Part Two - Is Our Existence Simulated Reality, or (Is IT) Reality Simulated?
May 13th, 2008The Heavy Stuff (THS) wants to welcome back the readers of part 1 of this post — stats show that over 3,000 unique visitors have read that posting - (thanks to about.com, dailygrail.com, crystalinks.com and anomalist.com and others) and, due to the subject matter, it would be advisible to do so before continuing with this post if you haven’t had the chance. Here’s that link http://theheavystuff.com/?p=56.
Of course, that `subject matter’ is the 1970’s college dorm late night favorite subject of `what is reality’? Yes, younger readers, before the Matrix - the very structure of realitywas something the `college heads’ thought discussion worthy. Perhaps is was those higher times that allowed a clearer seeing of the thin vail of reality - the illusionrefered to by the mystics and shaman of yester ages and days gone by.
And, in part one - THS - covered the `normal’ Matrixlike idea that `we’ (yes, you and I) and everything else — was simply the result of a running software program made by at least one civilization. In essence, an artifical being within an artificial reality.
In the first post, it was perhaps the logic of the `low threshold’ that was the most worrisome aspect of IF we are a simulation. Afterall, if only ONE civilization EVER ——— EVER — produced and ran (these are most important words) a `reality simulation software - in which ‘the spaces within the program could have self-awareness‘ ————– THEN — the `real odds’ of us (you and me) being real - in the manner WE think of real —– may be quite small. And, that the odds we ARE a simulation — quite large. Indeed, in part one - THS threw out some numbers to just form an opinion as to what the odds might actually be - or - to set you thinking about the hard numbers of the situation.
BUT, a closer look might dramatically INCREASE those odds - that is - increase the odds that we are real. (Isn’t that nice?)
After all, being realistic, `how many’ computer simulations are `left on’ to run their course ———— for 13.7 billion years? (Makes THS wonder what the longest running simulation software is with mankind?) And, the need to upkeep a program in the running state by any sustained entity for those 13.7 billion years? Can any entity exist with such a purpose? Or, even having the interest to see what a computer program would produce after 13.7 billion years?
[Now, obviously, a huge caveot, what we think of as`time’ may literally be an illusion that our scientists can’t quantify in a meaningful way as part of the very software - so deception is possible to the self aware spaces like you and everyone else.]
When one thinks of this needed structure to run a program for 13 billion years in THAT MANNER — the odds certainly seem to swing IN OUR FAVOR (that we are real in the manner we like to think of ourselves as being, (or are we?)) — at least to THS. INDEED, THS boldly predicts that ————- the ratio of advanced software programs - that simulate a reality – and, that are left `on’ for over 13 billion years ————is indeed —- LESS than the number of civilizations with self-aware entities. This fact bringing our odds at being real to better than 50/50 in all probability.
Isn’t is nice to think of the odds, our odds, in this more realistic way? Using thought logic alone to verify facts that indicate that we probably ARE real? Indeed, do you want one more twist to help that logic?
How about the fact that for us to view our reality as 13.7 billion years old — the entities that would have to have made the software - would have had to been of and from 2nd generation stars to probably have advanced life? Second generation stars were billions of years after the big bang.
Therefore, they, the software makers, would have had to have been here before 13.7 billion years to have US (you and I) `running as software’ that long — and since NO intelligent life would be setting up software prior to the big bang ———– we MUST be real. As we like to think of real.
Somehow, THS is not surprised. LOL.
So, that leaves us with the other choice - a Reality that must be Simulated. Simulated Instantaneously. Simulated instantaneously continuously via some actualization process. The science of today says it is actualized thru quantum mechanics. (Some like to think in a holographic manner with this question.) Frankly, the idea that reality is simulated, continuously, is just as daunting and amazing.
BUT, is the actualization of reality really more a `process of phenomenology’ - than - of physical matter going from future to present to past? Isn’t reality, really, more a `description of spaces’ than anything else? A description of matter.
Get ready to put on your thinking caps.
Could the very three IDEAS/descriptions of `spaces’ — `real’ — and, `consciousness’ - be as involved in `producing a real’ for a person (or any conscious space) – as physics - or, at least, about equally so?
For example.
What if the `space’ for an individual, literally each space - `had two places or phases’ — one phase/place being ———- NOW (the physical matter, atoms, of a space) ——- and another phase/place of the same space has/being a PAST ( THIS is what is `shown’ (into reality) as light plays off the `body’ of the space - this space has no matter and is only a representation) too.
`Other’ persons — never see our NOW and we never see theirs. We see only their `immediate past’, literally, a ` visual representation’ of their now and the next `phase’ of their space.
What we SEE is the - reality Simulated - INTO one space. AS one space.
All those spaces (this includes books, people, planes, etc) `still have’ their `embedded’ physical characteristics. The atoms still have spin, the person is moving from place A to B - and they both exist on a macrolevel too where they are part of a planetary system moving thru the universe at a small fraction of the speed of light.
But, it all is Simulated — within an instant - and with other spaces visual representations, as being a `real’ determined `moment of space/time’. The literal light (or time) interpretation of our space location - as shown to `others’.
Note the nebulousness and movement of the `real thread’ in all this phenomenology of one’s space.
First, your space - any location of space - is the first location of `real’. Your space, your atoms and all that your matter brings with it in regards to qualities of physics — still has for that angstrom Planck of time — an overriding characteristic. That overriding characteristic IS those very qualities of physics - in relation to all other spaces- MAKING (actualizing) that very infinite sliver of reality, for you, becoming, - NOT ABLE TO BE. Not able to be anywhere, or anywhen, else. Except at that actualized duration of virtual particles.
Not able to be ——– becomes —— makes —- (actualizes) - that spaces now. The only `space’ for that space. The most perfect description of that space. (This is referred to by Juilian Barbour as the best matching space to the previous one with the least intrinsic difference.) That space and its relationships are counted-experienced-lived-actualized. That space only exists within the `physical matter’ that one instant. The very limitation of `time’ to bring it - the space - to literally `being’ a 4 dimensional object. During actualization. During the `first phase’ of that space — where the `real’ is centered.
The very `thing’ which brought about the `counting’ `actualization’ - light - IS located - in a sense — at the `back’ of that space; as IT `fades into’ THE PAST. —- BUT, this ` outside light’ - bringing with it the simultaneously `showings’ of all equally `spaced’ `spaces-objects’ riding the light wave. In a nutshell, bringing our visual reality into our potentialfor consciousness to interpret our visuals. (Other objects.)
Time for those thinking caps again.
ALL those representations, including our own space representation, — when in display, have a new overriding characteristic —- all those representations are ABLE TO NOT BE. (Separate from our original space as it has now been struck by and become light.)
Yes, `the real’ transfers in a sense out to our outside reality - from our body. Our space transfers our real into this `common space’ of now - via the light reflection on our matter.
Obviously, our matter is NOT included in our `image’ of our space to others. The `space’ which represents identically that original space - is the space of ABLE TO NOT BE. (Many many folks want to say that this is time — time —- not realizing that `time’ is a particular `space’ counted once.)
As you can see — we already seem to have `two reals’ — our real space (matter) and our identical representation of that same space in it’s next phase of ontology.
So, our Now, (yes, your now too) has a `foothold’ in two `reals’ - all within one space. Our own space. Our own phenomenology of our space/matter.
But, what is even more impressive — is that those collective spaces — all of the spaces we see within our reality — go on to form ` that space’ — the one that is literally = to our collective ABLE TO NOT BE’s.
The space we commonly think of as our reality.
That - is `the space’ - the counting - the collective actualization of our `determined reality’ that we all experience. Our collective NOT ABLE TO NOT BE. The collective spaces we all brought as spaces to that one `moment-space duration’.
Collectively, all spaces transfer their real characteristics to the `final’ collective real space - for counting. Placement. Realness. A third place where real can be said to be contained.
Time watching the play
of which words
have no say.
What is not able to not be
IS
And, is, with time, watching, ever watching.
R. Phillips - 1970’s
The dichotomy is that the final `resting’ of real - and one with a direct connection to our space which has real freedom - is within our real determined reality where everyTHING has to BE —- not able to not be.
After all, if the present could be changed, would it be real? Could it be lived without determination?
For more on THS’s phenomenology - visit - www.whatisnotabletonotbeis.blogspot.com. Thanks for visiting - please visit our blogroll and information links to show your support. THS welcomes comments.