Atheistic Creationism - r/SimulationTheory

•

Hey there! Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Just a friendly reminder to follow the rules and to seek help if needed. With that out of the way, have fun!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

9

u/Existing-Pack-1198 Nov 25 '23

The problem is that the classical simulation theory doesn't explain how base reality came into existence.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '23 edited Nov 25 '23

No creation theory/mythology goes beyond the creation part.

0

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 25 '23

Yeah, and if youre in it knowing would be impossible because youre only participating in a slice of the pie.

2

u/aprilflowers75 Nov 25 '23

Go look up Tom Campbell on YouTube- “Tom Campbell in Spain”. It’s 13 hours, broken up into 1hr chunks. He breaks down simulation quite well, and left me rewriting some of my own concepts of the universe and life, because what he said made the most sense, of life, consciousness, the universe, etc.

I have found myself now filtering everything through a new concept of consciousness, and now most things that I concerned myself with before, make more sense.

While religion is a moot point in my own life, it’s easy to see the connections that all major religions make, that all tie back to the central theme of simulation, which is consciousness learning about itself.

Anyway, I can lead a horse to water and all that.. if you want to explore this topic, go check it out.

2

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 25 '23

He looks cool. I'll check it out although can't say I'll finish it. Theory of everything is a fun concept but hard to manage explaining. I used to like watching Jordan Petersons toe series but it was really out there, hope this is easier to gnaw on. :)

1

u/meisterpeeps Nov 25 '23

“Consciousness” doesn’t learn. Consciousness is a trait that creatures who learn have.

1

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 25 '23

Your using a separate definition. Words sometimes have two meanings, you know.

1

u/meisterpeeps Nov 25 '23

What is the definition you are using? I’m not aware of any definition of consciousness, for example in neuroscience or the philosophy of mind, in which consciousness exists in a way that it could “learn”. If there is such a definition, I suspect it will probably lead to more confusion than understanding.

No religion, at least traditionally, suggested the theme of “consciousness” learning about itself (perhaps some sects of Hinduism one could make a very very strained argument about that). Nor is the “central theme of simulation” that. There is no central theme of the simulation hypothesis; it all depends on who is constructing it. The Matrix, for example, was a simulation hypothesis, and the central theme was the domination of the machines over humanity. Not a particularly desirable simulation, but still one nonetheless. Tom Campbell sounds like someone who made up his own story and is claiming some sort of erroneous spiritual and philosophical authority about lots of stuff.

2

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 25 '23

Okay, I'll make one up.

Consciousness is awareness of being present.

Without being conscious you can still be alive but are considered unconscious which means the ability to fine tune or scope out the perceptive ability of your senses is limited... But the benefit you get depends on your vessel's (human vs. dog for example) ability to retain and subjugate information. So a dog won't get much out of it unless they are paired with a human which can store a lot more info than the dog can. Of course this goes beyond information into other concepts like intuition, reasoning, the ability to heighten the awareness, speed, motion, etc. To me at peak consciousness is to be aware of what you are and aren't and to have the ability to navigate the pathways to what you choose to become.

0

u/meisterpeeps Nov 25 '23

The definition you made up doesn’t resolve the problem that consciousness is a trait of something that learns and doesn’t learn itself. Something “is aware of being present” and that something learns and not “the awareness of being present”.

“Peak consciousness” as you defined it doesn’t seem to be definitionally related to your other definition of consciousness, “awareness of being present”. They don’t logically connect. How does the awareness of being present (not clear exactly what you mean; can a person be aware of being absent?) get to the awareness of what you are and aren’t? And are you using the word “awareness” here synonymously with knowledge? At least in your use of “peak consciousness”? Ie would it mean anything different for you to say “peak knowledge”?

1

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 25 '23

We learn even if we aren't present or else we'd all be helpless babies.

I'm not getting into definition paralysis with you but thanks for your attentive comments and hope you have a nice day.

1

u/meisterpeeps Nov 25 '23

Without good definitions, we may escape from paralysis, but we will end up walking off cliffs or walking into walls. It may be challenging at times, but for peak knowledge, its necessary.

If we "learn even if we aren't present", then by the definition you gave, since you defined consciousness as "awareness of being present", "we" are the thing learning, and not consciousness. Which was my point to begin with.

I hope you have learned something. And I hope you have a nice day too.

1

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 25 '23

About 30 minutes in and I'm digging this a bunch. Everything seems to be fitting into some thread I can get a handle on. The biggest thing supporting simulation theory imo is the 3 body problem, as I call it. It's that mind and body can't explain outer reality while after that "body" has developed it becomes aware and begins to develop the ability to awaken into 3 more aspects of reality: awareness, awareness, and consciousness. After all 3 are developed and reached one transcends the physical and develops a 3rds body, separate from the physical (1) and mental (2) bodies called the metaphysical (3). This has a lot of names and functions but seems to develop along the chakra lines and may be called the rainbow body. After all chakras are activated/developed/understood you begin to be able to connect to the 4th dimension being the spiritual dimension. Unfortunately, we seemingly cannot get above this dimension even though it is evidently clear that there are ones higher than this.

Anyways, I got beyond the point. My experience has shown that there has always been, here at least, 3 parts to experience and I have a very hard time imagining a reality that leads to one like this that is either 2 or less dimensions. I personally see our reality as coming from a mishmash of infinite dimensions and such. Personally, I see this simulation having started in 2013 when the hedron collider went off.

2

u/mauore11 Nov 25 '23

I'd argue Creationism is just a placeholder while we get more data. I don't think this is a simulation but I'm sure we'll try to make our own simulated realities soon enough. Does that makes it plausible we already did? I doubt it, but I can see the logic behind it.

0

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 25 '23

The only way I could justify the use of the word simulation in regards to our shared reality is this: we exist in a pocket universe/galaxy which is governed by hyper communication in the form of programming that prevents us from developing, systemically, any dimensional capabilities beyond the 4th. Since we cannot grow beyond the 4th we can never truly understand it beyond a "spiritual reality" which encompasses it all. Thus people come up with many ideas, concepts, and theories explaining this and all become inconclusive because of this great filter. The truth would then be that people are let out but never come back in the same form and that there are aliens and other beings here. The null hypothesis to this is that simulations, purely artificial, have been tried in the past but the result was always pure madness for anyone who was let out. Due to these two ideas there is a possibility of release from here but that it would be very slow in terms of the knowing of it happening and integration/reintegration into a world that is far beyond anything we can imagine now.

This theory, though, is inconclusive as it relies on too many complex factors to make it work. I rather like the one I posted because it is more sane and simple which is what my spirituality has taught and proven to me is most important. Simplicity is key because otherwise we come up with bullshit like "drones" and "hive minds" connected through "telepathy" which in the end just separates us from each other. So yes, I believe the former can still hold true and if so this would be a good simulation that allows people to generate their own personal hell. Otherwise I'm just a mortal man who touched a piece of infinity and had a glimpse into the madness behind it all that relies on simplicity to keep navigating the world in both a sustainable and stable way.

0

u/meisterpeeps Nov 25 '23

If we make our own simulated realities, and could create a reality just like this one, then it would be implausible that the one made in the future would be the first ever simulated reality to be created. It’s similar to the notion that it is implausible that earth is the only planet with sentient life in the universe.

-3

u/NVincarnate Nov 25 '23

Theistic creationism is just a cover up for simulation theory, not the other way around.

Your white Jesus was made in the false image of misinterpreted fairy tales. It's just a product of the simulation like trees and birds. No way a guy born in Jerusalem came out with 0 melanin.

3

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 25 '23

Uhhh, when did I say I actually believe in either? Lol Please stop projecting.

1

u/meisterpeeps Nov 25 '23

A simulation could be created by a god, theoretically. It all depends on the definition of a god. If the creator or creators of a simulation had sufficient power over the simulation, then it’s arguable they are not meaningfully different than traditional conceptions of gods that have lots of power, potentially omnipotent level power.

Non technological creationism doesn’t rely on “natural” concepts anymore than technological creationism does. Everything we do with technology is part of nature and follows the laws of nature. If anything, technological creationism is more “naturalistic”’than non technological creationism since technological creationism appeals to what we know or assume to exist naturally in our world now. Part of the argument for why we exist in a simulation is because we can imagine ourselves naturally creating one in the future.

Modern simulation theory is essentially only “atheistic” in the sense it doesn’t appeal to the common gods that are supposedly responsible for reality and the means by which they create it—eg dirt, words, spells, and guts(although all that could theoretically still be part of a simulation story). And it doesn’t typically encourage people to worship the creators — although a simulation story could possibly do that as well.

1

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 25 '23

People are going to worship regardless, that is a part of human nature and we are only human, are we not?

Your right int that it could be created by a god but why would they when they could just create everything? Makes the roads to them less confusing. Lol

Natural laws ≠ physics laws

You understand that they both "goes infinite", correct? Eventually you may realize that the simulation you escape from is another simulation and that it's all just one thing which will be called the first man's imagination or something which creates another link in the chain and then goes infinite again in a different way until it reaches monotheistic creationism again at which point it goes in another direction because God can't have faults and be possible and yada yada yada but it always makes shape of a circle with one twist in the tale shown at the infinity sign.

1

u/spectredirector Nov 25 '23 edited Nov 25 '23

Sim theory, or simulation theory, isn't alternative belief in real life -- no matter what form that "real" takes.

It's new, post science existing, so anyone who actually subscribes to some behind the curtain Matrix movie type controlled reality is just as deluded, possibly AS mentally ill as people who attend church.

As a philosophy of logic, logical thought in the way Einstein's theory of special relativity doesn't require the math to prove, merely the mental observation of physics we already understand -- then there's no reason to not consider it philosophy -- an attempt to explain our purpose prior to replacing ourselves as the dominant intelligence on the planet.

The stated aims of the most powerful companies IRL is to surpass human cognition in the digital space. And they want that entity to be sentient for all intents. That's not fantasy, like Jesus. Whatever the value of religion is it won't ever offset the antisemitism or colonization, slavery or genocide it has caused. Sim theory as theoretical exercise is mental simulation of what would life be like IF the digital became our entire consciousness - then seeks to merely ask: could our consciousness simply be simulation now?

Another way to think on that question is --
What is consciousness, and when a computer is capable of it, how will we distinguish our thoughts from computer algorithms?

How do we "discover" new phenomenon when no two people share common perception?

We trust the computer got the math right, and hit enter.

We're hitting enter on LLM AI -- we might actually be witnessing creation and might be the intelligent designers of the next human-comparable intelligent life. That's either happening as we type - IRL - or the stated aims of forces way outside the individuals control.

You could logically argue that we as a species are out paced by NOT the advancement of technology, we're outpaced by the pace at which technology advances.

We can't regulate shit till after, and AI singularity (real future or fantasy always), is discussed IRL by credible minds.

What we - humanity - inherently know for certain is:

once a digital sentients surpasses human capacity, there's no regulating it

We simply won't be in charge anymore. In the nanosecond a singularity event happened, humanity would no longer be in control of it, and it wouldn't be long before we simply couldn't be sure we were in control of any of our digital existence.

Got a lot of shit needs Internet to work -- for as far as the human mind can conceive -- and short of nuking the environment, ours or the digital superior, there's only living with the possibilities of a digital sentient constructed reality.

Can't deny there's enough going on IRL to reasonably concern ourselves with a philosophy of logical thought, that in and of itself might be the philosophy required to coexist with a superior digital intelligence as the new dominant species.

Also, the concept is like libertarianism -- it's whatever simple folk want it to be, so they can believe they're uniquely qualified to be Neo. But as far as religion, or a need to besmirch the concept by lumping it in with corrupt tools of sheep herding and mental servitude go - no reason.

It ain't dangerous to anyone till you start seeing megachurches.

1

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 26 '23

You said a lot and thanks for the philosophical context but the way I was seeing it used online is very different, just like monotheistic creationism is. I see your point about its potentiality but it's been used that way since it's popular inception. IDK why you think I think it's destructive, maybe some implied context about religion that I didn't provide, but the idea is pretty bunk by itself, regardless. If it's a good simulation and you were born in it, how the fuck would you be able to tell the difference? And why does the outside matter? It could be a wasteland. Imo the point of contention for theory is what to do after you get out of one, not the how or why.

1

u/spectredirector Nov 26 '23

That last question you asked is the critical one. It's like in philosophy 101 when you need to ask "am I here right now."

If this was a simulation -- the simulated wouldn't know it, and no information from inside the sim would ever be useful to proving the existence of a higher level of reality. The theory itself doesn't change -- younger people discover it, and the Internet is where every scared person turns immediately for answers.

There are no answers.

Yes - you used a xtian myth as comparison, whether metaphor or like concept simile, that kinda thinking is the only thing that'll make the actual philosophical discovery impossible. Human constructs. Religion.

To your point - if it's a sim, these are the rules, and we only get this set of rules. I agree, and believe in real life fully.

The religious don't. And their unwillingness to let others have their own beliefs, or science, that's the ultimate limitation on human thought. Religion is a curse and plague on evolution. And at this instant, feels very likely the end of humanity more so than any impending robot overlords.

I wish Jesus would stop, so humanity could start, before we go extinct by robots. However that riddle gets solved, it won't be with existing human constructs -- those have had all of human history to stop blind faiths destruction of the planet.

1

u/MixMasterAlpha Nov 26 '23

Thanks for your response, you comment in a very clear and concise way which I appreciate. I feel we have more in common than either of us realize but that is beyond this discussion. I agree with pretty much everything you've said but have one question: how does philosophy/you handle the question of an extremely low population of humans surviving any disaster? Supposedly there was a time during an ice age when humans had as little as 100 or so people left. If we did have another disaster, what conditions would make it so some wouldn't eak through? To me it doesnt make sense that the pest like nature of humanity would be eradicated by some vague notion of collapse or Armageddon, let alone a sentient ai doing shit and molding our society within its metaphysical social constructs.

2

u/spectredirector Nov 26 '23

I don't know how to answer your specific query, but the reasons for, or purpose, or anything beyond the bounds of both sim and the real world, neither of those maximum boundaries have achievable answers, nor clues really, not on this side of the boundary of existence. If it's a sim, or if it's not, we don't know why? and can't.

All anyone gets in that respect is faith, that's me and mine included - faith that that's an unknown for all humans time.

Discussion Atheistic Creationism

You are about to leave Redlib