Are We Living in a Simulation?

[Ayanle Farah]

this whole world is completely controlled.


our so called" freedom " is just the freedom to walk freely in our cell in this jail called the earth

this is not really freedom

true freedom is inside.

this world is a giant test for awareness put in place by aliens. this an ant farm for them

Prove it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Almantas]

this whole world is completely controlled.


our so called" freedom " is just the freedom to walk freely in our cell in this jail called the earth

this is not really freedom

true freedom is inside.

this world is a giant test for awareness put in place by aliens. this an ant farm for them

either you understand the test or you fail


you can only escape by working on yourself : your level of awareness

---> this is an awareness war . our controllers are limited on this level


they work on the mental and reptilian brain : no compassion, power, hierarchy and so on


people can't escape the cunning of our controllers unless they have reached superior level of awareness


one of my favourite thought :

you can't escape perversity with time or space, it will find you anyway

you can only escape perversity with an awareness above it : above the matrix control system

You have way too much inside information. Who/What are you exactly?

 

[lowtek]

this whole world is completely controlled.


our so called" freedom " is just the freedom to walk freely in our cell in this jail called the earth

this is not really freedom

true freedom is inside.

this world is a giant test for awareness put in place by aliens. this an ant farm for them

either you understand the test or you fail


you can only escape by working on yourself : your level of awareness

---> this is an awareness war . our controllers are limited on this level


they work on the mental and reptilian brain : no compassion, power, hierarchy and so on


people can't escape the cunning of our controllers unless they have reached superior level of awareness


one of my favourite thought :

you can't escape perversity with time or space, it will find you anyway

you can only escape perversity with an awareness above it : above the matrix control system

Genuinely curious what you consider proof of your statements.

If there is some vast conspiracy of control, why would aliens be at the center? What is so special about humanity that they would want control of us? Ostensibly, if aliens exist... and we exist, then life must be common. Intelligence may be less common, but if intelligent aliens are here then it can't be rare.
So, why aliens instead of garden variety illuminati rich people? Why the added complexity to the theory?

 

[ApparentHorizon]

If you believe we're living in a simulation, can you no longer be considered an atheist? You have faith in something that you can't see and that there is zero evidence of, and you believe that the simulation was created by a god/gods. That means that even if you don't believe in religion, or a god that cares or even knows about your specific existence, you still believe in a "creator" that you can't see, and is just letting the simulation run its course.

It's about probabilities, not belief.

If Cities Skylines sold 4 million copies, that means there are, minimum, 4 million simulations.

Spread this across millions (billions?) of other games (multiverses?), and go into the future 100 years where digital worlds (VR? Brain Upload?) are indistinguishable from from reality. So the chance of us being in the "real world" is less than 1%. (But there's still a chance)

Ever played the sims?

They have computers in there as well...how long until they create their own simulations within the simulation? Does that make the people in there polytheists, since they're nested creators, or does only the original count?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Brander]

Possible. When one looks at how mathematical rules govern the world around us, one might conclude so. The concept of fractals blow my mind.

Mathematics doesn't govern our world. We invented mathematics to make the world more understandable and find patterns. We are pattern finding creatures after all.

 

[lowtek]

Mathematics doesn't govern our world. We invented mathematics to make the world more understandable and find patterns. We are pattern finding creatures after all.

You've got it backwards. We only exist because the world is understandable.

We exist because the physical laws are such that they allow intelligent life to evolve.

Since those laws predate our existence, we didn't invent them; they invented us.

Those physical laws are described by a self consistent system we call mathematics.

Therefore mathematics has an existence independent of our description of it.

 

[Brander]

So physical laws of this universe is now = mathematics??
Is what I said really that hard to understand? Do I need to repeat it?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Ayanle Farah]

You've got it backwards. We only exist because the world is understandable.

We exist because the physical laws are such that they allow intelligent life to evolve.

Since those laws predate our existence, we didn't invent them; they invented us.

Those physical laws are described by a self consistent system we call mathematics.

Therefore mathematics has an existence independent of our description of it.

It would be more accurate to say mathematics was invented to assist in our discovery, not that reality itself is governed by mathematical equations.

It helps us understand some fundamental truths but in the end math is a tool that exists only in our minds, just like language is nothing but symbols(words) representing thoughts that are used to communicate.

This is evidenced by pure mathematics which is most of the time completely abstract.

Every now and then we may have a use for pure mathematics like with Mandelbrot's discovery of fractal geometry but it started out as a mere abstraction proving math was invented to help discovery, not that it's a discovery in itself.

 

[lowtek]

So physical laws of this universe is now = mathematics??
Is what I said really that hard to understand? Do I need to repeat it?

Physical laws are just applied mathematics within a set of constraints (i.e. that they must be the same for all inertial observers).

These predate humans, therefore applied mathematics - and mathematics as a whole - predates humans.

You can't invent something that was around for billions of years before you got on the scene. Unless you want to argue we invented the sun, because we have language to describe it....

 

[lowtek]

It would be more accurate to say mathematics was invented to assist in our discovery, not that reality itself is governed by mathematical equations.

It helps us understand some fundamental truths but in the end math is a tool that exists only in our minds, just like language is nothing but symbols(words) representing thoughts that are used to communicate.

This is evidenced by pure mathematics which is most of the time completely abstract.

Every now and then we may have a use for pure mathematics like with Mandelbrot's discovery of fractal geometry but it started out as a mere abstraction proving math was invented to help discovery, not that it's a discovery in itself.

This is an interesting and intelligent objection.

Does the existence of abstract mathematics invalidate the independent existence of applied mathematics?

I don't believe it does - Maxwell's equations ( simple calculus ) were always true, and will always be true. We wouldn't exist if light weren't a thing. As I stated earlier, I think the fact we exist is strong evidence that physical laws ( and hence the mathematics that govern them ) have some sort of reality all their own.

None of the abstract math you reference, or indeed any that I'm aware of, invalidate any known physical laws. Mathematics seems to be self consistent.

A loose linguistic analogy would be that horses don't cease to exist simply because we abstracted mythical creatures called unicorns that happen to be very similar. The horse exists regardless of what you want to call it, what word you use to describe its color, and what other similar creatures you can invent.

The symbols we use to represent mathematics are arbitrary, but the dynamics mathematics describes are not and have a reality all their own. Light, gravity, nuclear forces... all are mathematical in nature and very very real.

An interesting twist to this is if these so called abstract maths that seem to have no connection to our reality, actually govern some sort of dynamics in other regions of the multiverse. Perhaps we are peeking into other realities without realizing it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

Maxwell's equations ( simple calculus ) were always true, and will always be true.

Yup, no matter how you cut it, 1+1=2, or in whatever alien language you label it ... %@ + %@ = ^#

I was gonna comment on the notion that mathematics doesn't govern anything but I'd much rather let the guy with the PhD in quantum physics do my dirty work.

Thanks for piping in.

 

[Christopher777]

You can bet that we sure want to find out haha.

I've had first-hand verification of Mandela Effects and uber synchronicities way before it hit the mainstream. Which hints at the hypothesis.

The hardest part about all this, even if it was true, is that we are all too attached to what we know as "reality". Living in each of our own subjective worlds, never really venturing or considering what's outside it, (which are self-evident; different lives, contexts and possibilities).

If you can STEP BACK from it all, then there may be a chance to figure out what's really going on,

 

[Almantas]

This is an interesting and intelligent objection.

Does the existence of abstract mathematics invalidate the independent existence of applied mathematics?

I don't believe it does - Maxwell's equations ( simple calculus ) were always true, and will always be true. We wouldn't exist if light weren't a thing. As I stated earlier, I think the fact we exist is strong evidence that physical laws ( and hence the mathematics that govern them ) have some sort of reality all their own.

None of the abstract math you reference, or indeed any that I'm aware of, invalidate any known physical laws. Mathematics seems to be self consistent.

A loose linguistic analogy would be that horses don't cease to exist simply because we abstracted mythical creatures called unicorns that happen to be very similar. The horse exists regardless of what you want to call it, what word you use to describe its color, and what other similar creatures you can invent.

The symbols we use to represent mathematics are arbitrary, but the dynamics mathematics describes are not and have a reality all their own. Light, gravity, nuclear forces... all are mathematical in nature and very very real.

An interesting twist to this is if these so called abstract maths that seem to have no connection to our reality, actually govern some sort of dynamics in other regions of the multiverse. Perhaps we are peeking into other realities without realizing it.

Your knowledge of mathematics and physics blows my mind off. I've learned more about maths from your posts than I did throughout High School.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Ayanle Farah]

This is an interesting and intelligent objection.

Does the existence of abstract mathematics invalidate the independent existence of applied mathematics?

I don't believe it does - Maxwell's equations ( simple calculus ) were always true, and will always be true. We wouldn't exist if light weren't a thing. As I stated earlier, I think the fact we exist is strong evidence that physical laws ( and hence the mathematics that govern them ) have some sort of reality all their own.

None of the abstract math you reference, or indeed any that I'm aware of, invalidate any known physical laws. Mathematics seems to be self consistent.

A loose linguistic analogy would be that horses don't cease to exist simply because we abstracted mythical creatures called unicorns that happen to be very similar. The horse exists regardless of what you want to call it, what word you use to describe its color, and what other similar creatures you can invent.

The symbols we use to represent mathematics are arbitrary, but the dynamics mathematics describes are not and have a reality all their own. Light, gravity, nuclear forces... all are mathematical in nature and very very real.

An interesting twist to this is if these so called abstract maths that seem to have no connection to our reality, actually govern some sort of dynamics in other regions of the multiverse. Perhaps we are peeking into other realities without realizing it.

Thank you.

I never said abstract mathematics invalidates applied math and I don't think it does.
However it does invalidate the notion that math is something that exist independent of us.

It's something we can use to describe and understand the physical laws that govern our reality and find true patterns while at the same time play around with equations that are make believe(as with any tool, it depends on how you use it)

This doesn't discredit applied math or math in general at all, it just reveals it for what it is, an invention.

You previously used the example of arguing we created the sun because we have language to describe it.

You can't invent something that was around for billions of years before you got on the scene. Unless you want to argue we invented the sun, because we have language to describe it...."

The way I see it you are essentially arguing the description of the sun wasn't invented by us and because this language could explain the sun you assume it can explain everything else.

The sun(the physical laws that govern our universe) may not have been invented, but the language which describes it was(mathematics).

That same language can describe non-existant things such as unicorns(abstract math in a nutshell).

The sun is real, the language is not, atleast not objectively.

We're arguing semantics but I think it's important to make that distinction because imo believing reality is governed by mathematics creates a confirmation bias, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Btw, who knows? Perhaps abstract math does explain things in a different reality, maybe there is a multiverse and maybe not..

 

[lowtek]

Thank you.

I never said abstract mathematics invalidates applied math and I don't think it does.
However it does invalidate the notion that math is something that exist independent of us.

It's something we can use to describe and understand the physical laws that govern our reality and find true patterns while at the same time play around with equations that are make believe(as with any tool, it depends on how you use it)

This doesn't discredit applied math or math in general at all, it just reveals it for what it is, an invention.

You previously used the example of arguing we created the sun because we have language to describe it.

You can't invent something that was around for billions of years before you got on the scene. Unless you want to argue we invented the sun, because we have language to describe it...."

The way I see it you are essentially arguing the description of the sun wasn't invented by us and because this language could explain the sun you assume it can explain everything else.

The sun(the physical laws that govern our universe) may not have been invented, but the language which describes it was(mathematics).

That same language can describe non-existant things such as unicorns(abstract math in a nutshell).

The sun is real, the language is not, atleast not objectively.

We're arguing semantics but I think it's important to make that distinction because when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Btw, who knows? Perhaps abstract math does explain things in a different reality, maybe there is a multiverse and maybe not.

It's worth noting, that people have been debating this for thousands of years. It's far from resolved, and I think it's pretty clear that we fall into opposite camps. I just like to argue with certainty. What's the point of wishy washy arguing?

Not gonna get my panties in a bunch over it - it's a fun diversion and your point about abstract math that is disconnected from physics is a good one.

 

[Ayanle Farah]

It's worth noting, that people have been debating this for thousands of years. It's far from resolved, and I think it's pretty clear that we fall into opposite camps. I just like to argue with certainty. What's the point of wishy washy arguing?

Not gonna get my panties in a bunch over it - it's a fun diversion and your point about abstract math that is disconnected from physics is a good one.

I can see why, this won't be resolved untill

1) We can understand everything about reality through math(proving math is objectively real and not an invention).

Or

2) Math runs into something it can't explain indefinitely(proving math

If #1 happens then you'd be right, if #2 happens we won't know. Even if #1 happened we won't know because math itself is a work in progress.

In other words it will never be resolved most likely.

Edit: There is a third option which is all abstract mathematics becomes applied mathematics. If that happens then it would prove math is a universal language and therefore not an invention of ours.

Anyway, it was nice having this conversation. Thanks again.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[WildFlower]

Hi guys!

What's your opinion of Elon Musk's opinion that we're most likely living in a computer simulation?

See Elon Musk's arguments here: Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Elon Musk Thinks So.

We're in a video game!

 

[scottmsul]

You can't invent something that was around for billions of years before you got on the scene. Unless you want to argue we invented the sun, because we have language to describe it...."

The way I see it you are essentially arguing the description of the sun wasn't invented by us and because this language could explain the sun you assume it can explain everything else.

The sun(the physical laws that govern our universe) may not have been invented, but the language which describes it was(mathematics).

That same language can describe non-existant things such as unicorns(abstract math in a nutshell).

The sun is real, the language is not, atleast not objectively.

What it comes down to, philosophically, is the universe made of math, or is it only described by math? Well honestly, I think from the perspective of math, these are one and the same. Math doesn't allow for the disambiguation. There's no way you could prove mathematically one or the other.

An interesting anecdote, back when Einstein was first inventing relativity, people knew that light traveled in waves. Up until that point, every single wave ever traveled by physically moving the particles in some medium. Waves were an emergent phenomena, a large-scale behavior that resulted because of small-scale interactions. That's why everyone was so certain about finding the aether. When Einstein proposed that light could travel in vacuum, it was because it popped right out of Maxwell's equations. The waves didn't need an aether, because the waves could exist as pure math.

 

[Ayanle Farah]

What it comes down to, philosophically, is the universe made of math, or is it only described by math? Well honestly, I think from the perspective of math, these are one and the same. Math doesn't allow for the disambiguation. There's no way you could prove mathematically one or the other.

An interesting anecdote, back when Einstein was first inventing relativity, people knew that light traveled in waves. Up until that point, every single wave ever traveled by physically moving the particles in some medium. Waves were an emergent phenomena, a large-scale behavior that resulted because of small-scale interactions. That's why everyone was so certain about finding the aether. When Einstein proposed that light could travel in vacuum, it was because it popped right out of Maxwell's equations. The waves didn't need an aether, because the waves could exist as pure math.

Of course you can't mathematically prove whether math is inherent to the universe or not. That's circular logic.

What you can do is look at math itself and observe whether or not it has an existance independent of us.

Tbh I was done with this debate before and I don't feel like reviving this topic.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Ninjakid]

Elon used an analogy based on how far video games have come within the last 40 years.

We started off with Pong, which is basically a stick and ball on a 2D interface.

Now we have complex games which simulate reality and you can play with people on the other side of the world in real time.

If games were to evolve at the same rate the same rate they have since Pong, within a hundred years they'd likely be indistinguishable from reality.

Imagine what they would be like in a few hundred years. A thousand years? A hundred thousand years?

For the people who can't fathom how that is possible just remember everything you sense is interpreted by your brain by a series of electrical signals, all of which can be tricked and manipulated.

I imagine a person living five hundred years ago wouldn't be able to imagine a smart phone. What will exist five hundred years from now that we can't imagine now?

EDIT: not only do I think it's possible, it's highly likely