What if bytemaster's right ...

[Stan]

One of the nice things about simulations is you don't have to start them at the beginning.

This simple MATLAB simulation has non-zero initial conditions.

So, if you were only interested in the part of history that involved human civilization, you could theoretically start your simulation of a 14 billion year old universe at some convenient point like, say, 6000 years ago.

If that's what happened, how would Science know the difference?

[Bitcoinfan]

Cosmological argument:
1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.  eg. computer code that had a beginning had some cause that made the script run.
2) The Universe had a beginning, therefore it had a cause. 

Question relevant to this discussion:
All simulations and simulated environments have a beginning.  Therefore what was its cause?

[Stan]

Some more thoughts, because I just can't stop when the ball is rolling...

Science already shows, quite clearly that we are not our "ego." The ego is indeed an avatar. Why? Because everything you see around you, the colors, the objects, the sound, the shadows, in short, everything in your consciousness, is in your brain, a responsive representation of outside information. You are the "screen" where everything is displayed. So if you identify with your body or the space behind your eyes, you are suffering a magnificent illusion, because that "point in space" exists in a space that is wholly already inside the representation your brain creates.

You are the whole, no single part within it.

In the West Hume was one of the first philosophers to point out that try as you might, you can't find a the "ego" behind the eyes, or anywhere else, if you stop for a second and try. Then you will realize that you have an implicit, abstract belief in something that is not really there in the concrete; in other words a kind of illusion. I.e the "ego" is an illusion.

If we apply this insight to Descartes we find that the sentence, "I think, therefore I am," really can only mean "there is thinking going on," but who is aware of this thinking? Is thinking aware of itself? If you pay close attention, you find that no, thinking is not aware of itself, but speaks like the explicit word and is located specifically inside the whole conscious representation or field, and is understood within that complete light. Therefore, "Consciousness IS."

Finally, Kant nearly became an idealist because it was difficult to understand how consciousness could grasp anything outside itself. Whenever we are conscious of something, it is our consciousness that we are directly experiencing, not the thing itself. Kant grappled with how to get an objective science out of this position, and we are still largely living in his shadow.

If we want to unify Spirituality (What am I?) and Science (What is the World?) what is the best way to go from here?

I'm more fascinated by the sudden open-mindedness of "Science" (other than Rocket Science, naturally).

Historically, Science has lagged in that department.  Flat earth.  Geocentric Universe.  F=ma.  "God does not play dice."

But now serious scientists, extrapolating from the Giants of the 20th century, are seriously considering the Simulation Hypothesis.  Without needing or even attempting to explain whether that simulation is an emergent property of hyper reality, some fiendishly clever software or the will of an Omnipotent Being.

It doesn't matter which.   The point is they have discovered that "reality" behaves like a simulation.   The Matrix.   The implication is that the Laws of Physics are programmable. Non-linear.  Non-causal.  Like a scriptable blockchain. 

The speed of light turns out to be a variable constant.

And that would imply that "magic" is possible.  Even routine.  Observed "miracles", like quantum entanglement, are thus something to be investigated, not ridiculed. 

Those who say things like "man will never fly" are the ones who should be ridiculed.

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

• When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
  When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
• The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
• Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Once you get to that point, the most interesting area of scientific investigation is the so-called "supernatural".

Because that is merely the part of the "natural" that science has yet to concede.

As I see it the simulation hypothesis has two kinds of arguments going for it. The first is that we are approaching a physics that resembles information-theory more than it does a theory of matter (Konrad Zuse, John Wheeler, David Deutsch, Seth Lloyd, Max Tegmark, Stephen Wolfram, Juergen Schmidhuber).  The second is that if it is possible to simulate a whole universe (and the evidence is mounting, Minecraft ) then it is in some sense more likely that it has already happened (Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument).

To me the most significant upshot of these developments is not that it might be true, in an external sense, that we are living in a simulation. That might be true. The real significance seems to be that, if reality is info-cognitive at heart, it might be possible to bridge the schism between consciousness and reality without downplaying the existence of either in the process. This is important because it promises a bridge between "values" and "matters of fact" which is currently working as a schizophrenic agent dividing everyone, the objective scientists no less than the religious nuts, into fragments of what could be.

Indeed.  It might even go further than that to include the nutty scientists and the objectively religious!

[CLains]

Some more thoughts, because I just can't stop when the ball is rolling...

Science already shows, quite clearly that we are not our "ego." The ego is indeed an avatar. Why? Because everything you see around you, the colors, the objects, the sound, the shadows, in short, everything in your consciousness, is in your brain, a responsive representation of outside information. You are the "screen" where everything is displayed. So if you identify with your body or the space behind your eyes, you are suffering a magnificent illusion, because that "point in space" exists in a space that is wholly already inside the representation your brain creates.

You are the whole, no single part within it.

In the West Hume was one of the first philosophers to point out that try as you might, you can't find a the "ego" behind the eyes, or anywhere else, if you stop for a second and try. Then you will realize that you have an implicit, abstract belief in something that is not really there in the concrete; in other words a kind of illusion. I.e the "ego" is an illusion.

If we apply this insight to Descartes we find that the sentence, "I think, therefore I am," really can only mean "there is thinking going on," but who is aware of this thinking? Is thinking aware of itself? If you pay close attention, you find that no, thinking is not aware of itself, but speaks like the explicit word and is located specifically inside the whole conscious representation or field, and is understood within that complete light. Therefore, "Consciousness IS."

Finally, Kant nearly became an idealist because it was difficult to understand how consciousness could grasp anything outside itself. Whenever we are conscious of something, it is our consciousness that we are directly experiencing, not the thing itself. Kant grappled with how to get an objective science out of this position, and we are still largely living in his shadow.

If we want to unify Spirituality (What am I?) and Science (What is the World?) what is the best way to go from here?

I'm more fascinated by the sudden open-mindedness of "Science" (other than Rocket Science, naturally).

Historically, Science has lagged in that department.  Flat earth.  Geocentric Universe.  F=ma.  "God does not play dice."

But now serious scientists, extrapolating from the Giants of the 20th century, are seriously considering the Simulation Hypothesis.  Without needing or even attempting to explain whether that simulation is an emergent property of hyper reality, some fiendishly clever software or the will of an Omnipotent Being.

It doesn't matter which.   The point is they have discovered that "reality" behaves like a simulation.   The Matrix.   The implication is that the Laws of Physics are programmable. Non-linear.  Non-causal.  Like a scriptable blockchain. 

The speed of light turns out to be a variable constant.

And that would imply that "magic" is possible.  Even routine.  Observed "miracles", like quantum entanglement, are thus something to be investigated, not ridiculed. 

Those who say things like "man will never fly" are the ones who should be ridiculed.

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

• When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
  When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
• The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
• Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Once you get to that point, the most interesting area of scientific investigation is the so-called "supernatural".

Because that is merely the part of the "natural" that science has yet to concede.

As I see it the simulation hypothesis has two kinds of arguments going for it. The first is that we are approaching a physics that resembles information-theory more than it does a theory of matter (Konrad Zuse, John Wheeler, David Deutsch, Seth Lloyd, Max Tegmark, Stephen Wolfram, Juergen Schmidhuber).  The second is that if it is possible to simulate a whole universe (and the evidence is mounting, Minecraft ) then it is in some sense more likely that it has already happened (Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument).

To me the most significant upshot of these developments is not that it might be true, in an external sense, that we are living in a simulation. That might be true. The real significance seems to be that, if reality is info-cognitive at heart, it might be possible to bridge the schism between consciousness and reality without downplaying the existence of either in the process. This is important because it promises a bridge between "values" and "matters of fact" which is currently working as a schizophrenic agent dividing everyone, the objective scientists no less than the religious nuts, into fragments of what could be.

[Stan]

Some more thoughts, because I just can't stop when the ball is rolling...

Science already shows, quite clearly that we are not our "ego." The ego is indeed an avatar. Why? Because everything you see around you, the colors, the objects, the sound, the shadows, in short, everything in your consciousness, is in your brain, a responsive representation of outside information. You are the "screen" where everything is displayed. So if you identify with your body or the space behind your eyes, you are suffering a magnificent illusion, because that "point in space" exists in a space that is wholly already inside the representation your brain creates.

You are the whole, no single part within it.

In the West Hume was one of the first philosophers to point out that try as you might, you can't find a the "ego" behind the eyes, or anywhere else, if you stop for a second and try. Then you will realize that you have an implicit, abstract belief in something that is not really there in the concrete; in other words a kind of illusion. I.e the "ego" is an illusion.

If we apply this insight to Descartes we find that the sentence, "I think, therefore I am," really can only mean "there is thinking going on," but who is aware of this thinking? Is thinking aware of itself? If you pay close attention, you find that no, thinking is not aware of itself, but speaks like the explicit word and is located specifically inside the whole conscious representation or field, and is understood within that complete light. Therefore, "Consciousness IS."

Finally, Kant nearly became an idealist because it was difficult to understand how consciousness could grasp anything outside itself. Whenever we are conscious of something, it is our consciousness that we are directly experiencing, not the thing itself. Kant grappled with how to get an objective science out of this position, and we are still largely living in his shadow.

If we want to unify Spirituality (What am I?) and Science (What is the World?) what is the best way to go from here?

I'm more fascinated by the sudden open-mindedness of "Science" (other than Rocket Science, naturally).

Historically, Science has lagged in that department.  Flat earth.  Geocentric Universe.  F=ma.  "God does not play dice."

But now serious scientists, extrapolating from the Giants of the 20th century, are seriously considering the Simulation Hypothesis.  Without needing or even attempting to explain whether that simulation is an emergent property of hyper reality, some fiendishly clever software or the will of an Omnipotent Being.

It doesn't matter which.   The point is they have discovered that "reality" behaves like a simulation.   The Matrix.   The implication is that the Laws of Physics are programmable. Non-linear.  Non-causal.  Like a scriptable blockchain. 

The speed of light turns out to be a variable constant.

And that would imply that "magic" is possible.  Even routine.  Observed "miracles", like quantum entanglement, are thus something to be investigated, not ridiculed. 

Those who say things like "man will never fly" are the ones who should be ridiculed.

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

• When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
  When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
• The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
• Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Once you get to that point, the most interesting area of scientific investigation is the so-called "supernatural".

Because that is merely the part of the "natural" that science has yet to concede.

[giant middle finger]

I just wish I were able to convince everyone else that my fingers were not up your butt, but I've grown tired of trying, so I'll be gentle. 

I don't need your stinking fingers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTHkjpv4X6M#t=3m48s

[Stan]

The thing about simulations is that they can be initialized and reset.

And don't get me started about hard forks...

[CLains]

Some more thoughts, because I just can't stop when the ball is rolling...

Science already shows, quite clearly that we are not our "ego." The ego is indeed an avatar. Why? Because everything you see around you, the colors, the objects, the sound, the shadows, in short, everything in your consciousness, is in your brain, a responsive representation of outside information. You are the "screen" where everything is displayed. So if you identify with your body or the space behind your eyes, you are suffering a magnificent illusion, because that "point in space" exists in a space that is wholly already inside the representation your brain creates.

You are the whole, no single part within it.

In the West Hume was one of the first philosophers to point out that try as you might, you can't find a the "ego" behind the eyes, or anywhere else, if you stop for a second and try. Then you will realize that you have an implicit, abstract belief in something that is not really there in the concrete; in other words a kind of illusion. I.e the "ego" is an illusion.

If we apply this insight to Descartes we find that the sentence, "I think, therefore I am," really can only mean "there is thinking going on," but who is aware of this thinking? Is thinking aware of itself? If you pay close attention, you find that no, thinking is not aware of itself, but speaks like the explicit word and is located specifically inside the whole conscious representation or field, and is understood within that complete light. Therefore, "Consciousness IS."

Finally, Kant nearly became an idealist because it was difficult to understand how consciousness could grasp anything outside itself. Whenever we are conscious of something, it is our consciousness that we are directly experiencing, not the thing itself. Kant grappled with how to get an objective science out of this position, and we are still largely living in his shadow.

If we want to unify Spirituality (What am I?) and Science (What is the World?) what is the best way to go from here?

[CLains]

What if the trinity is just the realization that the avatar (ego, son, flesh, word) is the same as the light that illuminates (holy light, understanding) is the same as the origin of both (the father, God, consciousness). This "religious" insight is nearly identical to the "life is a dream" insight, only it speaks more clearly. The same is true of the Upanishads, which says that we are not who we think we are in waking life just like we are not who we think we are in dreaming life, but the very stuff (consciousness) both are made of. There are always people who reify religious and mystical insights, just like there are people who reify the simulation hypothesis, taking the finger for the moon.

But science is also a quest for unity, where ultimately everything shall be explained, the very method and observer (consciousness) of science included. So far science has gone deep to the roots of reality and we are going deeper still. And the deeper we go the closer science seems to get to properties that can unify with mind and consciousness, i.e. energy, fields, possibility, mathematics, information. We are not there yet, but those who can read the signs will be optimistic.

The fact that we are still living in the post-Descartian, post-Humean, post-Kantian era does not mean we have to be either dualists, skeptics or idealists. It just means that the philosophers have been lazy. To me the most empowering stance is that we will be able to unify these religious, mystical, and scientific insights in the near future. Everyone just needs to get their shit together.

[Tuck Fheman]

take your hand out of my fuckin ass Tuck!

why do you feel the need to apologise?

because you just cost the rest of us potentially 10 minutes of BM productive time (the time it took him to write his response to your post) when he could have been finishing up anon or bond mkt features on our wallet?

as long as you are not bitching then apology accepted.

i'll bend back on over so we can carry on now.

and this time start with just one finger at a time




preferably a small one

Ahhh "my sock puppet" that was the inspiration for this post in the first place.

The sock puppet that got me thrown under the proverbial bus and ousted as a "founder". 

You are by far my favorite alleged sock puppet that has a life of it's own.

I just wish I were able to convince everyone else that my fingers were not up your butt, but I've grown tired of trying, so I'll be gentle. 

[giant middle finger]

in case my post is being misinterpreted, I wasn't attempting to make fun of anyone's beliefs

Muh meme, art, stupid image was an attempt to make fun of the fact that people thought/think I'm controlling various accounts on the forum

take your hand out of my fuckin ass Tuck!

why do you feel the need to apologise?

because you just cost the rest of us potentially 10 minutes of BM productive time (the time it took him to write his response to your post) when he could have been finishing up anon or bond mkt features on our wallet?

as long as you are not bitching then apology accepted.

i'll bend back on over so we can carry on now.

and this time start with just one finger at a time




preferably a small one

[Tuck Fheman]

Then you don't understand his position.  He thinks he is just a reflection of you.  A sockpupet in your universe.

Which universe of mine? 

I was not trying to analyze his beliefs.

I did that many years ago when they were my beliefs and I changed my mind because ... I'm too stupid to have a reflection as smart as someone like bytemaster. 

Disclaimer : Please don't analyze anything I post outside of whether or not it made you smile or made you consider other possibilities.

[Tuck Fheman]

I think it is very easy to present straw-man arguments of my stance that make it sound ridiculous. 

FWIW, in case my post is being misinterpreted, I wasn't attempting to make fun of anyone's beliefs and at one point several years back I entertained what you currently believe until I changed that belief for the same reason you outline above.

Muh meme, art, stupid image was an attempt to make fun of the fact that people thought/think I'm controlling various accounts on the forum and your words have come to mind in several instances recently where it worked into "the joke" better than anything else, most people have by now heard what you said and I get to reference the great bytemaster and thereby earn some cool points.

Quantum Physics discovers that the Universe is most likely a simulation

Yeah, this theory is becoming very popular these days with many different camps. It's even being worked into some Christian teachings (see guys like Chuck Missler). I've studied and been a part of various belief systems over the past 20 years, even some I wish I'd never ventured into when looking back. But they all did teach me something, so I can't say there was anything wrong with them.

[Riverhead]

Simulation or not it's all we've got. So it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

As for the various deities man has had foisted on us over our short tenure I believe they all exist in the same sense that mp3s exist on our devices.

Anyway XKCD as usual sums it up best:

[Stan]

Quantum Physics discovers that the Universe is most likely a simulation

The Simulation Hypothesis

Pay no attention to that Man behind the curtain...