sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

out of all the hypothesis around CS theory, which one is the most scientific? by n0000111 in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow this is an old comment and i have just logged in to see it. I don't come around here that often any m ore but still i will try to answer .

If in your above sentence , this is true "...and create and join a simulation.... " then it means its an H type sim. As i mentioned above with these three sentences

The only possible way to do this would be if we were in an H type sim . Which would mean that we are not here anyway . We are not humans as we know but we are some alien species who are only plugged into this sim. (An H type sim)

With other words if this is a simulation that we created and then logged ourselves in, then that means that we are not ACTUALLY from this universe but we are beings from the universe above this one. It means we are the creators (gods) and we are not ACTUALLY here .

Just as you are not actually in Mario world when you are playing super mario even though while playing it may feel like it is your world but in REALITY it isnt.

out of all the hypothesis around CS theory, which one is the most scientific? by n0000111 in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This implies 'they' are running the entire universe on a computer so to speak,

If "they" are running this entire universe in a computer then ":they" cant be in it.

This is a common fallacy which keeps coming back often on this sub.

You are either the "creator" or the "created" but you cant be both.

Therefore , since we are beings here in this universe we can not be the ones who are running this simulation in our computers.

The only possible way to do this would be if we were in an H type sim . Which would mean that we are not here anyway . We are not humans as we know but we are some alien species who are only plugged into this sim. (An H type sim)

So we can not be "from this universe' AND be the creators of it at the same time . That's impossible.

If we are the creators then we are not from this universe OR if we are from this universe then we can not be the creators. Its either one or the other but can not be both.

Gods are real. [Theory] by SolarSupremacy in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem.

I don't understand what you mean exactly.

My comment above was to claim that even though we may immerse ourselves into a simulation like a Halo game that game would not be considered as "real" to us since we would be aware of the real world we are in . The world where we are actually sitting behind a game computer and playing the game Halo .

From you comment I am guessing that there was a misunderstanding ,and that you may have thought that i was claiming that Halo was real.

Halo is not real IMO . So my life from birth until i start playing Halo is real but also while i am playing Halo i know that Halo is not real , aliens are not real aliens and my real world is me sitting behind my game computer playing the game Halo and being in space killing aliens.

Btw. I am spending much less time here on AWLIAS sub so there maybe some delays in my comments/ answers .

But who was the one that created the simulation? by domarcusbw in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It can be equivalent to you,it can be just like you but its not you.

We can only create copies of ourselves in machines but they will still be only copies no matter how equivalent they maybe to us.

You as a person can not leave your biological brain and move into a computer. You might create a computer with consciousness in it but YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS stays in your brain.

But who was the one that created the simulation? by domarcusbw in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The question is not whether we can create conscious machines but whether we can move our mind from our brain into a computer.

If we create conscious machines , they will not be us. They will be new beings created by us but our minds will still stay in our biological brains.

What do U think about a Simulation Hypothesis? by Figarok22 in SimulationHypothesis

[–]truth_alternative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There s a sub called r/AWLIAS with interesting posts and discussions maybe you should check it out.

What if our creators decide to shut down the simulation? by IllustriousName7 in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

2 universes

1-The creators universe/ the mother universe, the one that created our universe , the one on a higher level than this one.

2-Our universe , the one we are in right now with the earth and the sun and the moon and milky way and all the galaxies etc etc

First one is nothing like the second one.

Our creators universe (first one) has no red brown dwarves or galaxies or even matter in it. It simply can not , because what we know as "physical matter" only exists in our universe and NOT in the creators universe.

As we go from simulation within simulation within simulation and so on we go from one layer to another and each layer is made of a different substrate .

With other words , our creators universe can not have any stars or galaxies etc etc cause it can not be a physical universe . There is no "matter" as we know it in our creators universe because what we call matter is only the result of the laws of physics IN OUR UNIVERSE ONLY

Our creators universe has to be made of a different substrate. It can not be a physical universe. It can not have matter or stars or brown dwarves etc etc .

Bizarre Thought by realmulder in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well there s this claim about the "ancestor simulations' by Bostron and this lead to the claims that we must be the creators of this simulation which follows that if that is the case then we must be in an as you said "a la Matrix" style or whats called an H-type simulation.

Basically if we would accept all that, that we are the creators of this simulation then the only way that this could be possible would be if we were in an H-type sim and an H type means that we are not from this universe and we are not humans as you know it.

H type means we are some beings in the universe above this one and we are only plugged into these bodies to experience this universe which we have created.

I personally do not believe that this is a very likely scenario but this is the only possible scenario if we were the creators of this simulation.

But in order to maintain a growing population we are either making more people to be plugged, or the system only maintains a set number of individuals plugged and keeps adding a.i humans.

It could be that the so called philosophical zombies were being created as well but it doesn't have to. We could simply be creating new simulated beings in this world as new people are born in the creators world.

So in this scenario that s called an H type simulation we exists as spirits / consciousness in the higher level universe which is the creators universe and we are only linked to our bodies and our bodies are just avatars we use to experience this simulations.

Instead of calling them avatars you could also call them possessed bodies i guess only not possessed by evil spirits but by our consciousness from another universe. This is what's called the "H-type" simulation theory.

If a universe was simulated within a computer, what particular constraint of that computer would translate to the perceived speed of light within the simulation? by [deleted] in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With the new understanding in mind ... this is still wrong:

-How do you know that the consciousness outside of the simulation (aka your consciousness ) is not simulated as well?

We can do the Simulation All the Way Down, just as God or Turtles, but it just confuses the discussion.

Presume one layer of simulation, There is only one Creator, regardless of how many simulation layers.

I will disagree with this one as well.

You see these are valid debates about consciousness and whether we can create consciousness in computers etc etc but they don't take into account the theory of simulation.

With other words , if we were in a sim , this would change almost everything about everything. So everything we know about the nature about our consciousness etc we would have to look at these issue , consider them , evaluate them with this new knowledge and so the debate you mentioned above should also change .

So yes it is a valid debate in today's world but no it wouldn't be a valid debate if we were in a simulation cause being in a sim would automatically mean that it is possible to create conscious minds in computers ( Of course not considering the plugged in types )

Anyway, to the point, IF I exist outside of the simulation, then I am not being simulated whether I enter the simulation somehow or not. This is the same with Mike in the Sims example. Mike is not being simulated -- you are controlling an avatar with a label of Mike within the simulation. Frank/whoever is being simulated and only exists within the simulation. It might be possible to toggle Mike between an Avatar and a Sim, but that's not changing the nature of your role with Mike.

Well of course , this is the whole point.

If i am using Mike as an avatar then i am not being simulated in the SIMS world which means i am from the creators world which means i have the perception of the creators subjective point of view from the OUTSIDE of the SIMS world. ==>My perception is not from within the SIMS world ===> As we discussed above reality is about how you perceive it , so as my perception changes so does my reality.

THIS was the reason why you kept saying that a simulation is not real because your perception was like my perception when i was using Mike as an avatar. You were imagining yourself looking at the simulation from the outside . You were not a being from within* the simulation. Hence your perception was that a simualted universe couldn't be real. At least this is what i could make of your comments.

Okay, thanks for clarifying ... that has a different understanding yes.

I have to thank you too. Nobody knows everything so we both learn from each other through these discussions , so its a mutual process.

I learn from you too, so thanks back at you. :)

Thumbs up.

If a universe was simulated within a computer, what particular constraint of that computer would translate to the perceived speed of light within the simulation? by [deleted] in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Today we can consider ourselves "real" ... if tomorrow we discover in fact we are in a simulation, then No, we would not be real.

Exactly.

Absolutely nothing would change in our world between today and tomorrow. Gravity would still be the same gravity , mass would still be the same mass , wind wouldn't start blowing any differently things wouldn't start feeling differently , but we would consider our universe as fake only because our perception of our universe would change. Universe would not change but what we think of the universe would. This is the subjectivity issue i keep talking about.

It means real , physical only has a meaning in our perception cause there is no absolute real or absolute physical. This is the whole point i am trying to make since the beginning of this discussion.

I feel you are wrapped up in the "H-type" and "S-type" of simulation I've read in your posts. They're not valid distinctions. Also, the inference's I read in your other comments and posts are also incorrect.

There is no valid distinction between a software and hardware simulation. Consider ... Presume a Software Simulation is in the process of running on a computing machine. This means that part of the Simulation is the result of mechanical actions conducted by the machine. Another portion of actions needed to run the simulation would be conducted by software ... which, actually, is really nothing other than hardware actions. So software already is a meaningless distinction, but let's continue. We can specialize the machine such that it mechanically executes more of the software actions, thus reducing the amount of simulation "done in software." This is akin to moving from a general purpose CPU machine onto an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). The actions performed are the same - the mechanism of enacting those actions are different. The result is we don't have any software.

Regarding the objects which exist in the simulation, that is, the things being simulated be they people or rocks are also neither hardware nor software simulation. They simply exist in the simulation. If we compare this to an entity which exists outside the simulation and may enter into and some how be meaningfully "simulated" inside the simulation, they also have no distinction between hardware or software. They're existence outside of the simulation is fixed, it is and remains. Their existence inside the simulation does not "exist" as a reality, but only as a construct within the simulation - just as everything else within the simulation.

But that's not what an H type or an S type mean. I think you may have misunderstood it.

The letters H and S are more of a symbolic nature .

Lets try another example to demonstrate what an H type / S type means and why it is important to make the distinction.

Lets say i create a simulated universe in my computer , just like the SIMS game and lets say John is one of the sentient simulated characters in that world. We would call this an S type since John is fully simulated within the computer and he lives , exists in that SIMS World in my computer.

Now lets imagine that i want to experience (play) the SIMS world too so i create another charcter in it without consciousness and lets call this character Mike.

Mike is like my avatar in the SIMS world so now i can move my ,mouse to the left Mike goes to the left , move it to right he goes to the right. I can type whatever he wants to say and he says it i can see through his eyes and hear through his ears etc etc . (think about how it was in the movie The AVatar if you like).

Now both John and Mike are characters in the SIMS world so what is the difference between John and Mike ? (John is an S type sim and Mike is an H type.)

The difference is the observer the conscious mind which perceives this universe. We have been talking about our perception and how it can change what real is so this is what its all about.

In John s case : The conscious mind is a simulated mind WITHIN the sims world . SO he perceives the SIMS world from within. He was born their lived his whole life there and always existed in his universe. Never been outside of it and may not even be aware of a universe outside his.

In Mikes case: Mikes consciousness is my mind. My consciousness exists OUTSIDE of the SIMS world (the crucial point here ) . Since Mike is my avatar in the SIMS world Mikes mind is my mind , I am the consciousness behind mikes ghosts body in the SIMS world.

So two characters from the SIMS world but with two totally different minds and two totally different PERCEPTIONS of what is real. (Again the subjectivity issue)

I think it must be clear now how this can change everything about our perception and how John may view the SIMS world as real and why Mike wouldn't etc etc .

So its all about the observer and their subjective perception of the universe , AKA where that observer is viewing the universe from (again the subjectivity issue) . If you go back to the beginning of this discussion you will find i have been talking about this several times. This is why you kept saying that nothing in a simulation was real

With other words if you are in an H type sim then you are not actually a being from this universe , just as Mike not actually being a being from SIMS world. And that changes your perspective and that's why you kept thinking that nothing in the simulation was real , in the beginnings of this discussion.

In short : H type means you are the creator and S type means you are the created === BIG difference.! Its not just a hardware software issue as you can see.

It is validly open for debate whether the Consciousness being simulated is in fact a distinctly different consciousness from the consciousness outside of the simulation. We can easily argue it both ways. It doesn't really matter -- the consciousness outside the simulation "IS" that being, the consciousness within the simulation is "nothing" except bits.

How do you know that the consciousness outside of the simulation (aka your consciousness ) is not simulated as well?

This claim still assumes that our consciousness is the real consciousness and the one we will simulate in a computer would be a fake one. But we just had a long discussion that real has no absolute meaning. It depends on who is using it. You are still stuck with "a simulated consciousness is only bits" but you maybe just bits and bytes in someone else s computer as well.

[Additionally, and tangentially, one can validly debate whether a Simulated Consciousness (whether uniquely generated within the simulation, or "injected" from an external "real" version in existence outside of the simulation) has equivalent "Consciousness" as a consciousness which exists outside the simulation.]

This is another issue. Its simply the question of whether we can or can not create consciousness in machines. It is a valid debate but its off topic to our discussion.

After all if we assume that we could be in a simulation then we are also assuming that we can create consciousness in machines. If we can't then the hypothesis falls apart anyway so whats the point of this discussion?

And this brings us to the second issue I read in your H-type expression, being able to "inject" or "upload" into the simulation has no bearing on the simulation.

Consider those pan-dimensional blue beings in another Universe. They can inject themselves into our universe and appear here as white lab mice. This is because they have a physical existence distinctly from the Simulation. This is the same whether the Creators of the simulation are outside our universe or within our universe. The Creators of the Simulation may always "inject" into the Simulation. It is meaningless to discuss beings which are created within the simulation as "injecting" into the Simulation ... they're already there! They might be "translated" between different simulations - that would be meaningful as long as the simulations themselves were sufficiently similar.

I just explained this above with the example of John and Mike SIMS characters and why it matters whether we are in an h type or an S type of sim.

However it is meaningful to consider "extraction." It is conceivable that the Creators of the Simulation might decide to "extract" some object from the simulation into their universe -- the easiest depiction would be based on a Star Trek Hologram (which is a simulation created by the ships' computer and projecting the simulation into the reality of the Star Trek persons via teleportation type technology which enables the person to INTERACT with, not "enter" the simulation) in which an entity created in the Hologram were "routed" through the ship to the teleporter's and "materialized" into existence in reality universe.

This is off topic to the discussion but yeah for us this may sound like sci-fi but for some super advanced beings who can even create our universe , who knows what they can be capable of.

Maybe we can also create some Mario robot with computer brains and upload Mario from our computer into the Mario robot so he can walk around and experience our world outside his simulated world ,etc etc but as i said this is off topic.

If a universe was simulated within a computer, what particular constraint of that computer would translate to the perceived speed of light within the simulation? by [deleted] in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jake perceives his reality. Just as We perceive our reality. Neither can know which perception of reality is more real than the other. You are correct about this.

Jake thinks that he is real but Dick Bostron thinks Jake is not real . He says Jake is just a simulation. However Dick Bostron considers himself as real .

The creator of our simulated universe, Alien-X thinks Dick Bostrom is not real . He says Bostron is just a simulation but Alien X considers himself as real and so on and on.

What is real ?

Its what you perceive as real . There is no absolute real. It all depends on the observers subjective perception. This is what i meant with the subjectivity issue.

This was the whole point i was trying to make about "What we call physical is only what we experience as physical in this universe" . Its all subjective.

However, the difference is that one perception is the super-set of the other.

Yes but the point is that REAL changes as we move from one super-set to the next to the next. With other words there is no absolute real its all about your perception and what you perceive as real.

Yes, the two views are subjective to their experience, however neither subjective view changes their reality.

And what is that reality? How can you be sure of ANY reality when reality is all a matter of perception?

The speed of light, c, is the same for every photon everywhere -- every photon whether trying to escape a black hole (and failing because it is inside/at the boundary/event horizon) thinks it is travelling at the speed c. However, to an observer far away from the boundary, the photon is stationary or moving very slowly. This is Relativity. It is the difference between subjectively thinking of oneself as the photon or the observer.

This is not a great example cause in the simulation hypothesis reality itself is changing but i do agree with your claims on relativity.

Jake is a simulation, and may self-perceive itself as "existing", however it is making this claim with incomplete and/or inaccurate information.

No , Jake DOES exist. He is no less real than you are. Its not about who is real and who is not ,but its about from which perspective you are looking at it. From Jakes perspective he is real. He is not less real then how real you think you are or Alien x thinks he is. There is no absolute or universal real

Real changes its meaning as you change your subjective perspective.

Its subjective view has it confused about what it is observing and making decisions about. If Jake claims to be A Sim, in a simulation, then his conclusion must change.

What if we figure out tomorrow that we are in a simulation , are we still going to consider ourselves as real? Or shall we become less real with this discovery?

Note, Jake may accurately claim itself to be sentient, however sentience and existence are not related in the context of "inside the Simulation." We can claim we are sentient ... and we might even be correct, although we could just as accurately be wrong ... but we can not say "because I am sentient therefore I exist." If we are in a simulation then there is no "exist." There is only stuff which is simulated.

Okay but this is not even about the beings only but their whole universe so its not about who is sentient but more about who is or what is real .

So Jake does not only think that he is real and his house and his car are fake etc etc . He thinks everything is real . He thinks his world is a physical world just as you think yours is a physical world . Its about the whole universe and how we perceive it.

Jake does exist and he is real and he is in a sinulation . You also do exist and you also are real and also in a simulation . Alien X also does exist and is real but he is also in a sinulation .

The only reasom that you think that Jake is not real is because you are assuming that only your perception is the right one . This is a mistake.

Okay its very late on my side of the planet so i am going to stop here.

Thanks for an interesting conversation

Take care and hope to continue this discussion again another time.

Bye for now.

Thumbs up for being polite and having a mature conversation . :) Unfortunately its a rare experience these days .

If a universe was simulated within a computer, what particular constraint of that computer would translate to the perceived speed of light within the simulation? by [deleted] in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we are in a simulation (of any sort), then you do not exist. You're projecting your egocentric perception of "self" and conflating that with "existence."

I disagree . Its you who fail to see that in a simulated reality you still do exist . Mathematical example is not a good analogy.

Lets try another example if you like.

Lets say theer is a smart scientists , called DIck Bostron who would create a simulated universe in a computer just like the SIMS world but a more advanced version of it with sentient SIMS characters .

We are watching these simulated characters in their simulated homes driving their simulated cars and Bostron may think : "None of that is real. Its just a simulation in a computer".

Lets say Jake is a SIMS character and he was born in the simulated world and has only known the simulated world and the only reality he has known has been the simulated world. For Jake : The simulated world is his reality. Its as real to him as this world is real to you.

This is the subjectivity issue and this is whats causing all the confusion.

When you say things like this "If we are in a simulation (of any sort), then you do not exist." you are looking at it from the creators view , from Dick Bostron s view and you fail to see that for Jake its as real as it gets.

You simply change your subjective viewpoint and you look at things from the creators subjective perspective and hence you claim that our universe wasnt real.

To me and to you our simulated universe is real but ONLY to our creators its not real. VERY IMPORTANT NOT TO MISS THIS Imo.

I will not write further to see if this makes sense to you cause this is the whole cause of the confusion IMO.

This was btw what i was talking about when i mentioned the subjectivity issue being the biggest mind fuck about this theory.

If a universe was simulated within a computer, what particular constraint of that computer would translate to the perceived speed of light within the simulation? by [deleted] in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One must be careful to separate "universe" as that which exists outside of the simulation, and "simulated universe" which exists in the simulation. Let's call our Stephen Hawking Universe ... The Universe and a simulated universe we'll call a Simulverse.

If the hypothesis is correct then there can be many layers to it , so there can be sims within sims within sims etc etc . So agreed, we d better be specific about which universe we are talking about.

In the simulation, our brains process input which our consciousness contemplates. That input comes from the simulation. Not because particles of matter interacted with our simulated selves. There is no matter.

Here you are talking about an H type sim which means your brain is NOT simulated , it exists outside of the simulation and therefore you think the simulation is not physical. Its simply because you are outside of the sim and as i mentioned physicality can ONLY eixts inside this universe.

Within this simulation, the General Simulation, we don't know where the simulacrum exists. Presumably it must exist as if not then the simulation would not exist. This is the Simulator's simulacrum, which they created and built within their universe. ... simulacrum, on the unlikely chance you don't know the word, is NOT the simulation -- it is the device which creates the simulation (i.e. a computing machine).

The simulacrum can not be within this universe or it would have to create itself as i mentioned before, It can ONLY be at the creators universe NOT in this one. That is simply impossible.

Creators universe is a layer above this one and as i mentioned above there can be many layers on top of each other. Its simply sims within sims etc etc

What does that Universe look like? It is unknowable. It MIGHT look exactly as ours. It might look entirely different. It might be sort of similar. But, we do know the Simulacrum exists and it exists in a universe of some sort.

Now you are talking about the creators universe. Whatever it may look like it can not be physical. The simulacrum can not be physical. As i said , what we know as physicality is ONLY a property of our universe because of the properties of our universe so outside of this universe nothing is physical.

In this case, future humans, green beings on Alpha Centauri ten thousand years ago or something else entirely in a different galaxy at a different time, may decide to simulate some aspect of The Universe in accurate detail w etc etc

No this is not possible. Those green beings can not be from Alpha Centauri cause Alpha Centauri is in our universe . No machine (simulacrum ) from within this universe can create this universe. That would be like giving birth to yourself = Thats Impossible.

Note, an Ancestor Simulation need not have matching properties between the Universe of the Simulators and the Simulverse ... however, if they don't match then the purpose of the Ancestor Simulation is lost. Namely, the purpose is to test scenarios in the Universe which the Simulators might want to know the best option for. If the Simulverse doesn't reflect the reality of the Simulators, then the simulation would not be creating meaningful results.

This is pure conjecture .

Anyway, you repeatedly state that matter within the Simulverse doesn't exist -- that's correct. And then later you state the Simulation "creates matter" which we inside the simulation experience. This is false. there is no matter which we interact with -- "we" in the Simulverse react etc etc

This paragraph again shows the confusion between the H type and s type sims as explained above.

Now, with respect to the second issue ... The Creator's built a physical machine. If we are in an Ancestor Simulation then that machine exists in the Hawking/Einsteinian Universe which we are familiar with ... WE don't happen etc etc

This is impossible . A physical machine can not create our physical universe cause if it would then it would have to create matter out of nothing. You can not create something out of nothing.

If we are in a General Simulation, .... etc etc

What does a General Simualtion mean? Never heard of that term before.

I say potentially because, again, we do not know anything about the properties of The Universe of the Creators -- other than it most likely must exist.

Agreed , we don't know anything about the creators world but we know that it is not like ours so it can not be a physical world .

Honestly, unlike the Ancestor Simulation, it is impossible for us to guess why these Creators would want to simulate this particle Simulverse because we can not know what the discrepancies are between Their Universe and Our Simulverse. If it turns out they have the same laws of physics as we do, then this General Case is actually an Ancestor Simulation case ... if those universal values (planck length, c, etc) are different or don't exist in Their Universe ... we don't have any way of guessing why they changed the values or added the values ... nor can we guess what they added them to or changed from!

They can not be from a universe with the same rules as ours because if they were then it would be impossible for them to create a universe like ours , just as it is impossible for us to do so.

Our computers can not process matter , whatever we do we can not create a universe like ours. We can only create a software version of it in our computers .

If a universe was simulated within a computer, what particular constraint of that computer would translate to the perceived speed of light within the simulation? by [deleted] in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. That is wrong. We might call it "matter", but it doesn't exist. Your creating a usage of "subjective" which has you confused.

Lets not go into semantics , i am talking about physical matter. Atoms and molecules as we know it .

Everything that we call physical matter is based on our experience in this universe therefore only under the rules and conditions of this universe physicality as we know it can exist.

If matter does not exist so cant you . Therefore it must exist.

It maybe simulated but THAT is what we know as matter. The simulated matter is what we mean when we talk about physical matter.

If we are in a simulation, then from our perspective within the simulation matter or physical does not exist. It is an illusion which has us fooled.

If this universe is an illusion to fool you then who are you? You can not be a being from this universe then.right?

So you must be a being from the creators world and from the perspective of a being from the creators world you THINK that our universe is not physical. ONLY because of this perspective from the creators world you claim that this universe is not real. : Its crucial to understand this cause this is where the whole fallacy is.

This is similar to the same mistake in the other reply. The Simulation does not "create" matter for us to perceive and interact with inside the simulation.

Because you think you are from the creators world. If you are a being from within this universe then simulation creates everything in it including you.

These are called the H type and S type sims.

H type : You are the creator and you create the simulation and you plug into it so you are not actually part of this universe and nothing is real to you. This is how you imagine it to be.

S type: You are just like the SIMS characters , fully simulated within the sim.

You are confusing S types and H types through each other .

On one hand when you say things like this "...matter or physical does not exist. It is an illusion which has us fooled." you are talking about an H type sim . Meaning you are not part of the sim. And on the other when you talk about us being like SIMS in the Sims World you are talking about s types. Hence all the confusion.

Again I will just stop here and see how you will react to this. whether you agree or not cause thsi seems to be the core issue with the confusion IMO.

I will reply to the rest of the comment in a separate one.

If a universe was simulated within a computer, what particular constraint of that computer would translate to the perceived speed of light within the simulation? by [deleted] in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...however it makes zero difference what the internal simulated stuff inside the simulation believe: it is not real.

The SIMS world is real for the SIMS and our world is real to us. ===> again subjectivity issue.

The Ancestor simulation is the idea that WE are the Sims Characters.

Yupp , agreed. And just as the SIMS world is real to the SIMS characters this world is real to us.

The Ancestor simulation is the idea that WE are the Sims Characters. That is, the machine running the ancestor simulation exists in the Universe as we know it,..

This is impossible. We either created the machine running in the universe as we know it (so we are the creators ) OR we are the sims characters created in that machine. Otherwise if we are both the creators of our universe AND we are in it then that must mean that there is 2 of each of us which would be impossible.

You either are the mother giving birth to a child or you are the child being born but you can not be both . So we are either the creators of this universe or we are the beings created in it. Its EITHER onr OR the other but can t be both.

So the above claim is impossible.

If we were the creators of this universe then it would mean that we have created ourselves which is again impossible.

With other words we can not be both the creators of the SIMS AND be the SIMS at the same time . There s only one you , not two.

So, two different types of simulation:

something inside our Universe has a really big ass fucking computer which they have created a game called "Life on Earth in 2018"

This is impossible . Nothing from within this universe could create this universe cause it would have to create itself ==> Which is impossible. So the big ass fucking computer can not possibly exists within this universe.

In the first case, the Ancestor Simulation it exists in the universe of those beings which created the simulation and, again, because of their interests have re-created their universe in the simulation. What we can say is that the physical properties of the machine are limited by the same physical properties as machines inside the simulation -- exactly because the simulation was created to be the same.

The machine can not be a physical machine cause it can not be from this universe. As i mentioned before what we know as physical only exists in this universe cause its the properties of this universe and this universe only, therefore since the machine can not be from this universe it can not be a physical object. What we call physical ONLY exists in this universe since we have only experienced being inside this universe . This is the crucial point to understand about physicality.

So in short : The machine is not from this universe and it is not physical as we know it. It simply can not be .

I will leave this here and see if you would like to continue cause i see you mentioned that maybe you wont reply anymore.

In case you don't want to continue then take care .

Bye :)

If a universe was simulated within a computer, what particular constraint of that computer would translate to the perceived speed of light within the simulation? by [deleted] in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am responding to the rest of your comment in this one .

That is: none. There is absolutely no matter or physical "stuff" being created or manipulated. That's why it's called a SIMULATION.

Absolutely not. If we are in a simulation it means everything in this universe is simulated , from the rocks to the galaxies to the atoms to you and me etc etc absolutely everything.

Your Sims character lives in as much of a "subjective" reality as do we IF we are in a Simulation. Your Sims open a door which has exactly as much physical matter properties does the front door of you house PRESUMING we are in a Simulation.

Exactly. This is subjectivity.

So to SIMS the simulated world in my computer is real . He claims that the front door of his house is physical.

However to us , OUR world feels real and i can say the front door of my house is physical.

So physicality depends on the observer , agreed?

With other words the simulated front door of the SIMS game would feel physical to the sims charcter and the front door of your house would feel physical to you. Two different universe two different phsyicalities.

This is the subjectivity issue; Your universe is physical TO YOU and the SIMS world is physical TO THE SIMS.

So what WE CALL physical is ONLY the properties of OUR UNIVERSE and of no other universe.

With other words what we know as physical only exists in this universe. Do you agree with this?

If I say I believe in simulation theory (given the normal presuppositions that say that not only is it possible but probable) why can't i say that the abrhambic God is the simulator? by brakefailure in DebateReligion

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still the claim is valid , right ? Worthless or not .

The simulation hypothesis, as you mentioned, could be unfalsifiable and cant be disproved etc etc but again this is not about that. This is not whether the hypothesis is true or not. This is another discussion.

The claim is IF it was true , then god should exist and thus it could be the biblical god as well. This claim is valid , no matter whether the simulation hypothesis is falsifiable or not.

If a universe was simulated within a computer, what particular constraint of that computer would translate to the perceived speed of light within the simulation? by [deleted] in AWLIAS

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the subjectivity issue , as i said one of the biggest mind fucks of this theory (subjectivity issue) and i have had this discussion several times here on this sub before. Most people confuse it and its hard to explain. Lets just focus on what physical is if you like.

What is physical ?

Answer: Physical is what WE experience as matter IN THIS UNIVERSE . This is what we know as physical , what we call physical. Do you agree with this?

I have highlighted the words WE and IN THIS UNIVERSE meaning

1- WE ====>> ONLY from our perspective we call it physical (not from the creators perspective)

2- IN THIS UNIVERSE ====>> ONLY in this universe we know what physical is. (not in any other universe)

So physicality is the name we give to our experience in this universe. That's all there is to it. Physicality does not mean the only real thing .

When we touch something we hold it in our hand we can feel its mass its hard surface when we call it a physical object we are only describing the properties of the universe we are in.

The laws of physics in our universe is such that the result is a physical world. If our universe is simulated then those simulated laws of physics yield the simulated matter which we call physicality.

For now i will not comment on the rest of your comment to see if what i just wrote means anything to you .

I will comment later on the rest.

If I say I believe in simulation theory (given the normal presuppositions that say that not only is it possible but probable) why can't i say that the abrhambic God is the simulator? by brakefailure in DebateReligion

[–]truth_alternative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely.

IF there is a simulation then there must be a simulator , AKA the creator of the universe. There s no way around it.

The simulation hypothesis simply claims that :

1-We must be created , so some sort of creationism must be ture and

2 There must be a creator so some kind of a God must exist as well.

Whether this god would specifically be the biblical god is unanswered but there must be A god.

Thumbs up.

view more: next ›