an observer should be able to do observations even if he doesn't have a brain (because he would still have a mind that is outside the simulation).

so changes in the mind are not caused by changes in the brain.  actually, it's the reverse--the mind does the observations, and the physical brain activity is caused by nonphysical mind activity...even though events ion the simulation have to happen first (if we accept the law of causality).  so the causal chain of events goes as follows:

1: state of affairs [S] exists in the simulation

2: observation of S in the mind (outside the simulation)

3: observation of S in the brain (inside the simulation)

of course you see the problem with this--the information has to pass from inside the simulation to outside the simulation somehow.  that information has to be apprehended in a nonphysical way that does not travel through the brain (since neural activity is part of reality).  only after S has been observed outside the simulation can events inside the simulation (photons striking the retina, impulses traveling down the optic nerve, processing by the visual cortex) take place.  

since state of affairs [S] cannot exist in reality until it is observed outside of reality, which must take place before it is observed inside of reality, either the law of causality is wrong, S cannot exist at all, or nothing can ever change.  we're getting back to parmenides and zeno here--all change is an illusion.  but if all change is an illusion, then there can be no observation events (since the observation thesis is slavishly dependent on causality, and causality cannot exist if change does not).  if no observation, then nothing can exist.  

alas, paradox.

this is a ton of ideas smashed into a small space (leibniz to russell to the matrix), but the gist of it is information pathways.  even if i am a brain in a vat and a computer is simulating the world to me, then observation is not independent of the brain--the brain is the thing that makes what i perceive to be reality, based on external (to me) stimuli.  IOW, physical change in the brain happens first.  and that physical change in the brain must exist independently of my ability to observe what goes on in my brain.

there's a lot of tension here, especially between these statements.  what are some of the other predetermined triggers, besides observation?  and is it the act of observation, or potential observability?  as i understand it (with my exceedingly limited grasp of physics), it is the act.  but again, that brings us back to what that act comprises--let's say adam and eve were color blind (or think of 'true facts about the mantis shrimp' or 'iOrigins').  did UV wavelengths not exist prior to a particular date, or is a sunburn sufficient to qualify as observation?

what about observational mistakes?  does observing wrongly somehow change the universe, and make the inaccurate observation actually correct?

I think your paradox is resolved by the "higher level" observer being the awareness of what "we" are observing.  I have absolutely no idea how to prove that empirically though.

it'd be impossible.  best way to say it is that neo could never, ever prove that he actually got out of the matrix.  his 'awakening' might just have shunted him off into a sub-simulation intended to control for that possibility.

Well, we're talking about a set of laws that are likely so complex that it is possible that the complexity is simply beyond our comprehension, which is why I was trying to us the analogy as an explanation.  And I am assuming that these are pre-coded sets of criteria based upon what we otherwise know of physics which tends to have a lot of automatic processes.  It is also possible that the author of the program is actively observing and managing in real time.  It is also possible that you have a mixture of both.  Most complex video games are not static, they are patched and updated over time to deal with new issues.  We could simply have "God Hotfix 4.0.1., Earth Server."  

 

As for observational mistakes, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by those.  


On a somewhat related note, given your earlier entropy post, did you see the post here a few months ago about "Time's Arrow?"  There were some interesting articles exploring the concept that gravity acts as a counterbalance to entropy, causing cycles of creation and destruction rather than an inevitable movement to a less complex state.  Figured that might be up you alley.  

My umbridge for the video was all the wild unfounded claims they kept making.  It's one thing to discuss the philosophical implication that the universe is a simulation, another thing entirely to make the claim there's a plethora of "scientific evidence" that the universe is a simulation.

I perfectly understand.  Scientists are often horrible at distinguishing between science and philosophy.  I actually had the same issue when I was younger with the theory of evolution, until I realized that I never had an issue with the science of evolution, but with people like Dawkins claiming that their philosophy of materialism was actually science.  

 

Almost sounds like proof that God exists...


Who else would be running the simulation?

The problem, at least from my perspective, is that the word "God" brings so much baggage with it that it's essentially useless and only muddies the waters of what we're actually discussing.  I think intelligence, simulator, even creator would be a better term.

I need to watch this when it's not after my bedtime, so tag your it !

Well, the argument here is not, like "the universe kind of acts like it's a simulation and it's pretty similar to what you'd expect if it was being simulated by a computer." The argument here is "our universe IS an ACTUAL computer simulation, running on some big super computer."

slartibartfast, is that you?

This video about mindfulness explains the idea of awareness of thought pretty well without any religious context.

I'll be honest, I have a totally different perception of the universe after spending the time to learn all this.  I've been looking into this topic for a while and then found this video the other day that put it all together.  Then working out the arguments in my head while discussing this here I had one of those moments where everything just "clicked" (I was aware of myself thinking rather than just thinking) and I was like

Utterly amazing

Here's a good video of what you were looking for btw

*bump for the evening crew*

Thinking back to that other thread you posted.  The one with the Joe Rogan video.  I cannot recall the names of the guests at the moment, but they did mention that they suspected many ancient philosophers used DMT to reach a greater understanding.  I know absolutely nothing about hallucinogenic drugs, but that video really made me wonder if nature did give us this tool to help understand her.  

Im not accusing you of being on drugs, but your post remined me of that video for some reason.

I've wondered that myself, but figured it was best not to go down that road here

I'm going to roll this mop bucket past the doorway where all you geniuses are sitting around trippin balls, and poke my head in...

"EXCUSE ME, I may be a simple man, but I thought I overheard you guys saying matter doesn't exist until it's observed.  Could someone please present that to me in layman's terms?  Because as I hear it, that's absolutely ridiculous."

What constitutes "observation"?  

I HAVE to be taking this all wrong,  because it sounds ludicrous.

Everything is a wave of potential outcomes until it is observed.  Observation would be the act of gathering information about the object (in any way, shape, or form).

What's gig. Get paid to make up outlandish nonsense with no backing about subjects that don't matter

The nature of existence doesn't matter?

So, are fundamental particles observing each other as they gather information about one another (by way of exchanging photons, gluons, bosons, and 'gravitons')?

What about the whole observation-information-gathering system (human minds and their extension i.e. scientific instruments )? Does it capture the whole diapason of reality or merely forces upon us a freeze frame, a thin slice of a much broader energy event?

Humans are not separate from the universe.  The simulation would require an observer outside of "us."  That is what collapses the wave functions.  Think of the servers in something like World of Warcraft without players.

Think of it like a computer game.  The computer doesn't load the level until you are ready to interact with it.

 

Pretty interesting. As a student of the Bible, I'm struck by the harmony between what some of these folks say with what you can read in scripture.

For example:



And:



And:



And:



When I compare these things (and there are plenty more of them throughout the video), I see scripture revealing these rather difficult ideas in a very abstract and easy-to-understand way that makes these ideas available to anyone regardless of degree of scientific education. In other words, someone reading these passages 2,400 years ago gets the same general concept of the organization of the universe as someone today listening to the folks in the video describing it in terms of observed experimental data.

Take it for what it's worth--not trying to convince anyone of anything. I find this stuff pretty fascinating.

tag

Here's a video I find interesting. The fine tuning of the universe.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

It's all about 1.61

I believe the difference is, that with this theory things are as they are and will be as they will be.  We are part of the observed.  We are the awareness of the experience, including thought.

I'm sure that my great, great, great,..." " " "...great, great grandfather, sitting in his lean-to, knapping flint spearheads, thought about this shit too.

DAFUQ?

That's really funny that you write that. Since I was very small I always believed that statement to be true. I was scared of dying only because of all that it would destroy. I grew up and ceased believing that...maybe it's time to rethink it.

 

Perhaps so and, again, I'm not here to argue a case. But the ideas presented certainly make much more plausible certain things that the materialist view of physics rules out as impossible.

The narrator, in the introduction, posed the question, "What if...not only are you living in a simulation, but it’s being generated by a system that you can contact with your mind, and actually change the simulation itself, in effect hacking the universe?"

I understand nobody is saying that we can simply reprogram the simulation to bend it to our will. However, that we do change the way things behave by observing them, as in the two-slit photon experiment, is a matter of observed (if I can use that term), repeatable, experimental data. But the way the narrator put that is pretty interesting when you think about Jesus teaching, "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you." That sounds remarkably like using my mind to contact the system and actually change the simulation itself.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, in speaking about the "computer code" that James Gates sees in the makeup of the universe, asked Gates, "So...are you saying we are all just, there’s some entity that programmed the universe, and we’re just expressions of their code?" As a Christian, that's not nearly as stunning as it apparently is for Tyson--I read in the very first sentence of the Bible.

And Tom Campbell, as one of the closing remarks, said, "Was everything here created by God?  Well, yes, if God’s the larger consciousness, then yes."  Again, this is, on the most basic level, something that people have believed and taught for thousands of years but that science, which until recently was heavily invested in the materialist view of the universe, has absolutely refuted.

I guess the point is, the video is basically saying that science since the 1960s or so has shown that the idealist view of the universe, espoused by Bohr, has been shown to be more in harmony with some of the more mystifying results of experiments in quantum physics and that the materialist view, espoused by Einstein, is more and more being shown to be wrong. Actually, limited would be a much better word. In my mind, I suppose it's analogous to Einstein showing the failures of Newtonian physics, which is great as far as it goes, but it falls very short of explaining everything. Thus, from the materialist view of the universe, it's easy to read about the remarkable things scripture describes and dismiss it. But if you take the idealist view, while I still won't say, "Science has proven the Bible," the gap between science and scripture grows narrower.

Anyway, great video--I actually stayed up way too late watching it twice. Thanks for posting it!

That actually sounds like it would make a great premise for a comic book arc. If this kid dies, the universe ends. The arch villain has, of course, kidnapped this kid as leverage in a global blackmail scheme. Our superhero must bring back the kid safely or reality ends.

Of course there are other not so friendly villains who, out of sheer maliciousness, want to kill the kid and end it all. Thus, the arch villain also has an interest in keeping the kid safe so he gets paid.

You can take it as far as you want from there.

Thanks!
One question though, how do I respawn?

 
Press X for Playstation, A for Xbox.








Which got me thinking....




That is the perfect argument for parallel universes, every game disk is essentially written identically, they just aren't played the same way more than once. Or if it is connected to xbox live, a multiverse.


 



ETA: It is a good theory on how the illusion of time works also. Like how in game "simulation" time is different than the players time. Also you can jump forward or backwards in the simulation just by loading a different save file, which will also affect the outcome of the game even if it is the same game you play over and over.