The Simulation Argument

For general lucid chat - ask questions, share advice, set lucid dream challenges and explore the lucid realm together.
User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 548
Joined: 07 Aug 2011 19:47
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby Ryan » 03 Jun 2012 16:04

lucidinthe sky wrote:At this point I am leaning toward the belief that all physical reality is a manifestation of conscious beings made of light energy (the only thing that truly exists), in other words we all create this reality. In the words of The Matrix: "there is no spoon". I know this is a radical belief system and impossible to prove in a scientific manner and I won't attempt to prove it. But there is no question about the fact that the world we know and experience must be created with our senses and we are not capable of experiencing physical reality as it truly is.

I think life here on earth is in one way or another a "virtual reality" much like lucid dreams and in a sense, is a simulation. We are all participating together to manifest our physical reality and agree on the rules that operate in it so it is very stable.

What you're referring to here is Tom Campbell's "My Big TOE".

He posits that this is a digital, virtual reality... and the statement "there is no spoon", reflects his known that what we experience in this reality is just "data", which our consciousness processes in order to experience this reality. Experiencing another "reality" (aka the dream reality or somewhere else) is a matter of switching data streams to that reality.
For more information, please visit my website
http://www.unlimitedboundaries.ca/
Or join my forums!
http://www.unlimitedboundaries.ca/forums/

User avatar
lucidinthe sky
Posts: 1135
Joined: 10 Dec 2011 22:37
Location: Sacramento, California

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby lucidinthe sky » 03 Jun 2012 21:55

Ryan wrote:What you're referring to here is Tom Campbell's "My Big TOE".

He posits that this is a digital, virtual reality... and the statement "there is no spoon", reflects his known that what we experience in this reality is just "data", which our consciousness processes in order to experience this reality. Experiencing another "reality" (aka the dream reality or somewhere else) is a matter of switching data streams to that reality.


I pretty much agree with his theory and was coming very close to the same conclusion before I read any of his Big TOE. I am skeptical of his OBE claims, but can put those aside when considering the value of his theory.

There is a theory that already exists about the universe being made of imformation or data if you want, so that's not new. That's another conclusion I had already come to based on the simple concept that the smallest unit you could use to define something would be a 2 state "bit" of information, IE: 1 or 0 digital binary unit. 2 states is the minimum.

Peter wrote:In a nutshell it is not as real or real as those words defy and belittle the dreamworld, it IS another existence and I think of it as my other life, no better no worse and no less.


How real it is could be limited by our abilties to make it that way.

dichotomies wrote:The Simulation Argument is just the philosophical... conjectural aspect of the idea. I first saw this and went.. hmm,, yes quite possibly. But then! I read the amazing ...(everything-changing!) paper by NZer Brian Whitworth "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" To me this paper clearly shows that the laws of physics very strongly suggest or point to a simulation... a computation. eg Why is there a speed limit of universe? (light speed) and why does time slow down when objects moving are very very fast (near lightspeed) Answer: because there is a processing speed to reality. When things are too big or too fast they slow down the computation.


The theory of relativity and special properties of light are fascinating, especially if our consciousness ends up being made of light energy. It seems like things must be really slowed down here so we can experience matter as solid, 3 dimensional objects. At light speed, time and distance shrink to zero, so light does not experience either. We know that in reality objects are not solid, but mostly space only we don't experience them that way. I can't see how light could experience the physical world the way we humans do.
Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

User avatar
Peter
Posts: 1951
Joined: 26 May 2011 08:02
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby Peter » 04 Jun 2012 00:21

How real it is could be limited by our abilties to make it that way.


I just try not to use the world real as I dont use this existence as a standard to measure against but if mI was not being so picky or to level the field then both internal and external words are as real as each other.
Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

User avatar
lucidinthe sky
Posts: 1135
Joined: 10 Dec 2011 22:37
Location: Sacramento, California

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby lucidinthe sky » 04 Jun 2012 00:48

Peter wrote:I just try not to use the world real as I dont use this existence as a standard to measure against but if mI was not being so picky or to level the field then both internal and external words are as real as each other.



That's an interesting concept. The majority of physicists now believe the we live in one universe among an infinite number which they call the "multiverse". An infinite number of universes, each one theoretically having different laws of physics governing it's "reality". We all use our existence in this world as a standard, but it could just as easily be very "non-standard" and completely arbitrary. You'd have to compare it to something else to know, if you could somehow step outside it and view it from another perspective.
Last edited by lucidinthe sky on 04 Jun 2012 16:53, edited 1 time in total.
Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 548
Joined: 07 Aug 2011 19:47
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby Ryan » 04 Jun 2012 00:50

lucidinthe sky wrote:I pretty much agree with his theory and was coming very close to the same conclusion before I read any of his Big TOE. I am skeptical of his OBE claims, but can put those aside when considering the value of his theory.

Might I inquire what about his OBE claims you are skeptical about?
TMI has a number of his "OBEs" on audio recording for you to listen to.

http://www.monroeinstitute.org/resources/downloads/category/explorer-series/
The recordings listed as being from "TCA" or "TC" are Tom Campbell. They're VERY intriguing. :)

As for "real"...
It's my thoughts that anything you can "experience" is "real".
For more information, please visit my website
http://www.unlimitedboundaries.ca/
Or join my forums!
http://www.unlimitedboundaries.ca/forums/

User avatar
lucidinthe sky
Posts: 1135
Joined: 10 Dec 2011 22:37
Location: Sacramento, California

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby lucidinthe sky » 04 Jun 2012 04:24

Ryan wrote:Might I inquire what about his OBE claims you are skeptical about?TMI has a number of his "OBEs" on audio recording for you to listen to.


The big problem I have with Campbell is his insistence on calling his OBE experiments "Scientific Research" while po-pooing independant peer review like it was some kind of club that he wasn't invited into. The fact is neither he, nor Monroe has ever reproduced their "Scientific Research" for anyone outside their group to my knowledge. He makes wild claims such as reading next week's headlines and reading information contained in sealed envelopes, yet can't demonstrate these abilities using the scientific method which requires repeatable experiments. He wants his research to be recognized as science, but refuses to play by its rules.

Personally, I believe anything is possible, no issue there. But don't make claims unless you can back them up with proof. People probably have OBE experiences, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence although it's not science, at least at this point.

Ryan wrote:As for "real"... It's my thoughts that anything you can "experience" is "real".


We both agree on that point for sure and probably Tom campbell too. To me, reality is subjective and experience is the "only" reality. You can deny anything, except what you experience.
Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

User avatar
Jack Reacher
Posts: 490
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 05:03
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby Jack Reacher » 04 Jun 2012 05:08

So by simulation do they mean digital? What is being used to simulate it?
"There is theoretical abstraction, and then there is true abstraction."

User avatar
Kranter
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 May 2012 20:06

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby Kranter » 04 Jun 2012 05:29

I've got no idea what you people are talking about. But it sounds interesting.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!

User avatar
Peter
Posts: 1951
Joined: 26 May 2011 08:02
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby Peter » 04 Jun 2012 05:53

LOL we are most likely just one small step in front of you
Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

User avatar
dichotomies
Posts: 2
Joined: 03 Jun 2012 12:53
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.

Re: The Simulation Argument

Postby dichotomies » 04 Jun 2012 11:38

Yeah lucid in the sky, in the case of pursuing evidence that this reality is a simulation or evidence of other realities external (for lack of better term) to this one.. the scientific method does break down a bit. there can be no contact with any external reality just as computer game characters cannot step out into this reality (not without help from whoever may be in the outer "containing" reality).
There is one experiment im looking forward to: the Holometer at Fermilab which is attempting to identify the "pixels" of reality over the next year or so. So some people are free thinking enough to be capable of taking it seriously.
I think that the idea of a digital, computational, non physical reality will slowly replace the current physical "objective" reality perspective. It really does make way more sense. You dont need to be a mathematician to understand the principles of reality.. Kinda like the church when all the bibles were only in latin. Science is a great system .. if it is applied properly.


Return to “General Lucid Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest