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.
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)
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’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?
My bad, new here and I only included it to prevent a substantially larger wall of text. I hope that understandable
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.
“because we have no access to the algorithms.” Exactly this
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.
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.
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?
Minecraft. Build a cool base in the side of a mountain or in a tree with a ton of secret passages. I play it with my kids and enjoy it just as much as they do.
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!