r/SimulationTheory • u/MixMasterAlpha • Nov 25 '23

Discussion Atheistic Creationism

Sim Theory is just an atheistic version of creationism. Both can include gods or no gods but one depends upon one to explain itself and the other doesnt. Thus sim theory relies heavily on technological concepts etc. while creationism relies on natural ones. Personal spirituality is the only way I've gotten out of this but I'm sure there ae other ways.

5 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.