(untitled)

Let's say we *are* living in a simulation. How would we tell? Perhaps the signs are all around us. Like how we stopped exploration after the Apollo missions. Or like how it takes millions of years for evolution to work. Is everything outside our simulation happening much faster? If we escaped this simulation, would it be just another simulation, where each simulation is just nested inside another one? Like a Mac running Windows in a virtual machine, which is running an Amiga in an emulator. If we ever found our way out to the root of reality, how would we know it?

I think that is the case, yeah i know im crazy. I spend a lot of time to think about it and there really is no way to tell if we are in a simulation or not. Nor does it matter, the distinguishment between real and not real is irrelevant, its our desire for causal effect and the ability that we can use to expand our understanding. There certainly is a needed level of complexity and chaos in a closed system for intelligence to evolve. But even in theory there is hardly a difference between our world and a pong simulation, the rules are different, but for all we know the world above this one might have completely different rules that we might be able to comprehend. Even causality might only apply to our world, for the sake of argument lets ignore quantum physics. The only significance of a world on top of another is the interaction, in which case it is not a closed system and cross system interactions take place.

I mean it would be kind of meaningless to try and discover the simulation via indiscrepancies in the mechanics of our own universe--i.e. the simulation structure itself. Hypothetically what we've been fed is just how a simulation works, and we have no reliable reference for how a 'real' baseline universe works. Within the question itself you contradict whether you believe the universe is real or not--you wish to find a way to possibly prove it is fake, yet you assume its physical laws would be modeled off something real and immutable. Something that would offer a smoking gun because its logic is absolute, not arbitrary. Even if we figured something like that out, they could probably just patch it. Assuming they don't want us to figure it out for some reason. And I think that would be likely if they haven't made contact by now. I don't think you'd ever be able to exhaustively prove it from the inside out. Even if you found a hard border of the simulation--from our lack of perspective we can't really differentiate something like that from say the breakdown of physics in a real world due to extreme environments like black holes or extreme scales like plank units. Are these phenomena due to butting against the limits of the hardware generating our simulation, or are they just intrinsic parts of physics? From inside, it might appear to be an intrinsic part of physics because it's going to be self-consistent either way. Who the hell knows what we should even be looking for as an indicator of 'real' physics? Maybe quantum physics is simply the probabilistic inaccuracy at the limit of our hardware's ability to handle floating point operations. But from our perspective we can always devise ways to model it in a way that makes some sense as an innate and natural structure of reality. On the other hand, we're creative enough to come up with totally unprovable ways to interpret everything as being somehow contrived and faked. Even assumptions like our own history or extreme physics on the frontiers of human research--it's not like you actually know those things are real in an objective way. There's no reason to think the simulation would have to truly start at a 00:00:00 on the timeline--at the big bang--it could have been booted with the initial state of your own birth. Or it could have booted when you first achieved consciousness waking up this morning. Or it could be booting up right as you're reading this sentence, complete with an initial state which includes memories of you being conscious at a moment immediately prior to this one. Memories could be arbitrary, and cultural information around us even more so. There's absolutely no reason to assume they're reliable if you're entertaining the idea that this is simulated. Our memories might be able to be edited live, to retcon any inconsistency we find with a proper explanation. They could pause the clock on our simulation and take as long as needed to come up with a convincing patch. That truly puts us on shaky ground. Entertaining the idea that this is a simulation is inherently solipsistic. What if they're just simulating one consciousness to save on compute resources? They could build any backstory around the world you're in, and only refine things based on the specific path of discovery you personally make. Maybe the things you've learned about and specialized in through life are really the only things that add up and are consistent and logical under careful examination, and everything else is just a backdrop that would fall apart if you could possibly examine it all in your lifetime with an adequate level of sophistication. And solipsism is a closed box. It's fundamentally impossible to prove or disprove. Also, as others have said, it wouldn't matter. If there is a base reality where our reality's hardware is located, then surely they more than anyone else have a sneaking suspicion that they're under a big microscope themselves--being carefully simulated in hardware contained in a yet higher reality. They would likely have exactly the same troubles proving that their reality is 'real' or not as we do. Of course I can't say for sure because I don't know what kind of physical laws a base reality might have. I'm forced to use our paltry data set of one and extrapolate from there, which is almost certainly useless. Maybe a universe is possible which could be proven objectively to be real, but I somehow doubt it.

Anyway, wow that was a massive text wall. tl;dr the simulation could be significantly smaller and less comprehensive than it appears. And you'll never reach its limits because they can throttle the clock speed of your own fuarrrking mind, plus they can throttle the speed of reality itself. Plus they have root access to any data on the system, including your memories and personality and definitely every bit of human knowledge ever accumulated. It's perfectly paranoid and inescapable and unprovable.

we may be living in a simulation, but that does not make anything about reality less real

as in: reality is real whether someone decides to simulate it or not

>>14925 Agreed. Like even if this is a 'natural' base reality, your own conception of it is a simulation running on the hardware of your brain. Or your brain is virtualized on some other type of hardware in some other reality, with either the same or separate hardware feeding it virtual stimulus. No difference. In both, your mind is just an approximate perceptual model based on stimulus. There would be no way to directly inhabit a universe; that would be an incoherent statement.

>>14922 Doesn't sound much different from religion. But instead of believing in a reincarnated messiah, you have an anime girl in charge. How do you prove it though? How do you find evidence that you are correct about it and not just some crackpot?

>>14910 Atheists are so pathetic. They spend countless years trying to find any meaning in their hedonistic lifes but they fail miserably. Just read the Bible and accept Jesus Christ, you will thank me later. Or be Pagan or be whatever. Just don't be an atheist please, throughout history it didn't help anyone to achieve anything good.

>>15010 It's all the same. Most people adopt some ruleset made by others. If that is clad in a religious mantle or claims to be secular makes no practical difference. Either way you're just a minion to someone elses creation. People who actually look for their own ruleset stand equal instead of being wiling henchmen and that is arguably way less pathetic. The only credit i would give is that most seem unable to do that and thus fill the void of a formal accepted religion with corporate worship which is arguably worse.

the only valid religious practice is sun worship.

>>15010 Obvious bait. In case you're not, there's no meaningful distinction between secular philosophizing and theist philosophy, interpretation, and patching over holes in the bible. Lots of what we think of as the bible was once non-canonical and written long after other portions--representing a long, flailing search for truth and meaning which is very much like the non-religious ones that you look down your nose upon. Just because you're satisfied with taking other thinker's work for granted to avoid having to do any work yourself doesn't mean it all came down from on high carved into stone tablets. Hell, there's not even anything here that suggests it's mutually exclusive with religion. As far as I know there's nothing in the bible that says the creator isn't creating a simulation. >>15000 Are you responding to a different post? I didn't make any claims of knowing anything; almost entirely the opposite, I was talking about how it's not possible to know anything about the authenticity of our reality in an empirical way, since the nature of the question is to question empricism itself.

>>15014 >>15017 I will repeat: what did atheism ever brough to you other than pain and suffering? Religion serves very important purpose in people's life, it turns them off degeneracy road and other struggle. I dare you to find a decent Cristian who is depressed all the time and wants to kill himself. On the other side there are abundant cases of this type among atheists.

>>15020 What pain? The only difference is don't spend time roleplaying in a church. Well i still played d&d with friends so not much difference. Besides religion doesn't protect against degeneracy. Lets even ignore the obvious example of priests fuarrrking kids and look broader. What do many teach? You're the chosen people and you can do everything you want with the dirty unbeliever & fanboys from enemy clubs.

>>15020 there are *many* suicidal christians. Suicide rates among Christians aren't much lower than atheists.

>>15022 And plenty more that think about it constantly but are forced to suffer because suicide isn't allowed in their faith. There are plenty of happy and successful atheists too, they just aren't brooding and ranting on the internet about atheism. They just go on with their lives. That says more about people who rant about things on the internet than it does about religion or the lack of it. Just because someone found fulfillment in their imaginary friend is no proof that their friend is real, it just means there was something lacking in their own life without that validation. There either is or is not a god. Wanting it doesn't make it real. I'd like to believe, really, but I can't. I'd be happier if it were true, then maybe I'd get to see my parents again. I'd drive myself into a well of misery forcing myself to "believe" something that wasn't real though.

>>15024 >then maybe I'd get to see my parents again I am sorry to hear that friendo. What happened if I may ask?

>>15020 Dude do you read? Where the hell did I say I was atheist? Who are you talking about?

We can't tell because every cognitive process for recognizing something as "real" is axiomatic. If we were in a simulation, I believe we could never tell.

>>14924 p much this. the taoists, or at least lao tzu, describe the world as being a modification of nothing, or the void. all the boundaries we see are only apparent because of desire. from that anything that can be imagined and cut out from the void exists, or at least has the potential to, so I guess there could feasibly be a world from which this world was created and is monitored, but only in theory, just as this world is only in theory, and if nothing "exists", everything does.

>>15015 eh. monotheism has its perks. if you're afraid of the whole of the world and all of its forces, which many are, it makes sense to give it a name and a personality and try to get to know it in hope and prayer that it doesn't smite you down as it's done infinitely many before you.

We're living in a simulation, but it is a socially constructed material phenomenon, IE it is the spectacle. The material world is still real (and would be hyper-computational, IE impossible to simulate on a computer).

After reading the first post I realized that there might be certain hints about the nature of this hypothetical simulation. Some months ago I was reading some FBI documents regarding UFOs and extraterrestrial life (https://vault.fbi.gov/unexplained-phenomenon), and there is 1 particular memorandum where someone states with certain confidence that aliens don't come from other planets, but from other "planes", mentioning Hinduism and other "mystical theories" as those describing the phenomena better. Hinduism says that there are beings (often compared to christian angels) that can travel very long distances (intergalactic distances) in just an instant, might this be the result of existing in a faster or higher reality just as OP said? The FBI document also mentions these extraterrestrials arrived earth looking for a new home, iirc. Maybe they are creating some sort of virtual paradise in a similar way some people think we could create a virtual reality where we can live happier lifes. This might be important to us, specially considering the impact that religion has in the life of millions and a possible route to escape this dying planet.

>>15209 Aliens are both extraterrestrial and extradimensional, they are so much further in development than us and know many things we do not. Here are a few links on the subject, i read some of these but theres a lot of ground to cover on https://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/index.htm I cant obviously claim absolute truth of these text, but cross reading a lot of it is consistent with each other in my view. >This might be important to us, specially considering the impact that religion has in the life of millions and a possible route to escape this dying planet. This has absolute importance to us, hence why the government suppresses this information. To quickly sum up what i have read is that on other planets in our solar system intelligent life that is highly developed exists, but earth has had a bad setback in its spiritual growth. The other species have significantly mastered spiritual and scientific principles and can reincarnate by choice and influence space and time and other dimensions by pure force of will. Those beings want to help us but can do so only trough minimum intervention so we develop naturally more or less. >The FBI document also mentions these extraterrestrials arrived earth looking for a new home, iirc. Maybe they are creating some sort of virtual paradise in a similar way some people think we could create a virtual reality where we can live happier lifes. That is what i believe is the plan, the virtual reality realm serves as a training ground for higher abilities that mankind once had, such as telepathy, remote viewing and psychokinetic abilities of all sorts. This digital world is a sort of gateway where we can safely experiment and get used to the abilities that we can use divine abilities in the world to come. I doubt any government documents other than highly classified ones will tell the truth. The governments and corporations are construct of some other worldly evil that seek to deprive in all ways, most of all spiritually and mentally. Aliens want to help us against them too, but their hands are tied for whatever reasons they have.

It seems to me that if you accept the premise of artificially simulated universes then naturally occurring instances of these universes likely occur with greater frequency than artificial ones. Calling them simulations is kind of a misrepresentation. It conflates how something is made with what it is. Electrical discharge produced by rubbing a balloon on a carpet isnt somehow more simulated or fake than electrical discharges from lightning. Consider a computer simulated "reality". There is nothing about this artificial universe that makes it less material than our own. After all, computers are still made of atoms. Its denizens would simply be another kind of consciousness sharing the exact same universe as us.

>>15216 That being said just because we share the same matter does not mean that our realities arent in some ways partitioned from each other. The thing that separates us from the computer people is a difference in perceptual context. They would not understand even the most basic material fundamentals the same way we do, and thus communication would be practically impossible. If we could somehow influence them, they would probably not even consider us to be alive. We would be like a force of nature to them. Try to imagine what it would look like from inside the box. The core of their reality does not stop at the level of digital logic. The underlying electrical activity that manifests this logic would theoretically also be available to them. They would have some abstract understanding of the atomic interactions that govern the material reality of the thing we call a "computer". But remember, the computer does not exist in an ideal vacuum. The computer atoms are being constantly subjected to not only electromagnetic radiation and gravitational forces, but also to the atomic dynamics of all neighboring table-atoms and air-atoms. Not to mention the electromagnetic dynamics of the entire power grid its hooked up to. What I'm getting at here is that this so-called "simulated" universe isn't nested in our own. It *is* our own. We are cohabitants. ....and that's why I'm an animist.

>>14910 I would posit that in a highly bastardised use of Godel's theorum and quantum theory, we live in a world of appearances. A hologram. Due to the limitations observing the smallest possible "things" without altering it, it could be assumed that incompleteness is baked in or anything smaller is obfuscated "intentionally". Not that this was designed intelligently, it could be that we created a misconception by simply assuming more than we should have about the existence of everything. I wouldn't know. I am no good at ontology, let alone good enough to create a theory of everything.

>>15218 I would also say that I heard some implications of string theory would spell that the universe is 2 dimensional. Perhaps reality is immanently simulated? We live in the hyperreal like >>15207 or engage in Lemurian timewar.

>highly bastardized Godel rrrrreeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>15221 Sorry, anon, but we're not stopping until we get to full pseud.

Even then how would it truly make a difference on how you perceive reality? So you escape the simulation to meet the creator of this simulation now what do you do with said knowledge? Exactly.

A simulation of what? >>14910 >How would we tell Keep advancing science because right now we're lightyears away from understanding. For instance just using the term 'simulation' is wrong. Our universe behaves nothing at all like a bunch of bits.

A truly excelent audiobook I've been listening to (it's still being released, chapter by chapter) is exactly about this. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA3tbHe2O7q0ryWamx696fA find whatever chapter looks interesting, or, start from the begining. It's all really good, top tier "reality junkie" stuff