Is Our World a Computer Simulation?

[paladin17]

Short answer is: no.
Slightly longer answer is: the question itself is irrelevant.
Even longer answer can be found in this video of mine.

[JP Michael]

It's pretty sad that you even have to rebutt a question like this from the mainstream. Ha!

[Webbman]

its not a computer simulation.

its a reality simulation. What makes it a simulation is that people are conditioned to believe all the endless lies. While the lies are quite real, the material of the lies is not. Thus the fabricated reality or simulation. I suppose a place where the devils rule and your subjected to endless lies can be called hell.

[danda]

Even longer answer can be found in this video of mine.

Whenever I think of this topic, I am reminded of Descartes Great Deceiver.

I have my own basic view of the nature of all things (infinite-space, infinite-scales, forever, seemingly electric universe) which I arrived at via pure logic and will detail here at a later time. A starting point again comes from Descarte: I think, therefore I am. So we know something exists, not nothing. Our reality could be a computer simulation, or a child's dream, or [some] God's creation, or just about anything. None of that matters, as the same logical rules apply to the underlying reality.

So, I agree, the simulation question is irrelevant, and thus unlikely. And so is creationism/religion. And so is big-bang type creationism.

To me, a more interesting question is, what is the next larger scale, and what is our role in it?

[EtherQuestions]

A two century old debate.

Whether or not this is true:

1.) If it is I'm sure the architect of such a simulation would NOT make this world in its image, what would be the point in that? Chances are the architect's world would be incomprehensible to us and beyond the comprehension of this relatively (to what is possible) primitive civilization and our current philosophical ruminations.

2.) It is a logical fallacy that physicists are increasingly turning to a "simulation theory" to explain the logical pitfalls and blunders in modern theoretical physics instead of considering new theories instead from the bottom-up. This is an almost religious cult like mentality of "top-down" rationalization instead of facing the cognitive dissonance and using the empirical method.

[allynh]

I've been watching tons of video on YouTube the past couple of weeks, I'm a bit overwhelmed, so bear with me. HA!

When people talk about "*computers" they are thinking of "digital" computers, thus they assume that reality is a simulation on that digital computer. No one seems to remember "analog" computers.

Analog computer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

This bubble of Real that we exist in is an "analog" computer. It is not a "simulation" on that computer, it is the computer itself.

BTW, a "digital" computer is not really "digital". It is an "analog" system of varying voltages that emulates a "digital" system, but I digress.

To give a fictional example of an analog system, look at the Harry Potter Verse.

- Think of the magic spells as apps.

- The wand is a four dimensional mouse used in conjunction with the name of the app.

- The Wizards are "calling up" those apps when they trigger a spell.

The "apps" are tied into physical reality controlling physical forces, just as you turn on your house lights using your smart phone triggering the computer controlled switches that you installed.

Those apps are available to anyone, anywhere, if they have the wand "mouse" and know the four dimensional pattern to use, and the control "word" to activate the app.

To give an example from the physical world that we live in:

- Rain falls, snow melts.

- You have a stream flowing along.

- You build a paddle wheel that is moved by that stream.

- The paddle wheel is connected by gears to move round stones to grind flour.

Look all around you, and see how everything is connected. We are analog components in the analog computer of our physical reality.

We are components in the machine.

*This video is an example of what happens when you don't base the argument of physical reality. Lanier went too far down the rabbit hole.

Jaron Lanier - Could Our Universe be a Fake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kngQ6mVI68

[moses]

Is what we see a simulation. Well light of various frequencies lands on a retina and electrical impulses travel into the brain. So a certain frequency light causes certain nerve impulses and somewhere in the brain these impulses induce the experiencing of red. A simulation can be a representation of reality so the experiencing of red is a simulation of reality.

So we only know reality through simulation. The experiencing of red is a simulation but it is also some kind of reality also. But is it a physical reality. Sure the nerve impulses are physical but is the induced experiencing physical. Of course this is the question that separates philosophical materialism from dualism. Materialism being there is only physical, whereas duality has both physical and non-physical. And spirit is the non-physical or a subset of the non-physical.

If one considers the experiencing of red as non-physical then there is a connection between the brain and the actual experiencing of red. They are separate but connected. There is an interaction between the brain and the experiencing. A million issues and questions come to mind but if the brain induces experiencing then can some form of experiencing induce brain nerve impulses. Of course this would mean that action can arise from a totally different source. Generally the brain is flooded with sensory information or thought or emotions so we would not know if this was possible.

For those that feel that they have experienced everything this offers something totally different, but having quiet thoughts and emotions requires resolving unresolved past issues and trauma which is most arduous and difficuly presumably.
Cheers,
Mo

[EtherQuestions]

Is what we see a simulation. Well light of various frequencies lands on a retina and electrical impulses travel into the brain. So a certain frequency light causes certain nerve impulses and somewhere in the brain these impulses induce the experiencing of red. A simulation can be a representation of reality so the experiencing of red is a simulation of reality.

Mo

The philosophical take I guess would be - is the sensory input an accurate reflection of the source. Is the object in a given physical space, or just a projection of which sourced from something else imitating its presence, but does this separate simulation from reality? If all inputs of causal action are plugged in (including matter) then what is simulation?

Does simulation require a nervous system plugged in? Surely not. This is just a human depiction based on our sense of self (extrapolated for most from causal processes and romanticized by great works of fiction). A digital-analog simulation as we infer depicts man interwoven in machine by sensory input, but a digital-analog simulation can merely be the actions upon all fundamental particles who experience physical effects based on "input".

We often tie our own conceptions to simulation, but simulation as all things has some underlying purpose - so why simulate what already exists in non-specific way? Surely most simulation cases, out of the infinite possibilities we have an architect whom physical reality is totally different and incomprehensible to us except in basic logic, perhaps of other dimensions.

[Bin-Ra]

How we frame a question may be a statement in disguise.
Firstly 'our world' - Is this the model through which we experience and interact an externalisation or 'explication' of an implicate realm that is formless yet gives rise to forms - as like the idea of vibrational qualities or frequency domains - that are essentially patterning and not in and of themselves concrete structure - such as can be readily observed as interference patterns?

Our model is fundamental or founded mental - and is in and of the realm we call thought, imaginary or creative. We can have a experience of a mistaken identity as if the rope were in fact a snake - but if we abide long enough, the 'snake' reveals itself a rope.
Our model is thus different from 'my private imagination of wish or fear' but group wish and fear can and does operate distortions to the model - so as to operate a virtual alternative to a true and innocent perception.

But what would such a perception be, or see?
Is there a 'world' a unified externality of existence? And what are its essential characteristics? Because data cannot be gathered without interpretation, selection and differentiations of assigned scales and values. And so I see the 'Ancient of Days' as the laying down of the lines, points, angels and measurements, from which organised and stable or persistent patterns of predictability can establish a fundamental structure though which life unfolds or evolves its own postulates. Go forth and multiply - does not specify WHAT is formed as a vibrational identification to participate in the whole as integral and yet unique - each to its kind. And in human terms, our predicate identifications determine all that derives or unfolds in response to our relational counterpart - for nothing exists in and of itself but always in relation to its relational field - as a whole, but as interacting specifically in part-iculars. We meet the world that we call forth, and at the level of physics, we meet a core existence of the will or desire to live - as an unfolding persistent and somewhat predictable experience of relational recognitions.

Memory has a deeper counterpart than our personal recall, that Sheldrake points to - and which hold the idea of inertia - not just as a state of persistence but as a fulcrum for experience. For the nature of any balancing disequilibrium is of balance points - and of a balancing of fluid balance point as a systemic whole within a larger relational field. The persistence of an imbalance or offcentred focal point can then operate as split domains of apparent incongruity that nevertheless depend each on the other.

When the informational system is thus bubbled off in a seemingly separate entity, there is a 'local' or 'private' experience within a whole that is masked or ruled out by a sense of existence set against 'other' threat or Not Self - and posits the idea of self as a locked down fragment regarding or seeking to 'whole' itself while effectively running as a polarised and polarising sense of control or limiting reaction to a 'world' no longer felt as a unified informational field - but socially distanced, self-isolated and masked - excepting as a set of filters and rules for protection and self-reinforcement determine. Such a 'world' is an identity imposed upon relational expression, by which to maintain 'control' of the model or narrative of allowed expression and behaviour as a 'don't look' or denial command by which to suppress or redefine a rope as a snake - when the snake is serving to purpose of a 'keep out!' or 'access denied!'.

The term 'computer' is a simile with the term simulation.(Are you willing to be assimilated For by representing a situation in quanta, the ...

...Full post at
https://willingness-to-listen.blogspot. ... ation.html