Possible Evidence That Our Universe is a Computer Simulation

[exo_doc]

From some eastern mysticism philosophy and certain aspects of physics, we are living an illusion.
I do not see much difference between an illusion and a simulation. As I understand it, we construct or make the world we perceive around us.
So does that make our collective consciousness the program AND the programmer?

 

[Randall]

From some eastern mysticism philosophy and certain aspects of physics, we are living an illusion.
I do not see much difference between an illusion and a simulation. As I understand it, we construct or make the world we perceive around us.
So does that make our collective consciousness the program AND the programmer?

Illusion and simulation are both suggestive of sidecar issues that are better discussed separately. The phrase "generated construct" is IMO a better choice. Within the generated construct, consciousness is an emergent property of the system's iterations. So with respect to the universe around us, rather than looking at our consciousness as analogous to a programmer, it's actually more of a feedback filter, taking in sensory data about the environment around us, filtering it through our brains, and taking action based on the results. We are only programmers when we actively create or modify a program. We do this on the computers we control, but at the present time we don't control the one that is responsible for the construct we reside in. At best, we can only use the resources it provides. However perhaps at some distant point in the future, we might learn how to access the programming, but the ramifications of that makes me even more nervous than nuclear weapons.

 

[Wade]

Illusion and simulation are both suggestive of sidecar issues that are better discussed separately. The phrase "generated construct" is IMO a better choice. Within the generated construct, consciousness is an emergent property of the system's iterations. So with respect to the universe around us, rather than looking at our consciousness as analogous to a programmer, it's actually more of a feedback filter, taking in sensory data about the environment around us, filtering it through our brains, and taking action based on the results. We are only programmers when we actively create or modify a program. We do this on the computers we control, but at the present time we don't control the one that is responsible for the construct we reside in. At best, we can only use the resources it provides. However perhaps at some distant point in the future, we might learn how to access the programming, but the ramifications of that makes me even more nervous than nuclear weapons.

So being a bear of little brain I wonder are the duo concepts of eth/atech and the universe possibly being a hologram/computer program at odds with each other, perhaps enhance each other or of no significance to each other ?

 

[Randall]

So being a bear of little brain I wonder are the duo concepts of eth/atech and the universe possibly being a hologram/computer program at odds with each other, perhaps enhance each other or of no significance to each other ?

Excellent questions. I think the computational model facilitates near intantaneous transport from place to place over any distance. All that would be needed is the technology to make it happen. ATECH may have such ability. So there is an example of the two concepts working together to solve the problem of interstellar travel.

 

[Wade]

What I thinking of is IF we were part of a massive quantum computer universal wide computer program is it logical to think that this program would need to employ a much more advanced civilization with advanced bci/atech capabilities as a catalyst to alter or change our behavior as part of its program? While not necessarily out of the question it seems a rather convoluted way to go about it, there's probably a more logical and easier way to go about it although none comes to mind at the moment...bear of little brain and all.

 

[Randall]

What I thinking of is IF we were part of a massive quantum computer universal wide computer program is it logical to think that this program would need to employ a much more advanced civilization with advanced bci/atech capabilities as a catalyst to alter or change our behavior as part of its program? While not necessarily out of the question it seems a rather convoluted way to go about it, there's probably a more logical and easier way to go about it although none comes to mind at the moment...bear of little brain and all.

From the point of view of the program, "need" isn't an issue. It's simply something that could arise as a natural result of evolution. In other words it isn't necessary for the program itself to be intelligent. It just requires massive processing power. This is evidenced by the dispassionate way the universe works.

 

[exo_doc]

Illusion and simulation are both suggestive of sidecar issues that are better discussed separately. The phrase "generated construct" is IMO a better choice. Within the generated construct, consciousness is an emergent property of the system's iterations. So with respect to the universe around us, rather than looking at our consciousness as analogous to a programmer, it's actually more of a feedback filter, taking in sensory data about the environment around us, filtering it through our brains, and taking action based on the results. We are only programmers when we actively create or modify a program. We do this on the computers we control, but at the present time we don't control the one that is responsible for the construct we reside in. At best, we can only use the resources it provides. However perhaps at some distant point in the future, we might learn how to access the programming, but the ramifications of that makes me even more nervous than nuclear weapons.

I don't think they are side car issues or distractions from the real reason. I think they (illusions/simulations) are the real reason.
Generated construct. Generated by whom?.......Us. Collectively and seperately.
And I think we are already accessing the programs.

And I think Goggs hit it spot on with this.....
"It doesn't answer still the most intriguing question which is how did the first whatever come to exist?

 

[Randall]

I don't think they are side car issues or distractions from the real reason. I think they (illusions/simulations) are the real reason.
Generated construct. Generated by whom?.......Us. Collectively and seperately.
And I think we are already accessing the programs.

Alert! Possible communication glitch. Illusions/simulations would be suitable for explaining the unusual phenomena reported by the witnesses, not so much for use as a term to describe the nature of the universe itself within the context of the computational model.

 

[exo_doc]

Alert! Possible communication glitch. Illusions/simulations would be suitable for explaining the unusual phenomena reported by the witnesses, not so much for use as a term to describe the nature of the universe itself within the context of the computational model.

Glitches?...Or just wave function collapses that our subconscious creates?

 

[Randall]

Glitches?...Or just wave function collapses that our subconscious creates?

Sorry Exo ... I seem to have lost the context of your post, can you please elaborate a little more?

 

[exo_doc]

Sorry Exo ... I seem to have lost the context of your post, can you please elaborate a little more?

I'll back up and reiterate a bit.
1. I do not see any difference between an illusion and a simulation, even at the most basic level. I think that is the central issue.
2. Since we are not seperate from the universe (even though it seems like it), we are an integral part of it, because we are both the programmer and living the program. Consciousness may be an emergent phenomena, or something unthought of.
We create ourselves and the universe around us.
3. In quantum physics, all outcomes of an event are happening at once as waves of probability. It's only when the wave collapses that we see the outcome as it most probably would happen. Yet statistics says the most probable doesn't always happen.
So when two or more wave functions collide with a less probable outcome, unusual and weird outcomes are produced, ergo the paranormal.
Bull hockey or feasible?.....I lean toward the feasible very strongly because it makes sense to me.

 

[Randall]

I'll back up and reiterate a bit.
1. I do not see any difference between an illusion and a simulation, even at the most basic level. I think that is the central issue.
2. Since we are not seperate from the universe (even though it seems like it), we are an integral part of it, because we are both the programmer and living the program. Consciousness may be an emergent phenomena, or something unthought of.
We create ourselves and the universe around us.
3. In quantum physics, all outcomes of an event are happening at once as waves of probability. It's only when the wave collapses that we see the outcome as it most probably would happen. Yet statistics says the most probable doesn't always happen.
So when two or more wave functions collide with a less probable outcome, unusual and weird outcomes are produced, ergo the paranormal.
Bull hockey or feasible?.....I lean toward the feasible very strongly because it makes sense to me.

Illusion or Simulation vs Generated Construct

The words "illusion" implies that our universe is not real. However it is very real. The word "simulation" implies that our universe is a copy of something else that is real, but that ours is not real, however we have no evidence that it is a copy of anything. It may be entirely unique, and once again, it is also very real. The phrase "Generated Construct" implies only that the universe has been generated, and in the case of the Computational Model, by a vastly powerful processing system. This does not imply that our universe is a copy or that it is not real. It does imply, but does not necessitate a creator.

Our Role in the Universe

We may create ourselves biologically, and we may create some things in our environment from existing materials, however there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that we create the universe itself that is around us, only that we perceive it through our senses, and our minds then create an interpretation of it that we can relate to. In other words the picture of the universe in our minds is all we create, not the universe itself.

Wave Functions

Wave functions are an analogous way of looking at how quantum events take place and the reason it is used is because of the uncertainty principle, which is purely logical. These events also take place on such a small scale and are of such a small significance to our everyday experience, that their effect is not noticeable. However I suppose it is conceivable that zillions of odd events might take place in a localized area resulting in something out of the ordinary, I just doubt it very much. To facilitate such a thing would require that the system have no error correction mechanism, and that doesn't seem likely.

Conclusion

Your particular way of viewing things seems to imply that reality as we perceive it is not an analogy to the real universe that surrounds us, but a simulation generated by our brains. This implies that the universe around us could be entirely different from what we perceive. While that may actually be the case, I don't share that view because I see too much evidence linking our sensory input to the external environment, particularly in the discoveries of things never before perceived. For example, consider a photographic plate of distant stars and galaxies taken through a telescope. We have no way of knowing what will be produced on the plate because it's beyond our perception, yet as time passes the photons cause a cumulative effect and produce a never before seen image. It doesn't make sense to me that such an image represents anything we could have created ourselves, since we didn't know what was out there in the first place. At the other end of the spectrum, doctors once thought that germs and molds spontaneously materialized because the environment they appeared on was clean. Only after the invention of high powered microscopes did we learn that germs and spores exist individually on such a small scale that they cannot be seen by the human eye, and that infection was spread by contamination, not spontaneous materialization. So no ... I don't think the nature of our surrounding universe is something we can program, and we don't simply manifest things into existence. The only things we can program at the present time are our own processing systems.

Interesting discussion. Thanks Exo for participating.

 

[exo_doc]

Oh. I thought I had stated something before, but it must have been on another thread because I don't see it.

I have reason to think the brain is a just a plug or receptacle that connects our higher selves, to the collective consciousness I guess you could say. The brain itself is just a ....gateway, doorway, data port. It connects us to the nuts and bolts physical universe , gives us a "waldo" to interact at this plane or level or whatever here. There's nothing inherently mysterious or sacred or emergent about it. After all, it's just a collection of cells, fats, sodium, etc that operates something like a computer, but operates in a different way.
The consciousness we experience is a non-local phenomena that originates .....elsewhere. That's the best I can do in describing that.
In any event, it's the "higher self" or collective consciousness that's doing the programming at a macro and micro scale, and the wave function of probablility can be tipped one way or another by the higher self. Kind of like using loaded dice.
It is my contention this would, if followed through to some midway check point kind of conclusion, create the illusion/simulation/ construct we seem to live in everyday. And I think it goes a long way toward explaining paranormal events and high strangeness events involving synchronistic events, like Chris' antique yellow helicopter. Bizarre? Yes, but I think stuff like that is not only possible, but probable......... if not inevitable.

And thanks Ufology for being my sounding board for these ideas. I don't think I've ever tried to coalesce them into one coherent idea.

 

[nameless]

Can you please clarify and elaborate on the above. I'm not sure if you mean that computers are an overlooked analogy or if you are referring to something else and if so what.

computers as analogy;
Information Processing

this should be of some use to in describing the universe in terms of HU;
Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

check out this too;
http://www.sageage.net/PDF/Articles/Brain.pdf

sorry to just post links too busy watching The Apprentice.

 

[Randall]

Oh. I thought I had stated something before, but it must have been on another thread because I don't see it. I have reason to think the brain is a just a plug or receptacle that connects our higher selves, to the collective consciousness I guess you could say. The brain itself is just a ....gateway, doorway, data port. It connects us to the nuts and bolts physical universe , gives us a "waldo" to interact at this plane or level or whatever here ...

Yes we've discussed the above before. So we were just talking about two completely different concepts here. I believe you used Avatar as an analogy, although it wasn't exactly what you were trying to get across. I believe my response was that if we take that approach, the construction and complexity of our local brain makes our local selves just as much individuals as our non-local consciousness, thereby creating a duality problem. In essence operating these "waldoes" would be more like some kind of possession ( like demonic possession ). It's interesting to think about, but a sort of Matrix like scenario would be less problematic, whereby the reality we experience, including our local bodies isn't actual, but rather a simulation generated by our non-local brains in concert with a larger Matrix like control system. The matrix approach also eliminates the "waldo" duality problem. It would also facilitate paranormal experience ( including strange yellow helicopter sightings ). The biggest difference between that kind of VR approach and the Computational Model, is that the VR approach is operating within a larger real and experienceable universe, whereas the universe in the Computational Model is that universe, encompassing both the "waldoes" and the non-local consciousnesses and all the other planets and galaxies in our spacetime continuum.

 

[Randall]

computers as analogy; Information Processing
this should be of some use to in describing the universe in terms of HU; Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
check out this too; http://www.sageage.net/PDF/Articles/Brain.pdf
sorry to just post links too busy watching The Apprentice.

Thanks for the links. They are certainly all relevant to the discussion. As for The Apprentice. I really can't stand Trump. Same goes for that Dragon's Den show. I'd like to see a reality show where they all crash on some deserted island and have to compete for survival with the people who were riding in coach. One show I have been enjoying is Arrow ( even though it's fiction ).

 

[Stagger Lee]

When I was very young, my earliest memories- I would see "particles" -or black dots, streaming through the air, as if it was pouring rain indoors. I recall asking my mother about it, but being so young with little vocabulary, she took it to mean "bugs"-
I've waited for my own kids to ask or hint at something similiar, but they have past the age I was, when I saw these particles.
Many times I would think, as an adult, that I was able to see the "building blocks" of the simulation we exist in.

 

[Stagger Lee]

so I suppose it could be argued that it's possible that whenever anybody in our reality fires up their video games and enfuses (?) their being or existence on that online persona maybe the online persona undergoes the same existential questions we do. What if one of us created an online persona that was a gamer and created an online persona...a persona within a persona...could it become sentient ?

What if the people who experience abductions (assuming they aren't mental) are being taken "offline" for adjustment or tinkering, if so would that negate free will because maybe said being was starting to fall off his or her program and had to be put back on course ? would the chaos theory be a casualty of a quantum computer program ?

For that matter do we truly have free will if it is limited to making a choice in reaction to things that we don't really have control over?

Some abductee's have described "frozen time" -where, for example, people in a swimming pool froze, as well as splashed water freezing in mid air- during their experience. Only to be put back where they were, and time starting again- like a "pause button"

 

[Randall]

When I was very young, my earliest memories- I would see "particles" -or black dots, streaming through the air, as if it was pouring rain indoors. I recall asking my mother about it, but being so young with little vocabulary, she took it to mean "bugs"-
I've waited for my own kids to ask or hint at something similiar, but they have past the age I was, when I saw these particles.
Many times I would think, as an adult, that I was able to see the "building blocks" of the simulation we exist in.

That's very interesting. It kind of reminds me of the visual output on the screens in the Matrix. We know the individual building blocks are down at the atomic level, way too small to see without ultra high powered magnification. But our visual perception is still able to pickup sufficient numbers of them, and we do sometimes see things that are beyond the normal. One time I saw an aura around a friend of mine. I've only seen such a thing once, but it was definitely real, so I know they exist. So maybe you were seeing some kind of other energy through a perceptual filter that hadn't been tuned out at that age.

 

[RobDel]

Could this theory explain Heaven? Could the programmer be God?

Great discussion. I've been reading it all week. I'm not religious, but I do believe our consciousness survives our physical death. How? I have no idea. But, if that is the case, perhaps our consciousness or "soul" is sent here to live and learn within the program, then returns to the programmer with our "data" when we die. In other words "Heaven" is the true reality where our consciousness originates, and Earth is the simulation. I like to think the truth of our existence lies somewhere between science and creation. Or that they are one in the same. At the very least, these two concepts could fit together.