|
Warrk



Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,635
|
The Simulated Universe 4
#26967207 - 10/03/20 09:14 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I've listened to this a number of times, all 1.5 hours of it.
I wouldn't mind hearing what others think of it:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tom-campbell-simulated-realities-possible-futures-obes/id1478684822?i=1000473583697
The blurb for it: "Join Riz for a lively conversation with Tom Campbell author of My Big TOE, and one of the earlier proponents of simulation theory. Tom's work is unique because not only is he a physicist by training, but he brings experience with different aspects of consciousness, including OBE's, Remote Viewing, and is one of the few to provide a Theory of Everything (TOE) that really covers, well, everything! The discussion includes Tom's background, mysteries of physics, entering multiple virtual realities, and the status of his experiments to prove that we are living in a simulated world. Learn more at cusac.org and mybigtoe.com."
Why I think it is interesting is because it helps explain personal experiences that I cannot otherwise figure out. Why do we feel, see and experience a different realm of existence when we're tripping balls? What are these other beings/entities that appear in our altered states of consciousness?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,704
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26967345 - 10/03/20 10:23 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I cannot imagine how his big TOE explains your personal experience through psychedelic realms, but if it makes you happy - great!
It should not matter what others believe, if it helps you find your way great! There are Mormons and Muslims and Mahayanins all finding their way without his big TOE, but that is fine too.
Don't blame me if it falls into a category that is not exact science. It really is of no consequence, when you believe you believe within your own framework.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Warrk



Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,635
|
|
Ok redgreenvines.
You should listen to it first before commenting though my friend.
|
Warrk



Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,635
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk] 2
#26967380 - 10/03/20 10:44 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Back again for a quick comment... @redgreenvines, I'm guess that with your having studied neurophysiology that you are a materialist? That you believe consciousness arises out of neurons and brains?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,704
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26967912 - 10/03/20 04:47 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
you guessed about 1/10000000 th of it
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
emcee
Stranger
Registered: 08/21/20
Posts: 9
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
|
OMG Tom is the best! Thanks for sharing love love love it!
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,224
Last seen: 1 day, 10 hours
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: emcee]
#26970104 - 10/05/20 03:39 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
A simulated universe is a universe itself..
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,658
Last seen: 3 days, 1 hour
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26970164 - 10/05/20 06:03 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
i listened to the Big TOE triology on audiobook, as i found it was great to listen to in that format. he narrates it himself, which is always nice.
rgv,
if everything in the universe is a product of information, and that information is generated when any system in the universe selects between a finite number of possible states, then what is the operating system? who/what/how/when/why/where is the one creating the information?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,704
|
|
I have never considered that the universe is a product of information, that is backwards: we obtain information about the universe. each view would fill an infinite repository of information.
the universe produces an infinite source of infinities of information, not the other way around.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
thealienthatategod
retrovertigo


Registered: 10/10/17
Posts: 2,658
Last seen: 3 days, 1 hour
|
|
i think a better way to describe it than simiulation is "quantum simile"
anyway, i wonder what the purpose of the simulation is?
are humans and their human thoughts some kind of hitchhikers?
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,362
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 minutes, 58 seconds
|
|
If they were going to simulate a universe, they could have done a better job of it.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26970897 - 10/05/20 04:35 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Warrk said: I've listened to this a number of times, all 1.5 hours of it.
I wouldn't mind hearing what others think of it:
The blurb for it: "Join Riz for a lively conversation with Tom Campbell author of My Big TOE, and one of the earlier proponents of simulation theory. ....
. On the one hand Tom Campbell is very careful to let us know he is a meditator extraordinaire. Just from learning TM he could immediately do inexplicable things, then he mastered astral travel before Monroe showed him how, and then he worked with Monroe. It makes a great captivating story just like Castaneda's tales; but for me on second thought it raises red flags, when someone is so proud of their personal metaphysical achievements. . On the other hand the theory that everything is a simulation is far from new or groundbreaking. It is a rehash of about 3000 year old Hindu mythology.
see for example: http://www.thebuddhagarden.com/brahma-hindu-god-creation.html scrolling down we find: "One interesting aspect of different creation stories is that sometimes Vishnu or Shiva are given credit for creating the world. It is believed that they dreamed up the creation of the universe, with Brahma doing all the heavy lifting in the dream, as if he were just following the blueprints laid out by the other two gods. "
. Back then the word for 'simulation' was 'dream' as in: "its all just Brahma (or Vishnu) dreaming."
Edited by laughingdog (10/05/20 04:39 PM)
|
Warrk



Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,635
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: . On the one hand Tom Campbell is very careful to let us know he is a meditator extraordinaire. Just from learning TM he could immediately do inexplicable things, then he mastered astral travel before Monroe showed him how, and then he worked with Monroe. It makes a great captivating story just like Castaneda's tales; but for me on second thought it raises red flags, when someone is so proud of their personal metaphysical achievements.
Huge red flags for sure, HUGE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence right? On the internet many people make incredible claims whether that is working on UFOs at Area 51 (I'm looking at you Bob Lazar) or having special paranormal abilities or whatever.
To be fair though, Campbell was asked to tell a bit of background about himself. What he says sounds loopy and one's immediate reaction is "What's this guy on" and "Is he for real?" The thing is, the guy's never taken any drugs so he's not some Castaneda type on a wild hallucinatory trip or embarking on a literary adventure embellished with imagination.
The question that begs to be asked is "Is Campbell credible?". Is he really a physicist? Has he worked at NASA as he says he has and is there evidence that he was there?
A bit of digging around on NASA's website brings this up:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090014192
On page 8 of that document it says:
"THOMAS W. CAMPBELL is currently consulting in the field of Probabilistic Design Analysis for NASA. He has over 36 years of experience working with the Department of Defense in several fields, including systems engineering; technology development; physics-based modeling and simulation; algorithm and software development; intelligence analysis; radars, antenna, and electronic environments analysis; system security engineering; technology transfer, reuse, and insertion; engineering management and program management; and system risk and vulnerability. He received a B.S. in Physics as well as an M.S. in Physics. His Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions."
I've read Castaneda's book Tales of Power and I remember Don Juan's emphasis on impeccability in order to become a warrior and a shaman.
Since reading the book, I've often asked myself if so-and-so is impeccable whenever I come across a person making extraordinary claims. The vast majority of people are pathological liars. We tell fibs, we exaggerate, we fill in the gaps when our memory fails us. On YouTube you can see when someone is telling a lie from their body language.
With Campbell, he's about the most impeccable person I have come across. He is not crazy nor is he a charlatan out to rob us or induct us into a weird cult that's steals our souls. As he is fond of saying, go out and experience it for yourself and make up your own mind, don't believe what he says.
The problem is most of us are blinded by our belief traps, we are so conditioned to thinking a certain way that we cannot fathom the world being any other way except for the constructs we have built to reinforce those beliefs.
The Simulation Theory is not new, that's true. Some of the brightest minds in Silicon Valley are adherents:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/silicon-valley-is-obsessed-with-a-false-notion-of-reality/503963/
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,704
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26971747 - 10/06/20 08:57 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
There is no inference from a universe being simulated that produces an impeccable result, it is not elegant and simple as are other fundamental principles in the world.
I think he sees something in the "simulation" metaphor but it is not what you were hoping it would be. Instead it is a misappropriation of the term that you and others are stretching to mean a lot more voodoo that it does.
In particular, there is no ingenious massive scale simulator to which we are all connected, other than your own mind, and your mind is not producing the consistent matter and energy that you are simulating into a view of the world, merely interpreting what is there agaist what was there in moments through your past.
So the precise viewpoint you have of the universe is a slightly different simulation than any viewpoint I may have including the same facts. this is a case where the term 'simulation' works.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Warrk



Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,635
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:I think he sees something in the "simulation" metaphor but it is not what you were hoping it would be. Instead it is a misappropriation of the term that you and others are stretching to mean a lot more voodoo that it does.
Hmmm... I dunno rgv. I take the word "simulation" the way Campbell describes it, I don't really know what it really means or how others see it, it is not a word I use in my every day lexicon.
This is what Campbell is on about: he says the physical material world is digital, it comes in discrete chunks, or bits and bytes. In other words, it is not smooth and continuous. Take a chair as an example. If you break a chair into smaller and smaller pieces, you no longer have merely smaller pieces of chair. Or take a drop of water and break it into smaller and smaller bits, and initially you will get smaller and smaller droplets of water. However, at some stage the water will no longer be water as we know it. One molecule of water by way of example no longer looks like water and it no longer has the fluid qualities of water. Can one molecule of water be wet? If we keep tunnellng down, that one molecule becomes atoms, then fermions and bosons as the ultimate elementary units of matter with no further substructures or components to them.
Then we might ask ourselves, but what are these elementary units of matter really? What are they made of? Can we see a charm quark, smell it, touch it? What exactly is an electron?
Quantum mechanics tell us that matter is merely potentialities as exemplified by the wave function, that the world is a probabalistic, statistical one. The location of an electron can be anywhere, and everywhere all at once, and is defined by a probability distribution.
There is no voodoo in that. This is science as science has been taught to me, and in turn as I have taught my students at university.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,704
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26971930 - 10/06/20 11:02 AM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
each of your statements has a profound discontinuity of scale in it.
quanta are not digital, either or, 1 vs. zero, that is digital. data storage in binary is digital, rendering of frames to a screen from stored data using mathematical formulae is simulation.
the physical world is not digital.
breaking the chair down to invisible components means that you are going into a scale that does not conform to stable attributes using our senses. that does not warrant declaration of simulation.
this statement "Quantum mechanics tell us that matter is merely potentialities as exemplified by the wave function, that the world is a probabilistic, statistical one. The location of an electron can be anywhere, and everywhere all at once, and is defined by a probability distribution." reveals a lot of the problem:
The wave function and probability are mathematical descriptions; they are not the physical instantiation of the matter or energy reality, just a description, from a point of view, at a moment. It would only be a simulation if the instantiations were expressions of the functions plugged into a simulator. UNLESS, all of reality was, in fact, the simulator and the simulation. This absurd notion presumes that every point in space is equipped with the formulae and a representation of all other points in space.
At that point the metaphor is excessively top heavy. That would lead to unhealthy entanglements.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Warrk]
#26972387 - 10/06/20 03:30 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
. Another way to look at is what can you do with Simulation Theory that you couldn't do otherwise. . I don't know exactly what the Hindus did with it other than to help folks get a feeling for awesomeness. . But when Buddhists compare the universe to a dream or foam, it becomes another metaphor to show the folly of clinging & attachment. That it's all similar to a dream is also just another way driving home the teaching of impermanence.
. By contrast Simulation Theory, seems to appeal to those people, that want to grasp, a very fancy theory, that will give them a deep objective understanding.
. By contrast Buddhism aims to facilitate an inner change in a person such that, intellectual understanding, is only the "icing on the cake". Perhaps there are better metaphors, ... But anyway... the idea is that if the experiential core of a person is changed, the outer intellectual expression will take care of itself. This seems more valuable...
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,704
|
|
I am not sure about changing a person's core, more like reconnecting to the core with which you have lost touch.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,248
|
|
There are similarities between reality and simulations. This is reasonable because simulations were created to simulate reality. Even prior to the use of the word, early computers simulated things we were already doing by hand.
But there's a certain line of logic that makes it hard to wholly discredit the simulation idea. If space and time are products of QM, then it is essentially information or the state of energy, giving rise to matter and the line between reality and simulation becomes blurred.
None of that is enough to make me think such a thing is true. One must suppose an original reality gave birth to a simulation so it's possible for there to be a real reality. Why not this one? How would a true reality differ? It seems off the scale to consider such things.
So from that aspect there's a possible ignorance at play. But if we are living in a sim? So what? That changes things how exactly?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,829
|
Re: The Simulated Universe [Re: Rahz]
#26972869 - 10/06/20 08:13 PM (3 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Simulation or 'reality' in both cases there is something more fundamental This is what Buddha addressed 2500 years ago. What or who is doing, the perceiving of the Simulation or 'reality'? If the self is not separate from the Simulation or 'reality', that reframes the issue. And if the self, is not stable, unified, autonomous, or permanent that also reframes the issue. What one ends up with is oneness that has no need to label itself.
It is the same with discussions of AI, and Donald Hoffman's theory, they were all not only "beaten to the punch", but also addressed on a more profound level 2500 years ago. Of course 'nobody's ego' likes this. Everyone wants to 'hold onto self', and furthermore add more insights to it.
|
|