|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: skOsH]
#27055019 - 11/24/20 07:34 AM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah we kind of have to generate stuff to be anything. Although that reminds of the psychedelic state I’m not sure if that’s what you’re (skosh) referring to but even in such a state there’s the physicality. Lol Ime it’s like being on par with basic physical processes like wind/creek water/plate tectonics
|
Loaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist



Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,006
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 28 days, 5 hours
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#27056492 - 11/25/20 01:07 AM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Warrk said: It is true that the map is not the territory and that the model is not the reality, just as mathematics is not the phenomenon nor are words the object etc.
When we communicate information we have to be aware that the communication is representational. Everything is metaphor. So "simulation" is a metaphor as is "reality". The 2 are not mutually exclusive though, Campbell in his Theory of Everything is saying that our reality IS a simulation, or can be thought of as a simulation, a virtual reality. What is beyond this reality we may ask? What was before the Big Bang, or before the start of time? We just don't know although there are different ideas but I doubt we can ever test these ideas with experiments.
When we ask what reality is, this is about as deep as we can get and it is no surprise that humanity has been entertaining this for aeons. Even today the jury is not out among physicists as to whether reality is analogue or digital for example, top tier scientist debate the various scenarios and there is no consensus. However, the Simulation Hypothesis is gaining traction and being considered along with all the other models out there.
For me, Campbell's explanation of reality makes sense, it works for me. No doubt it will be further refined as new observations and phenomena have to be accounted for as they arise. Uncertainty is not a bad position to take and at the end of the day the totality of reality is ineffable, it is too complex for our small human minds to comprehend it all, but some stories and some metaphors have a better fit than others.
Nailed it in your opening sentence. I've read Campbell's book as well and I agree with a lot of what he says about reality "rendering" only when observed, etc.
My only gripe is people claiming it's a simulation are indirectly, whether they're conscious of it or not, making a claim that they have access to another level of reality that proves this one isn't the primary one.
That's my gripe.
...AND if you could somehow prove that, how do you avoid infinite regress and prove THAT level isn't also a simulation...? Where is the actual START BASE LEVEL OF REALITY?
These are all questions that are derived from the erroneous contradictory metaphysic of "inside and outside are separated and don't interact at all".
--------------------
  "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius
|
Warrk



Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,623
|
|
Has anyone heard of the game No Man's Sky? Or played it? It is a few years old now:
It touts itself as:
"...a procedurally generated deterministic open world universe, which includes over 18 quintillion planets. Through the game's procedural generation system, planets have their own ecosystems with unique forms of flora and fauna, and various sentient alien species may engage the player in combat or trade within planetary systems."
More about the game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Man%27s_Sky
The game changer in No Man's Sky is the use of procedural generation. If No Man's Sky's universe comprises 18 quintillion planets you would think there's no way in the world that a team of 10,000 programmers could write the necessary code in one human lifespan if it were not for procedural generation.
Procedural generation explained:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: skOsH]
#27080489 - 12/09/20 01:13 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
skOsH said: I hate to come here and be the ultimate pessimist, but here goes:
"You" is just your brain assigning itself an identity, with the body.
Everything about you comes from society (your name, accent, language, etc,)
There's nothing there. I wish there was, but I am pretty sure there is not.....
. Sounds about right - some people seem to have a desperate urge to find some new insight to adorn their mind with. Seems a sort of addiction. (Reminds me of the birds that collect trash, and put it around their nest area to impress a potential mate. * ) . But this dude in India about 2500 years ago pretty much nailed it when he pointed out that all thoughts based on what may be called "impurity" or "selfishness" that are identified with lead to more of same, and are incapable of leading to permanent satisfaction, therefore they continually result in some sort of frustration or stress. . This amounts to what could be called moment to moment "reincarnation" of an illusory unhappy self. As this self is illusory, it must be an impersonal process. . On the other hand almost by definition what are sometimes called: "worldlings" take everything personally. Perhaps those who write journals, and diaries exemplify this process of trying to make 'the self' precious. Birds of a feather flock together and that's just another impersonal process. . Even thoughts that are not particularly "selfish", that are identified with as being "mine" and therefore defended, by the very act of defense, contribute to the false perception of a 'self' that has a boundary. "Self", boundaries, defense, identification, the feeling of mine, and stress all go together. Its a package deal.
* https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bowerbird+nests&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images
Edited by laughingdog (12/09/20 06:53 PM)
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 5 hours, 57 minutes
|
|
The final answer has come to me!
You are running your own simulated universe!
Each of us IS running a simulation..
The great question is how do universes interact?
Inside me? Out of me? Etc..
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said: The final answer has come to me!
You are running your own simulated universe!
Each of us IS running a simulation..
The great question is how do universes interact?
Inside me? Out of me? Etc..
not quite a final or satisfactory answer on 2nd thought is it?
Edited by laughingdog (12/11/20 06:12 PM)
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 5 hours, 57 minutes
|
|
Even if your not running the simulation.. you could take the power back to do so.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
BrendanFlock said: Even if your not running the simulation.. you could take the power back to do so.
. Seems 'you' are committed, to an anti Buddhist position, which would of course be the exact opposite - or in other words that: it is precisely the 'self' that 'you' assume has power, that is if not exactly a simulation, is still pretty much characterized as being provisional, relative, interdependent, contingent, unstable and temporary. . And the words "provisional, relative, interdependent, contingent, unstable and temporary", may also characterize the context (or world) in which the 'self' is provisionally found. . It might be worth reconsidering, where the preponderance of the evidence lies, as regards anything being totally autonomous, or for that matter being graspable or controllable for any great length of time, or even more radically: certain.
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 5 hours, 57 minutes
|
|
Well.. at the most minimal.. one might place himself in a position of least suffering in a simulation or not..
Does that ring true about the Buddhist perspective?
|
OutsideOfMyMind
LSD Self Administrative Director



Registered: 10/05/20
Posts: 5,383
Last seen: 3 hours, 12 minutes
|
|
People suffer because they perceive things negatively. There's no objective reality or meaning to the universe, only the meaning we individually assign to it which is different for everyone.
This guy explains it better than me:
Edited by OutsideOfMyMind (12/12/20 11:14 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
|
I thought suffering was related to clinging like looping through memories with bad feelings or obsessing as a way in life.
but also disease, into which category this clinging and looping could fall.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
OutsideOfMyMind
LSD Self Administrative Director



Registered: 10/05/20
Posts: 5,383
Last seen: 3 hours, 12 minutes
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I thought suffering was related to clinging like looping through memories with bad feelings or obsessing as a way in life.
but also disease, into which category this clinging and looping could fall.
It all goes back to perspective. If you perceive the things in your life or memories to be bad or negative then that negativity is going to influence your feelings and your emotions and your output of energy into the universe. The only valid feelings of negativity probably come from abuse.
I think a lot of suffering comes from an inability to see the positives within the negatives.
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
OutsideOfMyMind said: People suffer because they perceive things negatively. There's no objective reality or meaning to the universe, only the meaning we individually assign to it which is different for everyone.
“science is the plumbing level of reality”
I think most will come together and agree that there is meaning in bad plumbing. In other words the world provides recommendations I would say. Yet I would agree that objective meaning cannot be absolutely extracted from the plumbing.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
|
lead I think bad if it's in the plumbing
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest


Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
|
I don't think there are any levels to reality. It's one unified whole, and anyway the limits of our language are the limits of our world; as Wittgenstein put it. I'd take a kind of solipsitic view on it without pushing it to the extreme.
-------------------- Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. "Chat your fraff Chat your fraff Just chat your fraff Chat your fraff"
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Grapefruit]
#27090644 - 12/15/20 02:29 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Wasn’t Wittgenstein the philosopher that thought philosophy was pointless?
At any rate I think the quote was said in the context where the relationship a rock or chalkboard has with itself for example is not in the same order as the relationship a human being has with itself and that this constitutes different levels of reality. Granted a human being is made out of similar stuff in a fundamental sense but there is the potential for higher order self relationship. You know because science works with the physical and material and this is a level and there is the emotional level you might say where certain entities can become aware or have the capacity for it. Perhaps there is a cerebral level where metaphor and language reside. Perhaps there are other levels that I am not aware of. You would not agree?
Edited by Yellow Pants (12/15/20 02:44 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Grapefruit]
#27091604 - 12/16/20 05:52 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Grapefruit said: I don't think there are any levels to reality. It's one unified whole, and anyway the limits of our language are the limits of our world...
agree (not a 'Wittspert', so I did not extend my quoting to include the 3rd party) keep your language growing!
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
As regards those various posts above mentioning suffering, and its cause:
Shinzen (a vipassana meditation teacher) boils understanding "Suffering" all down to a simple equation:
Pain X Resistance = Suffering
so
10 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 100 units of suffering
100 units of Pain X 0 units of resistance = 0 units of suffering
1 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 10 units of suffering
etc.
. Of course just encountering the formula, won't produce the results that both meditation and working with attempting to put it into practice may eventually. . However it suggests a way to work with difficult sensations, without getting lost in the terminologies, of psychology, philosophy, and Buddhism. Many of his students have had good results, in dealing with difficult sensations and feelings. . The concept of differentiating pain or difficult sensations, from one's reaction (suffering) is of course vital. And when "in pain" how finely the awareness has been trained to track such subtleties occurring in present micro second to micro second reality, will likely make a big difference.
Edited by laughingdog (12/16/20 02:15 PM)
|
Yellow Pants


Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 1,386
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: Pain X Resistance = Suffering
so
10 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 100 units of suffering
100 units of Pain X 0 units of resistance = 0 units of suffering
1 units of Pain X 10 units of resistance = 10 units of suffering
I wonder what in this equation resistance means. A lack of acceptance maybe. Taking the mind away from the painful moment and onto greener pastures. Creating a stiffer contrast in the pain then..
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
|
in this resistance is defensive identification with the injury, or with the potential injury, instead of a more comprehensive awareness of what is happening in the moment.
i.e. cultivating relaxed open awareness is the opposite of defensive identification (resistance).
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
|