EDIT: Why the barrage of downvotes? I thought that was reserved for rude and ignorant posts/people. I know that our beliefs about death are deeply personal, so please know this is not meant as an attack on your beliefs. The point of this was to have an open discussion about a shower thought I once had that brought logic to the argument of life after death. So far this logic has not been refuted- people have acknowledged the odds of my hypothesis, instead deferring their attacks to the concept of a simulation, or other various and far less significant details. So if you are new to this thread, you have my welcome and thanks, and I hope to see you respond in an open-minded way (whether or not you agree with my hypothesis)so that we can have an intriguing discussion. And I ask that you consider were this a simulation, that the job of any simulation is to immerse you. So if you are filled with a feeling of general resistance, but find no reasonable flaws with the logic presented, consider that this could be your default programming, a sort of failsafe protocol of the simulation. Like Dr. Strange was instructed a moment before he was sent hurdling through the unknown, you will need to “OPEN YOUR MIND”
About 15 years ago I had a shower thought that changed my life. I was reflecting on time and the present moment in particular, and had an epiphany that eventually convinced me that this reality is an illusion and consciousness must extend beyond death. The weird part though was that my brain had comprehended the concept in a way that I could not articulate, at least not for a very long time. When I tried to explain it to others I would struggle to illustrate my comprehension, and could see the lack of understanding in their faces.
For years I left it, keeping it as a personal belief but not bothering to discuss it. Then one day I paired walking through a backyard forest with a microdose of shrooms and a friend, and I decided to bring it up. This time I managed to articulate it in a way that I could tell resonated with him. I wrote it down, and started to refine it further. Skip to today and I now possess a much more clear and concise way to present my hypothesis, and have two friends , two family members and a significant other who now all not only understand it, but have adapted it into their personal belief (my intent in telling them was only to have an open minded discussion, I have no desire to change anyone’s personal beliefs, but this was really cool to see).
So I’ve linked a video where I articulate my hypothesis to the best of my ability, with visuals to help. I would love your open-minded feedback- whether it’s pushback on any of the points I make, or if you think there’s a better way I could make them.
Thanks for taking the time!
TL:DR I once had an epiphany that provided me with sound logic as to why consciousness must persist beyond death, indicating that another dimension exists outside of this one. It took me a long time to find a way to articulate it, but now I finally have a presentation of the concept that I’m happy with (via the linked video)
You say that you’ve found concrete proof. But where is the proof? Where is your evidence? Is your theory even falsifiable? In the absense of proof, it seems all we can fall back on is Hitchens’ Razor: what can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
No
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a69239099/not-in-a-simulation/
This recently publicized study provides support that we are not living in a simulation.\
Also the idea that a shower thought you had 15 years ago that developed into a hypothesis is now somehow ‘concrete proof that we live in a simulation’ is pretty silly on its own.
Agreed. However the linked article has the same problem with unprovable assumptions. At least in the way they described it to this amateur. The thing that stuck out to me the most was their assertion that everything must be algorithmic in nature. I would say, as someone living in the supposed simulation, it is impossible to determine something we’ve seen or measured is NOT algorithmic in nature, because we have no access to the algorithms.
But yeah… this ain’t a showerhought.
“because we have no access to the algorithms.” Exactly this
IF there are algorithms. So still…. nothing proven either way.
There is a critical flaw with this study though. Why would we assume the math of our reality reflects that of the dimension outside? Also how can you prove that something is not algorithmic? Alan Watts deemed this reality to be a dream, and Hinduism and Buddhism both make reference to the Maya which is the illusion of reality, so let’s use the term simulation loosely here. In this context it is simply to say that this reality is not base reality, and if that’s the case how can one possibly explain the way base reality works using the laws of a created one?
The video makes no sense. It starts with an interesting idea (our observations are limited, which is true) and jumps to “therefore, we can’t assume death is eternal” out of nowhere.
And all the clips are kinda AI sloppy. I mean, the video might not be autospam, but that + the clarity/consistency of the speaker + account age is very sus.
Appreciate the feedback, perhaps I make that jump with too much assumption. The logic behind it is as follows: if the laws of our reality as we perceive it are telling us that the odds are nearly infinite to one that our consciousness should be in a state of non-existence, why do we believe that to be true? Especially when we consider that it is certainly logically possible for reality to be an illusion, and that there’s considerable evidence that is such (the probability argument of Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis, Dr S James Gates discovery of computer code with the equations of supersymmetry physics, and the double slit experiment, etc). We need to make the distinction between the logic of the notion “I think therefore I am” and the empirical observations of the reality around us. That’s why I use the example of loading sentient artificial intelligence into a video game world. They can create a science to explain the logic of that, but none of that logic applies to the truth of their existence.
“If the laws of our reality as we perceive it are telling us that the odds are nearly infinite to one that our consciousness should be in a state of non-existence, why do we believe that to be true?”
“We need to make the distinction between the logic of the notion ‘I think therefore I am’ and the empirical observations of the reality around us.”
“Especially when we consider that it is certainly logically possible for reality to be an illusion…”
“…considerable evidence that is such (the probability argument of Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis, Dr. S. James Gates’ discovery of computer code in the equations of supersymmetry physics, and the double slit experiment, etc).”
Bostram’s Simulation Hypothesis is a philosophical thought experiment, not empirical evidence, Dr. Gates’ work involves mathematical structures in physics, not literal “computer code” proving a simulation and the double slit experiment demonstrates quantum behavior, not that reality is an illusion.
“That’s why I use the example of loading sentient artificial intelligence into a video game world. They can create a science to explain the logic of that, but none of that logic applies to the truth of their existence.”
Conflating Epistemology and Ontology
“The logic behind it is as follows: if the laws of our reality as we perceive it are telling us that the odds are nearly infinite to one that our consciousness should be in a state of non-existence…”
Countering an argument by labelling and linking it’s statements seems a very disjointed way to try to enforce your logic. For example you labelled my core argument as a False Dilemma, implying that it creates an oversimplified choice by eliminating alternatives. Care to elaborate exactly how it is doing that, and which alternatives it is excluding?
It would seem to me that you’re someone who takes your reality at the highest value, as in that you not only believe that nothing can supersede the laws defined by this reality, but you also take concepts that have enough social or scientific validation to be true despite not fully comprehending the concepts yourself. I do not mean that as an attack on your intelligence by any means btw, not a single soul possesses the ability to fully comprehend everything humans have scientifically discovered, so at some point we are all relying on the word of someone else.
The fallacy in this is that you are rejecting the notion this could be a simulation before you ever step foot into exploring the logic I presented. Because if this were a simulation, you could acknowledge that everything could be an illusion, the past could be generated, other people could be NPCs, etc, and this is all designed as an experience. At that point you might consider then that an article which states this cannot be a simulation might have been created for the purpose of keeping you immersed, not unlike the Truman Show. That if this were a simulation then it is likely a designed experience, and in the designing of that experience it would likely be known where the limits of your comprehension, and which knowledge you would seek for yourself would be. So then, for example, the experience could serve you an article which states that scientists have discovered that algorithmically this cannot be a simulation, and rather than explore and fully comprehend that notion for yourself, you would instead take it at face value.
This is why it’s so important to not only make distinctions in the levels of logic, with the base being the irrefutable “I think therefore I am”, as well as the presented logic not being so advanced that you’d need to read a textbook to understand it. Because reading a textbook is again taking things at face value. And if you read textbooks that explained the sci-fi world of a video game, as interesting as they may be, they offer nothing but further immersion.
Reality is a simulation is an unfalsifiable claim, it can only be taken on faith, belief. Bootstrapping scientific theories to « prove » that claim is demonstrably pseudoscience. I’ve put too much time and energy engaging with this already.
This right here.
It’s the same reason religions call it faith. Not being able to prove it, is kind of a point.
And no, I have no desire to start a conversation with OP. No offense, I’m just, personally, way beyond this type of philosophy.
At no point do I state that reality is a simulation. What I am stating is that there is more sound logic to support that it is than there is to support the eternal death that we perceive. Then I provide clear examples of this logic (the improbable anomaly of existence coinciding with the present moment, Bostrom’s probability argument of a simulation, the double slit experiment which has provided a foundation for quantum physics, Dr S James Gates discovery, and Jacobo Grinberg’s Syntergic Theory)
our consciousness should be in a state of non-existence
Sounds like you’re speaking of the Fermi Paradox, and some related things.
But just because the existence of our consciousness is improbable doesn’t mean you can conclude that it’s literally impossible.
You also seem to be connecting a lot of ideas under the assumption that a human ‘point of view’ is necessarily unique… I think this article touches on a lot of your ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
And, indeed, the bias of a human-centric viewpoint is a huge issue in science and an ongoing point of debate, as seen above. That part of what you’re getting at, I really like.
I’m not saying it is literally impossible, but we can’t ignore just how improbable reality tells us it is. Those odds pretty much indicate a certainty, but even if they didn’t my point still stands. That point being that there’s already a very compelling case for the simulation theory which does not involve my hypothesis. So now when you bring that hypothesis to the table, it significantly bolsters it, like an experiment that supports the thesis with a failure rate so low it’s not observable. So the real question is, do you think a simulation is more unlikely than the odds of your consciousness existing in the present moment?
I’ll admit, I only made it through part B. This is where you think that because you are the only one to have this thought, it must be a simulation. It doesn’t actually mean that, but that’s irrelevant anyway because you aren’t: The Anthropic Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) is a well-known part of cosmology and philosophy.
Living at only one point in time doesn’t have any greater meaning. Flip this the other way: imagine you have a minimal amount of hand-eye coordination, and you can hit a dart board, but not enough to hit a specific number. So you throw a dart and hit a 3. The chances of that are 1/20, and the chances you hit the very specific spot on that 3 is astronomically smaller. That doesn’t mean it’s special, it’s just where you hit.
Your observations and experiences aren’t meaningful because they’re planned, they’re meaningful because they’re yours, and you couldn’t have them at any other time.
First off thank you for responding logically. The forbidden equation differs from the dartboard paradox in one key way, and it’s that there’s a great significance to where the dart had landed. It didn’t just land anywhere on that dartboard, it landed in the one exact spot where you have consciousness, and everywhere else on that dartboard you do not have consciousness, which is a great significance to you obviously. And really “you” is all we can truly consider here, as anything outside of “I think therefore I am” can be questioned, meaning we don’t truly know if anyone else actually exists. It’s important to make that distinction and separation- that we shouldn’t put so much faith into what can be observed with our 5 senses. Once one considers this could be the simulation Bostrom says it is, or the illusion of Maya as referenced by Hinduism and Buddhism, or the shadows in Plato’s cave allegory, or that they are all one and the same, then instead of a dartboard paradox, the forbidden equation instead serves as a strong indication that this is the truth. Instead of being an extremely improbable anomaly, it now becomes the only sure indication that death does not mean what this reality tells you it means.
It’s really not as crazy as it may first sound. All this is really saying is that time is not linear, which though we perceive it that way, we already are at least partially acknowledging via Einstein’s theory of relativity. I’m suggesting there exists a dimension outside of this one in which time works differently. If time can move in all directions, or is eternal in that dimension, and our consciousness draws from that dimension, then that both solves the forbidden equation and provides an answer as to how our consciousness can continue to exist.
I 100% believe that we live in a simulation. I also 100% do not fucking care. Literally nothing I can do to change that. If there is a simulation capable of rendering the entirety of existence in the way that it does, then my gay ass isn’t going to change anything Besides, food still tastes good and dick still feels nice. Don’t care if it is simulated or not. Although I do believe that it is.
That video is just nonsensical horseshit. I am so tired of people taking shrooms and thinking that that somehow turns them into a genius. You, Joe Rogan, who the fuck else? Stop it, just because you had a realization about a couple of things. Doesn’t mean that you were somehow the one human being on earth who will pierce the veil.
I know it can come across that way, but I’m not trying to be some egotistical shmuck. I just thought of something that clearly can qualifies as strong logic against the notion of eternal death, and am wanting to discuss it openly. Are you refuting the logic of the argument? I would think as a believer in the simulation you would want to consider this with an open mind.
Once you understand that humans always compare the way the world really works to the most advanced piece of technology at their time, you’ll realize the simulation theory is just the newest edition of that phenomenon
Except this notion has actually existed since 500 BCE and been repeatedly referenced through mankind’s history. The simulation is synonymous with the concept of the Maya in the Upanishads, part of the sacred texts of Hinduism. This concept of reality being an illusion is also referenced in Buddhism, and in ancient Greece in Plato’s allegory of the cave. Jacobo Grinberg also referenced it in his work and Syntergic theory, which predates Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis.
The word simulation is not synonymous with illusion. Saying that the illusion in the Upanishads or Hinduism is the same as a simulation is a fundamental misunderstanding of what those texts were trying to convey about the nature of reality. And in Buddhism the “illusion” isn’t actually an illusion, it’s the falsehood of your own perception. These concepts sound similar on the surface but an actual study of any of these religions will reveal that they are not describing a simulation at all. As for Plato’s allegory, it is similar to the Buddhist concept, it’s most simple form being that you cannot trust your senses without the proper proof and reasoning to back them up. Plato was stressing the importance of a scientific and concrete understanding of the world instead of blind faith in what you see.
And just as you see from reading all of these, the reality of these simulation theories is that they rely on translations and falsehoods of ancient texts without the true context behind them. In Hinduism, reality is presented as an illusion because we are all part of the greatest God made to experience itself, and there really is no difference between us and any other substance. In buddhism the illusion is the falsehoods you’ve built up in your mind about the understanding of yourself and everything around you, meant to encourage self regulation and reflection so that you are not consumed by those falsehoods, and in Plato’s work it is a warning about existing outside of the pursuit of true scientific knowledge and measurement. Your theory dismisses all of these deeper readings in favor of trying to tie concepts together that could be misrepresented as the matrix.
I meant synonymous in the context of this hypothesis, as of course they are not completely the same. The point being made here is that throughout history there have been individuals who have pointed out that our perception is extremely limited and should not be relied on completely, particularly when it comes to the understanding of our existence. This is what is consistent through the Upanishads, Buddhism, Plato’s allegory, etc. People get so stuck in reality they live in that they refute the notion that anything could exist beyond it. My hypothesis does not state that this is a simulation, only that there is logical evidence that supports that. What it does state is that the forbidden equation reveals a critical flaw with the logic that this reality throws upon us, indicating that there is a dimension outside of it in which consciousness would persist, and thereby aligning with the above concepts.
Really surprised by this site. New here and was interested to try it out. All my replies have been respectful and tailored towards encouraging an open discussion, yet these responses have been overwhelming negative and I’ve been downvoted like crazy. Besides one or two responses the majority have been very standoffish and close-minded, and in a sub community labelled Shower Thoughts no less!
Youtube videos do not belong here.
My bad, new here and I only included it to prevent a substantially larger wall of text. I hope that understandable
Don’t worry about it, other than being in the wrong spot it looks like a fine post to me. I’m not sure where, exactly, would’ve been better — I only subscribe to relatively few lemmy communities.
deleted by creator
