Disagree. Using the word 'simulation' does not mean that the idea is new. What it means is that The Simulation Theory uses modern language which for the most part doesn't change the underlying philosophical concepts which have rippled out from more ancient times.
Plato's Cave is an very good attempt at explaining The Simulation Theory in those days of yore. Jesus stating "In my Fathers House there are many mansions" is another expression of the Simulation Theory.
AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:08 amYes, ok, if you want to look at it that way...
It is not a matter of wanting to look at it in any particular way. All data is significant and leaving any data out of that can only result in an incomplete/distorted picture.
It could also mean that the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave are simply "thought-world" and the outside of the cave is "reality" (which is nothing but consciousness itself) - there is no real possibility to "level up" into a different reality - there is only the option of seeing through the illusion of separation, of ones identification with the shadow on the wall and to realise that in fact there is only light (which is what I am) - once outside (in the light) the game is therefore over (for this character).
Which is why I also mentioned some theistic data to accompany the Plato data. In the succinct Plato's Cave is metaphoric for "There is more to see than meets the eye" leaving existing data out [because "inconvenience'?] is to not want to grasp the whole picture and content oneself with mere shadowy representation.
The Agnostic position is the best way forward in relation to handling data one would otherwise think of as woo-woo [pooh pooh] and prefer to leave to one side [willful ignorance]
But yes, even that it is necessary, I do want to handle data which helps me look at things in certain ways. I just don't want to miss anything out.
One is best to assume the agnostic position on the overall character of The Creator. Not to do so is to have already jumped in the 'deep end' with presumption...and the risk with that, the presumption is too shallow anyway. We are more likely to glean some understanding of The Creators character by observing the handiwork [simulation] with a clear eye not distorted by unqualified opinion.
Yes... thats exactly what I am saying: observe and investigate with a "clear eye not distorted by unqualified opinion".
But, how can this be achieved? As I see it: Only when relying on ones basic direct experience of reality (or: the simulation).
Science is the best option. Even if it is just you as the individual investigating your experience...one can still achieve the requirements of science from a subjective vantage...one has to always remember that one has to remain brutally honest because there are no others [that you know of] whom are willing/able to replicate similar experience, so it is difficult to compare notation...
As I see it: Only when relying on ones basic direct experience of reality (or: the simulation).
Meaning: One should investigate, first and foremost, if the conceptual interpretations and beliefs one (and society in general) subscribes to are actually in tune with the direct experience itself - if not, then ones "understanding of The Creators character" will always be tainted by belief (and will be, as such, ultimately wrong).
Agreed. What we all have in common is the shared experience - what we all agree to as being "reality" - specifically The Earth aspect, and generally the Galaxy [rest of the Universe].
Therein we are best to help one another by agreeing that what we each are seeing is the same thing, and from that platform move out [away from] belief and into knowledge...
Having said as much, it should be obvious from the go-get that we will still only get a type of gist as to The Creators character, but even so...it is better than nothing and can act as a crack we can place our fingers into as we climb that metaphorical rock-face...
See, the problem is, most people (including most/all? scientist investigating Sim Theory) do so from the perspective of the character - from the perspective of the shadow on the wall of Plato's cave. To actually investigate the setup correctly, one first has to create some distance - as long as one investigates from the perspective of the shadow all one will see is other shadows.
You have my attention...
Direct experience - before conceptual thought "makes sense" of what is seen - provides this distance. Proper investigation and analysis will lead to a very different perspective - one can see the shadows dancing, but not identify with them anymore. This is as far as "thought world" can go - this is the "I am", the basic knowledge, there is no going further on your own. The rest happens via "grace" - a natural returning home (like the son coming home to the father - which is the moment when they become one).
Ultimately it appears that to reach said point, it becomes obvious at a prior point that it is up to the individual and that is the way the Simulation is designed.
It would be nice [Disney?] to think that the masses will altogether come to the conclusion as one species and move on from there...
But the reality is different [is showing us a different requirement.]
Until Scientists [specifically their invested backers] take serious interest in finding out, and more to the point, that they share their findings with the general populace, the onus is on the individual [interested] to find ways in which to explain and expand in said experience...
There are small attempts by scientists/investors to do some type of investigation...such as;
Scientists Are Hunting For A Mirror Universe And Attempting To Open Portals Into It
{The info may not be true - I have only come across it today and haven't investigated any further}
But my point is, this should be the kind of stuff scientists could be probing, if for no other reason than to help settling any argument.
Referring to The Creator in the interim as "Consciousness" is not to be rude or impersonal. Rather it is respectful and in addition gives rise to the idea that if The Creator is Consciousness, then one should be able to interact somehow with said Creator...since I am/we are also consciousness...
Since there are no obvious phones hanging on wires which pass through the membrane of our own Reality Simulation and disappear into 'somewhere else', we have to look at alternate ways in which to make contact...
The idea that one could interact with consciousness (with the Creator) by looking for something/someone outside is based on the belief in separation and will as such never work. Quite the opposite, it will keep the (imagined) separation going - it will go on forever (or rather: until one stops looking for the Creator in the world of limited things and turns "inside" - which is: away from concepts).
I disagree [from personal experience] and have to argue that 'going inside' is a concept of itself, so your statement refutes itself.
To add more substance to that, one does not have to think of another as 'other' in order to interact with their aspect of consciousness.
If we reconfigure back into The Creator alone without 'others', we return to [the position] 'where' we [The Creator] started, rather than accept that 'others' are really aspects of ourselves and we can assume that perspective as logical and relevant and even purposeful in meaning.
It is all Mirror-Mirror.
If one is going to move from an absolute "I Am and Nothing Else Is" position by creating things, only to find how remarkable those things are, one is going to want to share that with others...so in order to do that, one has to create others.
Yes, true.
See, what I have said before shouldn't be understood as a condemnation of conceptual thought - it is great that we have this capacity, but, like any other tool, it should be used for the right purpose. As I see it, thought has turned from being a servant into the master - and the real master has become a guest in his own house. Now, this might make it possible to play hide and seek with one-self, but it also opens the door for greed, judgement and all sorts of egotistical behaviour... has the game been spoilt (hacked?) and turned ugly?
To a degree yes - but a minor speed-bump in the path...in that, it is best navigated with great caution rather than reckless abandon.
These mirror images are not something expected. Rather they are off-shoot [reactions] to the simulation being experience BY the humans [in our case] experiencing them.
In that, it is humans who have made the labels for which The Creator has to contend with. So we are presented- as evidenced in the creation - with duality which isn't really there and thus doesn't really exist as anything more than an interpretation [human] based upon misinformation. [wrongful interpretation]
We cannot look at nature through the distorting lens of good and evil [concepts]
That we do tend to - is not The Creators direct 'fault'.
From the Creators perspective, "God" and "Satan" become created characters [by human belief as metaphor] and The Creator factors that in. We cannot say that The Creator wasn't surprised by the development...but it should be safe to assume that these [Disney-like] characters are not 'real' in relation to The Creator of this particular Simulation, but might possibly be 'real' in relation to any simulations created through human imagination and subsequently becoming an aspect of the overall game-play. This is in relation to the idea that the algorithm permits us each the ability to create our own realities as per 'The Next Level'...part of the 'self replicating code'...as it were...We can create these offshoots and experience them as 'real' but they are specifically human creations and only generally connected with the Creator of our dominant shared reality simulation.
They are a false interpretation of our understanding of The Creators Character, and can be experienced as real [in an alternate simulation connected to this main one] by those who believe that they are, indeed, real.
The "I AM" is obvious and thus not hidden from oneself.
Thus the simulations are an attempt to discover the hidden answer to the questions arising from the statement ["I AM" ] which was able to be made.
According to the Bible there is an answer.
God said: "I am that I am" - now we know what we are, we are this: "I am"
Or, as Nisargadatta put it: "I am That"
Problem is that the mind is not happy with this description - it wants to know what it means to "be" and what "I" actually is... but these are useless questions, they do not have a final answer - all they do is keep the guesswork going (actually: nothing has a final/absolute answer as long as we play in the arena of relativity).
The main point being, this 'area of relativity' is where we are currently playing. It does not have to be a 'problem' - not any that I have had explained to me adequately for me to accept it as a 'problem' anyway...
The more obvious point is that The Creator started the game so obviously wanted to know more about [Its] Self than "I Am" or we would not exist as fragments of the mirror-image wrought through the creation of Things.
Thus we are safe to assume, it is a fair enough question for The Creator to have asked, and we can accept our existence as being the result of the question being [attempted to be, at least] answered.
This in turn is why humans ave strives towards creating AI [in our own image] We are replicating the initial intent of The Creator. We enjoy 'others' and we enjoy consciousness and the interactions it produces.
Yes, sounds logical.
The idea of Simulation Theory and current collective [and as importantly individual] data of experience is the most logical platform anyone could possibly position themselves. All the dots connect, as far as I can tell. No one has shown it not to be the case...If they are able to, I am attentive...
