Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:45 pm**

If so, maybe we can just relax and enjoy the ride.

This is a stimulating article with nice visuals:

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we- ... 21216.html

In 2003, British philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper that proposed the universe we live in might in fact really be a numerical computer simulation. To give this a bizarre Twilight Zone twist, he suggested that our far-evolved distant descendants might construct such a program to simulate the past and recreate how their remote ancestors lived.

He felt that such an experiment was inevitable for a supercivilization. If it didn't happen by now, then in meant that humanity never evolved that far and we're doomed to a short lifespan as a species, he argued.

To extrapolate further, I'd suggest that artificial intelligent entities descended from us would be curious about looking back in time by simulating the universe of their biological ancestors.

As off-the-wall as this sounds, a team of physicists at the University of Washington (UW) recently announced that there is a potential test to seen if we actually live in The Lattice. Ironically, it would be the first such observation for scientifically hypothesized evidence of intelligent design behind the cosmos.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:38 pm**

Hey lazyboy, good to see you back around these here parts.

I like the idea of the computer simulation. In some ways I can imagine it as a training program to prepare us for the "real" world.

Out of all the billions of years the Universe has been around it seems strangely convenient that I (we?) would be living during a time that will likely see technology capable of this sort of thing...assuming we don't blow ourselves up beforehand.

I agree that this can be quite freeing and reduce a lot of anxiety, if one can truly believe it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:25 pm**

So, if we exist in a computer simulation, do we have a free will? Can we truly act independently or are we constrained in certain ways by our programmer? Is "fate" just another way of saying we live in a rigidly controlled simulation?

Let those ideas slosh around in your head for a couple minutes.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:34 pm**

How ironic that you started this thread. I emailed myself this today from work to read tonight before bed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

The Simulation Hypothesis (simulation argument or simulism) proposes that reality is a simulation and those affected are generally unaware of this. The concept is reminiscent of René Descartes' Evil Genius but posits a more futuristic simulated reality. The same fictional technology plays, in part or in whole, in the science fiction films Star Trek, Dark City, The Truman Show, The Thirteenth Floor, The Matrix, Open Your Eyes, Vanilla Sky, Total Recall, Inception, and Tron.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:51 pm**

FarmerD wrote: So, if we exist in a computer simulation, do we have a free will? Can we truly act independently or are we constrained in certain ways by our programmer? Is "fate" just another way of saying we live in a rigidly controlled simulation?

Let those ideas slosh around in your head for a couple minutes.

Good questions, Farmer D. Here's, briefly, what I come up with: Our true nature is non separate from the "programmer." It's just hidden from us by our karma, ignorance, whatever. We are free, by our nature to transcend the programming. Once we become directly aware of who we really are, the programming constraints start to self liberate. What was viewed as "fate" can then become a display of unfolding liberation. In that sense, the "meaning" of the program becomes available to us as wisdom.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:03 pm**

doodle wrote: How ironic that you started this thread. I emailed myself this today from work to read tonight before bed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

The Simulation Hypothesis (simulation argument or simulism) proposes that reality is a simulation and those affected are generally unaware of this. The concept is reminiscent of René Descartes' Evil Genius but posits a more futuristic simulated reality. The same fictional technology plays, in part or in whole, in the science fiction films Star Trek, Dark City, The Truman Show, The Thirteenth Floor, The Matrix, Open Your Eyes, Vanilla Sky, Total Recall, Inception, and Tron.

I see it as synchronicity, doodle.

Nice link, covers a lot of ground.

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:17 pm**

Lazyboy,

It sounds like you are thinking about a lot of the same questions that I have been contemplating lately. I've been on this eastern philosophy / quantum mechanics / what is the true nature of reality....thing for a few months now. I'm still way in over my head and have trouble separating out science from pseudo-science.

I watched a really interesting documentary on Netflix the other day about the drug DMT. The experiences described by the study participants were incredible.... The films title was DMT: The spirit molecule.

If you aren't familiar with this listen to Joe Rogan talk about the experience. The film is much more scientific though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grcqs9cDuN8

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:30 pm**

For simulation hypothesis I found a good lecture by Jeffrey Grupp who is a philosophy teacher at the University of Michigan I believe. This is a pretty good video that gives a easy to follow overview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOdOdrqGsK8

Cheers!

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:35 pm**

Gosso wrote: Hey lazyboy, good to see you back around these here parts.

I like the idea of the computer simulation. In some ways I can imagine it as a training program to prepare us for the "real" world.

Out of all the billions of years the Universe has been around it seems strangely convenient that I (we?) would be living during a time that will likely see technology capable of this sort of thing...assuming we don't blow ourselves up beforehand.

I agree that this can be quite freeing and reduce a lot of anxiety, if one can truly believe it.

Thanks, Gosso, glad to connect. See clearly and then relax. Here's an instruction I was given: "In postmeditation, be a child of illusion."

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:48 pm**

One of the pieces of evidence for the simulation hypotheses according to the Grupp lecture is that it is very difficult to believe that it is random that during a solar eclipse the size and distance of the moon is such that it completely covers the sun and then that the earths size and distance from the moon is such that the shadow cast by the moon falls on the earth in almost a single point. Lining up these three bodies in this type of fashion seems like a non random event...and evidence possibly for a nonrandom or simulated event...

http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/cat ... formation/

Posted: **Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:59 pm**

Doodle, my psychedelic days are well behind me now. Not that it wasn't fun. I've moved on to the hard stuff: self inquiry, meditation and dharma practice. Actually I became interested in self inquiry when I was 25 and had some direct experiences at that time. The scientific research and theoretical analysis is interesting to me mainly in how it illuminates and confirms subjective states of consciousness and visa versa.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:58 am**

doodle wrote: I watched a really interesting documentary on Netflix the other day about the drug DMT. The experiences described by the study participants were incredible.... The films title was DMT: The spirit molecule.

I actually enjoyed the book (same title) a lot better. Goes into much more detail regarding the test subjects' experiences.

If you haven't heard any of the late Terence McKenna's talks regarding DMT and psilocybin, I highly recommend the one called "Tryptamine Hallucinogens and Consciousness":

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUfyMZ5uZL0

Transcript: http://deoxy.org/t_thc.htm

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:43 am**

Been doing some reading on Quantum Physics myself lately and I can see how one could come to the conclusion that the universe is a computer simulation. Interesting that some scientists are now concluding what most of the human race has believed for thousands of years - that the universe has a programmer. You might say we seem to be programmed to believe in a programmer.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:25 am**

One of the arguments for simulation hypothesis goes something like this (please forgive me if I word it poorly):

As a civilization's technology advances, it becomes possible for them to make more and more realistic computer simulations (see movie quality video games now). If you consider that it is highly likely that there are civilizations much more advanced than we are in the universe, it is also highly likely that they have virtual reality technology that is much more advanced. Considering this, it is highly likely that we are living in a simulation right now. Furthermore, it is highly likely that we will advance as a society far enough that we will be able to make simulations ourselves.

The general argument is that it is much more likely that we are living in a simulation, than not, because any civilization sufficiently advanced would already be creating their own simulations. Since there can be only 1 true universe, it is much more likely that we are living in a simulation than in the actual universe.

To put a religious twist on this: The mormon religion believes that if you live a good life, you will be exalted and become a god in heaven, creating worlds of your own with your own followers. They also believe in the millenium, which is to say that after the second coming of christ, the world will be rid of war, famine, disease, and other hardship (the lion will lie down with the lamb, etc).

Who is to say that religion and science cannot both be right? I do believe that it is possible that the technological singularity will occur, and we might be able to make most humans on this planet immortal. Technological breakthroughs in food cultivation (lab grown meat, etc) might make it unnecessary to slaughter animals and will support a much larger population. Space travel will allow the colonization of distant worlds.

Those that are "exalted" might simply be immortal programmers living in the world after the singularity, running their own simulations because it provides them with meaning in their lives since work is unnecessary. The second coming of Christ could actually be a self aware, benevolent computer system that is able to improve itself and becomes more intelligent than any human on this planet... (aka the Singularity)

If you are interested in learning more about this, google transhumanism.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:17 am**

I find the simulation hypothesis to be a subtle expression of our own narcissism as a species.

The assumption behind the hypothesis seems to be that what we are doing (or re-doing) right now is so interesting and important that of course it would be worth simulating, perhaps over and over and over.

Meanwhile, when you look at what we have an interest in simulating using our current technology, is it recreating life in 3,000 B.C. Egypt (as the Egyptians of the time would probably have liked to think we would be doing)? No, we are using the current simulation technology to simulate different versions of our current selves.

I don't think that future iterations of humanity will have as much curiosity about us as we would like them to have. JMHO, of course.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:20 am**

Nice post, Storm.

Storm wrote: Who is to say that religion and science cannot both be right?

Joseph Campbell said something along the lines of the following: "When first conceived, all religions were scientifically accurate for their time." The problem now seems to be that science is moving ahead too quickly while religion has lagged behind. It doesn't seem likely that we'll be able to develop a new religion since things are changing too quickly, but rather religion will become a much more personal quest...which I would argue was always the original goal of the teachings.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:29 am**

MediumTex wrote: I find the simulation hypothesis to be a subtle expression of our own narcissism as a species.

The assumption behind the hypothesis seems to be that what we are doing (or re-doing) right now is so interesting and important that of course it would be worth simulating, perhaps over and over and over.

Meanwhile, when you look at what we have an interest in simulating using our current technology, is it recreating life in 3,000 B.C. Egypt (as the Egyptians of the time would probably have liked to think we would be doing)?

Actually, you might be surprised:

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:33 am**

PointedStick,

What you find with these Egypt films and other media, though, is that we are projecting ourselves onto that time. We are not really seeking to understand what it was like for them. We are trying to understand what it would be like for us if we could live in that time.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:35 am**

MediumTex wrote: PointedStick,

What you find with these Egypt films and other media, though, is that we are projecting ourselves onto that time. We are not really seeking to understand what it was like for them. We are trying to understand what it would be like for us if we could live in that time.

Ahh, but maybe the hypothetical simulation we live in now is what future people imagine the past was like with themselves transposed into it!

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:45 am**

Fun, fun thread.

Storm wrote: Who is to say that religion and science cannot both be right? I do believe that it is possible that the technological singularity will occur, and we might be able to make most humans on this planet immortal. Technological breakthroughs in food cultivation (lab grown meat, etc) might make it unnecessary to slaughter animals and will support a much larger population. Space travel will allow the colonization of distant worlds.

It's a fascinating idea. It's interesting to consider where that all leads. What comes after an event like a Singularity? Is there such a thing as forever and what would it be like if we were a part of it, particularly in a universe whose lifetime is finite? In a universe where humanity lasts forever, is any technology ever sufficiently advanced to save us from the question of sustainability?

There's a great meditation on this in my favorite Isaac Asimov story called "The Last Question". It's available in its entirety here. It's a very short read but tackles a huge topic.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:54 am**

Well, there are some historical simulations in Second Life, e.g.
http://secondlife.com/destination/terra-egypta

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:53 pm**

So let me make sure I understand the simulation hypothesis:

There is some intelligent life form somewhere that may or may not be human, but which has decided that it would like to re-create an earlier period in human evolution for the purpose of studying it or observing it.

To accomplish this feat, the intelligent life form has created a computer simulation in which we are all currently trapped.

Here is the problem I have with this idea: If the life form is intelligent enough to model all of this, wouldn't it be intelligent enough to model it so that we don't become aware (or even suspect) that it is a simulation?

I mean, what is the value of a simulation if the simulated beings aren't able to experience the simulation without guessing at what is really happening? Doesn't that invalidate the premise behind the whole exercise?--i.e., that the intelligent life form wants to see what life was like at an earlier point in time.

If part of the design of the simulation is to make sure that the parties experiencing the simulation don't catch on to what is really happening, why would it be designed with a "glitch" in the form of these symmetrical eclipses and that sort of thing?

It seems to me that we all have this longing within us to commune with something greater than ourselves and to gain an understanding of reality that is universal, and this desire can lead to mental states in which we are willing to believe things we wouldn't believe in a more rational state of mind. In other words, how is the simulation hypothesis different from every religion in the history of the world in that it caters to something that people already want to believe, as opposed to being "truth" that is offered whether people find it comforting or not?

These papers describing the simulation hypothesis strike me as visual aids for a certain type of mental masturbation that no doubt has a high degree of intellectual eroticism for many people.

It's the same sort of thing that you encounter when someone trips acid or has some other drug experience and talks about "kissing God". When I hear these things I want to tell the person "It sounds like you had a great time and I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I don't think that you kissed God. I think that you had a mental experience in which you imagined how it might feel to kiss God based upon all of your past beliefs and experiences heading into the trip."

If we are talking about experiences that occur within us that help us understand the world around us more deeply then I'm willing to go along with almost anything, but when we start talking about alien races of supercomputer programmers who are actually what we conceive of as God in a non-supernatural context, I just think that's a bit of a stretch.

I could be wrong, of course.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:09 pm**

MediumTex wrote: So let me make sure I understand the simulation hypothesis:

There is some intelligent life form somewhere that may or may not be human, but which has decided that it would like to re-create an earlier period in human evolution for the purpose of studying it or observing it.

To accomplish this feat, the intelligent life form has created a computer simulation in which we are all currently trapped.

Here is the problem I have with this idea: If the life form is intelligent enough to model all of this, wouldn't it be intelligent enough to model it so that we don't become aware (or even suspect) that it is a simulation?

I mean, what is the value of a simulation if the simulated beings aren't able to experience the simulation without guessing at what is really happening? Doesn't that invalidate the premise behind the whole exercise?--i.e., that the intelligent life form wants to see what life was like at an earlier point in time.

If part of the design of the simulation is to make sure that the parties experiencing the simulation don't catch on to what is really happening, why would it be designed with a "glitch" in the form of these symmetrical eclipses and that sort of thing?

It seems to me that we all have this longing within us to commune with something greater than ourselves and to gain an understanding of reality that is universal, and this desire can lead to mental states in which we are willing to believe things we wouldn't believe in a more rational state of mind. In other words, how is the simulation hypothesis different from every religion in the history of the world in that it caters to something that people already want to believe, as opposed to being "truth" that is offered whether people find it comforting or not?

These papers describing the simulation hypothesis strike me as visual aids for a certain type of mental masturbation that no doubt has a high degree of intellectual eroticism for many people.

It's the same sort of thing that you encounter when someone trips acid or has some other drug experience and talks about "kissing God". When I hear these things I want to tell the person "It sounds like you had a great time and I'm glad you enjoyed it, but I don't think that you kissed God. I think that you had a mental experience in which you imagined how it might feel to kiss God based upon all of your past beliefs and experiences heading into the trip."

If we are talking about experiences that occur within us that help us understand the world around us more deeply then I'm willing to go along with almost anything, but when we start talking about alien races of supercomputer programmers who are actually what we conceive of as God in a non-supernatural context, I just think that's a bit of a stretch.

I could be wrong, of course.

Great questions, MT, and for each one of us this simulation hypothesis may trigger drastically different thoughts, interpretations and feelings including aversion and bliss It's good to be skeptical about believing any thing. At the same times it's very good to be open to possibilities existing that we can't rationally understand. Or, as in the words of the Bard:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I had a brief flash visualization of something like this existing. It happened years ago the evening after a 3 day meditation intensive ended. I could "see" that everything was an appearance coming from a computer like station in "deep space." The station was perfect and hard to describe. I was "informed" by my experience that I could observe, but it was perfect and well beyond anything I could monkey with even though I did have that urge...Then it passed from my experience and I was back in a living room in Santa Rosa and left with a sense of wonder. It was one of those things- an "experience"- and I didn't question it very much but it did give me some expanded sense of possibility. I never thought it was about aliens or anything scary, more a sense of the the intelligence of the universe at work.
My exploration of religion and myth led be to hold possible that kind of phenomena and path had been experienced and walked by others. Now I find that science is speculating about it as well. I certainly don't have the answer to the questions you raise. I'm just working with my own experience here. And I find it jibes with some of the studies of Buddhism and Hinduism. In Buddhism they talk about the alaya or storehouse consciousness where in all things are recorded and something we can experience. In Hinduism they speak of the creation myth of Brahma "dreaming" the universe into existence by dreaming multiple Brahmas emerging from his belly who are in turn dreaming of other multiple Brahmas creating universes...

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:06 pm**

Great post, Lazyboy, that must have been an intense 3 days of meditation!

MT, regarding the general question: why would the creator of a simulation allow us to figure out that we are in a simulation? I think I can answer that one. Whoever the creator of the simulation is, they obviously gave every animal and human within the simulation some semblance of sentience and free will. Giving someone free will inherently allows them to think anything they want to think. Don't you think it would be a huge tip off that we were in a simulation if we just randomly weren't allowed to think certain thoughts?

Also, I don't think eclipses have much to do with simulation, other than proving that mathematics is the language of nature. The very fact that mathematics can describe almost any phenomenon in physics or nature does lead me to believe in the simulation theory.

A great movie that touches on the edge of this is Pi, by Darren Aranofsky.

Posted: **Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:08 pm**

i passed this article along to someone and they recommended watching the 13 floor, a computer reality murder mystery, i am about 1/2 way through it now so far its a pretty good movie...

Gyroscopic Investing

Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?

Re: Are we living inside a computer simulation?