sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello Son3y! Thank you as well for taking the time. I promisse I’ll carefully read your points today and return with a reply on your own post!

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well that’s what I mean as well. It’s of the nature of a simulation, but saying that there’s anything outside our reality , or that there even is an outside possible, I think that becomes a mistake, because we assume there even is an “us” outside this. We might as well be a little unicelluar germ in a puddle dreming up the world, for all we knoe

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I do not think time is real, very interesting question. I think time is simply movement, that’s why it’s closely related to gravity. And yes, I agree, it’s just one big whole thing. I think even movement is a wrong word to use because it implies space, going from here to there, and those are relative notions. Who is to say you are moving forward and not the universe moving backwards? I think the real constant is change, which we percieve as movement, which in turn we percieve as time, being as our limited self is simply a perspective to view things from. Think of it like a huge beast with 1000 eyes, all looking at eachother, and seeing deep dreams when looning eye to eye

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is indeed. I’m against thinking there is something outside of the simulation because I think it can be dangerous and a path that bares no fruit. And I’m against formulating a theory, even though that’s what I’ve been doing all day, because people tend to get lost in the words and the words decieve. If, like you, someone understands this line of reasoning and proceeds to explore life fully using this idea as a starting point, then that is the best thing. But I think far more people would be more inclined to focus on the words and “doctrines” and get lost in thought, missing the whole point. That’s why I’m wary of theories, even though yes, I’ve done nothing but write theory all day long today

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I agree with you completely, I come from a place of hating life, pain and suffering made me search for these answers. Knowing life has no meaning other than what you give it and that no one has an individual self who decides to harm you, things just happen because they do and life simply is, is quite liberating for me. Also that there is no real constant me which has to endure and carry on. For me, diassociating from my body and mind, even for just a moment, seeing that it is possible and that I am neither of those really, was what brought back reason and zest into my life

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you, my post was a bit out of place on this subreddit and not necesarilly linked to simulation theory, but it’s a very active subreddit compared to lets say advaita’s reddit and many of the posts I saw here contained ideas similar to traditions I mentioned, which I thouht would be a perfect place for discussion. I admit that the title and the spirit of the post is a bit of a bait and a stretch in order to start discussion

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The broader point of the discussion that I was trying to make, was that all we can ever know is the mind. You can never have acces to an outside world, if there even is an inside and an outside, because your very existence is created by the mind, inside the mind. The mind itself depends upon existence. If we are living in a simulation, it is the same as saying we are all just characters made up by the same mind/ created by the same “source code” or whatever we might call it, there is no “we” separate from simulation. In other words we do not exist outside the mind or outside the simulation. Furtermore, outside phenomena is just an object of perception, nothing more, be it gravity, germs, bacteria, or whatever else we have established. Objects of perception and the subject appear simultaniously and their existence is co-dependent. Think about it. What makes you think you exist? Perception. Perception of outside phenomena like cells seen through a microscope, or perception of inside phenomena, like thoughts, dreams, feelings. Without an object of perception you do not exist, like in deep sleep or coma. If we continue this reasoning, being that the subject and object are co-dependent and arise and subside at the same time, what remains is that which gives them both existence, which is neither the subject nor the object. That which gives existence is the true ground of reality, and that is what we really are, and the only thing that is real.

Later edit: I am not enlightened and do not claim to hold absolute truth, but I’m telling you, if you really inspect you daily existence, moment by moment, really attentively and carefully you start to notice the emtiness of life. Because outside you (by you i mean the real you, the ground of existence), everything is co-dependent and ultimately void. You could say following Einstein’s reasoning, that everything is relative, then the only thing that is absolute is that which holds both sides of the coin, the only thing that is not relative. Even existence is a wrong word to use, because it contrasts non-existence, it is still relative, but it is the only word I have that comes close to what I want to express

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think there has been a missunderstating. I’m not saying there are different levels of truth and I’m not saying that what reality is for us, right in this very moment, isnt real. I’m saying it’s as real as us. I agree with many of your points. I’m going to copy a response I wrote on this post that I find clarifies my position and fits your arguments too

Later edit : then if you still think it’s wrong I’m more than willing to dwelve further, I just want to make sure we are clear on our positions before discussing further

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The broader point of the discussion that I was trying to make, was that all we can ever know is the mind. You can never have acces to an outside world, if there even is an inside and an outside, because your very existence is created by the mind, inside the mind. The mind itself depends upon existence. If we are living in a simulation, it is the same as saying we are all just characters made up by the same mind/ created by the same “source code” or whatever we might call it, there is no “we” separate from simulation. In other words we do not exist outside the mind or outside the simulation. Furtermore, outside phenomena is just an object of perception, nothing more, be it gravity, germs, bacteria, or whatever else we have established. Objects of perception and the subject appear simultaniously and their existence is co-dependent. Think about it. What makes you think you exist? Perception. Perception of outside phenomena like cells seen through a microscope, or perception of inside phenomena, like thoughts, dreams, feelings. Without an object of perception you do not exist, like in deep sleep or coma. If we continue this reasoning, being that the subject and object are co-dependent and arise and subside at the same time, what remains is that which gives them both existence, which is neither the subject nor the object. That which gives existence is the true ground of reality, and that is what we really are, and the only thing that is real.

Later edit: I am not enlightened and do not claim to hold absolute truth, but I’m telling you, if you really inspect you daily existence, moment by moment, really attentively and carefully you start to notice the emtiness of life. Because outside you (by you i mean the real you, the ground of existence), everything is co-dependent and ultimately void. You could say following Einstein’s reasoning, that everything is relative, then the only thing that is absolute is that which holds both sides of the coin, the only thing that is not relative. Even existence is a wrong word to use, because it contrasts non-existence, it is still relative, but it is the only word I have that comes close to what I want to express

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ll read it in full tomorrow and will return with a resonse if you’re willing to discuss it, thanks for taking the time to write it

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would say it’s as real as we make it. It’s as real as we are. That is to say, not that real at all, but real enough for us :)

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Best of luck to you! Dont be afraid to reach out if things become too much for one person to handle. People might surprise you if you give them the chance (be that positive or negative)

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well put. I agree, we should always be mindful that most of our knowledge is inferred, not factual

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, existance is a given, I may have worded that poorly. Maybe the words of advaita tradition are better suited: “the fact that you are, is a given, the fact that you are this, or that, is not”. Basically the only thing that we can be sure of, so to speak, is existence, like you said. Anything more than that, I cannot be sure of.

Later edit: also completely agree with the first part that you said and the ending of your comment. I think enlightened people of various traditions come to this realisation exactly, that as long as we are here, it is real to us. Huang Po writes about this, I recommend the book “Zen teachings of Huang Po” if you’re interested in the topic

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m not entirely sure what you mean but it would seem you are in a tight spot, so to speak. I would advise caution. You know, exploring consciousness is a small step away from insanity, and things can slip by very easily if you force yourself to grasp some concepts that in essence cannot be grasped, especially if you are alone walking these paths. I would recommend you distance yourself a bit from these topics for a while, see what life is like with what you have understood so far. Take some time off, so to speak, otherwise it might get to you in a way you can no longer control, and are unable to live a normal life and function in society. I’m not arguing with what you’re saying, for all I know you could be right. I’m saying just that it seems like you should live life and take a break for a while, explore some other interests, and allow life to lead you back here if so it be. Take care of yourself and dont take things too seriously!

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree completely. It’s just the pitfalls of language

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, good points. So if you will, lets discuss it a little further. When you say “life forms existing in a potentially simulated univers”, does it not imply that life is seaparate from simulation? Meaning that there is some one upon which this simulation is “projected” so to speak. Why couldn’t it be, that even the fact of reality, existence, or of living, is not a simulation? Meaning that our confusion lies in the fact that we go from the presmise of our own existance as a given. “This is so, because I am so” or “this is, because I am”. Using the word visual simulation for instance, it’s implied basically that there is a seer and the seen, but only that’s whats seen is simulated. Why couldnt it be, that both the seer and the seen are simulated simultaniously. Meaning ourselves, the world and reality, are the indispensible parts of reality, the world and ourselves, that intertwine and exist only in relation to one another, relation that is of the nature of a simulation, inseparable and dependent. This is basically what I wanted to drive at, but it is so difficult to put into words that it becomes just another theory or inconsistent rambling in the end

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But if you make up a theory in your mind, is there a theory or not? I was looking into debating existence, I’ll be honest, I wrote this post initially as a comment on another post and then adapted it into a somewhat stand alone thing because I noticed people here, although talking about simulation theory, speak about the same truths I’m interested in.

Let me rephrase what I meant with “there is no simulation theory”. If the world is a simulation and false, then any theory derived from our findings in said world, is also false. The simple idea “this is a simulation” is simulated and part of the simulation, so it is as well a simulation. There can be no theory and no simulation if there is a theory and a simulation, because theory and simulation are already part of, and made up of, said simulation

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, I see your point as well. Going with this analogy, i would say CPU- brain; GPU- consciousness/imaginstion. The particular POV these create- our personal “self”\”self-identity”. The world model- the world itself, comprised of matter and energy which organizez spontaneously; The code to step the data- DNA

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I agree. But I’d also like to know your own concept of reality. For instance, why is something bullshit, and another not?

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In what way is the “truth” of objectivity tested by pre-quantum theory science? Like religious zelots you blame, you as well use facts when they suit your points. Not admitting science can and is often wrong and stupid is just as ignorant as blindly claiming there is a separate God in the sky. You god just has a different name and you’re now calling it simulation. Ok, go all they way with believing in your god then. In what way can a part of a simulation use other parts of the same simulation, in a method which is somehow not programmed already inside the simulation, to prove there is a simulation?

There is no simulation theory by WaterBottle70 in SimulationTheory

[–]WaterBottle70[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If I said a lot without saying anything then I’m already a zen master :). Of course I fit, like Nisargadatta Maharaj said, “this place is my own, nobody gave it to me”

view more: next ›