/psy/ - psychology and psychonautics

>>337

You think if we are in a simulation, there is a heaven waiting for us then?

>>338
I think that there would be a much better chance in a heaven if we are in a simulation. you gotta think how crazy it would be if you made a simulation and it became self aware.

>>339
>you gotta think how crazy it would be if you made a simulation and it became self aware
Remember the world outside of the simulation does not necessarily follow the same rules as ours, and its almost certainly more complex as to provide any meaning to the question, the simulation would have to be created by a sentient being within the confines of a different universe, it would be like us creating a 100% accurate simulation of our entire universe. Perhaps self awareness is the default for systems there, and non self aware objects in our universe are just far too simple to produce it in any meaningful way. In the same way that we cant create consciousness artificially, maybe they have something beyond consciousness exclusive to their living that is far too complicated for them to create artificially that we could not fathom in the same way an unaware set of instructions in our world could not understand consciousness.

>I think there would be a much better chance of heaven
Why? If you wanted to create a simulation where things propagate and interact as they do here, and an essential part of it was that things that have exhausted their purposes die, as it is here, why would you use up far more resources than you do on the actual simulation on a hangout spot where all the useless discarded units gather dust?

>>337
Doesn't religion depict the world as an illusion? Creation is a more organic word for Simulation. Even in polytheistic/New Age religions, the Universe is just a cycle born from an eternal/omnipresent supreme deity. The idea feels like some kind of tainted mysticism, the religious presentiment mixes with the human environment of the time (technology, networks). The main difference would be than a simulation sounds utilitarian while a creation sounds like an aesthetic work of art.

99% of humanity is convinced we live in a simulation then.

>>341
I find religion strange. Saying there is an all knowing power watching us and that we have a purpose. If there was a god or multiple gods, wouldn't it be confirmed we were living in a computer? How else would gods exist then.

Like an admin editing files.

>>340

>Remember the world outside of the simulation does not necessarily follow the same rules as ours.
good point

> why would you use up far more resources
than you do on the actual simulation.?
Implying that they use the same system of computing that we do or even call it computing at all. You said yourself “Remember the world outside of the simulation does not necessarily follow the same rules as ours”. We can’t look at resources the same way as we do now for example if we was the use the same computing as we use today then we could never reach any kind of simulation similar to life its self you have to think completely out of the box. However I am not saying that there would be a afterlife if this was the case… just a better chance of one

>>337
>Would anything really matter?
Automata isn't an illusion. The process of the universe is more important than the procedure that defines it (to echo SICP).

Furthermore, you can already experience that there are experiences, so you know experience isn't just an "illusion". You just don't know which procedure defines it.

>Do you think that people would change the way they live?
No.

>>344
>just a better chance of one
And to whatever extent there is a better chance of a heaven, there is a better chance of a hell, too. Though it seems like our Designer would be more interested in torturing beings, since the laws of the universe are biased toward proliferating suffering (just look at how many people have hyperthymia, versus how many have crippling depression).

>>345
>Automata isn't
>automata is
oh fug what's wrong with me today

Simulations are just programs on a computer and programs are just information. This information (provided that random data is added in at run time) would imply all future steps of the universe. So does the simulation need to be run for the universe to exist or just to be examined by the simulators ? Also if the universe is just information why does some other universe having a copy of this information make the universe real ? If they deleted it we wouldn't notice.

>>343
>Like an admin editing files

More like lucid dreaming or a painting. It has no practical use outside of the work and its main purpose is to look beautiful. This is the mindset of most religions, it's why it gives so much importance to the stability of social order and how it considers it reflects the universe's order.

mainly aesthetics

>>348
>This is the mindset of most religions, it's why it gives so much importance to the stability of social order and how it considers it reflects the universe's order.
This may be the official line from most religious leaders, but let's not be naive about the reality. Most religious leaders want social stability because that makes it easier for any given religion's leader(s) to stay on top and keep their followers cowed and obedient.

>>349
Of course, but the religion isn't the clergy. When it's not corrupted yet, religion's main purpose is to challenge the political and social setting. Most theologians/mystics/reformers were like exalted autists, at odds with the political power of their time. There are dozens of examples in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism (which itself is an iconoclast split from Hinduism), etc.

Then the school is established, the supreme great wise scholar tells you to obey, and the cycle begins anew.

>>350 here, I don't really remember the point I wanted to make, in reality and in established society, you're right >>349
What I said in my post was about religion challenging the social order not defending it, so it's not relevant. I'm really tired today.

>>341
>Doesn't religion depict the world as an illusion
most religions, mainly western religions, don't depict this world as an illusion.

>>354
Not in the literal sense, but this world, its riches and its honors, are considered to be worth nothing compared to the next world that is to come, which itself is nothing but the restoration of the Eden time.
In other words, this world is just a parenthesis where Man is tested. Very close to an illusion.

Sometimes I like to imagine simulation theory like this. When cells combine to form something bigger, or even better, when our organism combines with different bacteria in symbiosis they don't know what are they creating. Maybe the simulation is just a bigger entity that we created. Maybe we are in a "natural" and symbiotic connection with this bigger entity. Or maybe we were created in a laboratory for artificial research of an naturally occurring phenomena that is ourselves. Maybe if all the people actually believed we are in a simulation, some kind of a reboot would happen. The possibilities are endless. But the most probable thing is that this simulation and/or our creators is completely oblivious to our existence. The result would be total chaos I believe. People need sth to believe in. If we are in some kind of "lab" we will prolly die of "naturally" assuming the sense of time in this higher dimension is much more vast (more developed species live longer in general). The most sinister view is that this simulation is interfering with our world constantly and we are basically just puppets. And some people will prolly get this kind of feeling resulting in chaos. Or they'll just say "told you our good god/gods exist" and they'll continue to live on or maybe start worshiping this new """god""". And some people will live on normally because they don't need a higher being to not have chaos. So yeah the human race is very diverse and maybe if the information that we are leaving in a simulation reached us slowly enough we will just find constructive ways to cope with it. Maybe this is happening in this very moment.

IF WE ARE IN A SIMULATION THEN LAIN IS GOD AND I AM HAPPY

no cheat modes

>>356
Why do people always assume that if we are living in a simulation we are not actually part of it? I know that's how it was in Matrix, they had a material existence outside the simulation and could wake up, but isn't it equally likely that we are actually part of the simulation and have no material existence outside it? How would you escape it?

>>391
TBQH that's what I always assumed people meant when they theorized about "living in a simulation"; I just presumed that they meant a purely virtual existence. The notion of having an actual, physical existence "outside" the simulation is never something I really considered. Of course I've seen The Matrix, but I guess I just never put two and two together.

Now that I think about it, I have to regard those two positions with very different outlooks. If we're in a purely virtual simulation, then I can't help but say "so what?" - that isn't really any different from existing in a "real" world; it's just a different set of gods. If we're physical beings trapped in a "real" simulation, that would annoy me, it would mean that there is a real world that is being kept from me against my will. Maybe the simulation is better than the real world, but the fact that I get no say in the matter would be a great injustice if that is indeed what is happening.

>>392
It's entirely conceivable that your "outside self" voluntarily retreated to the simulated reality and deliberately wanted you to not know about "reality." Is it still an injustice?

Speaking of simulations, I had this idea. What if we exist, but not here. This existence is like some kind of journey or a rite of passage or somesoykaf like that. We're to be seen how we handle living without a goal, because ultimately we do not have one. If humans are masters of adapting, how do you adapt to nothingness?
Maybe that's the whole puzzle to this life thing.

Is it even ontologically possible to know what is the simulation and what is reality?

What if someone told you they had a way to "unplug" you from the simulation of this reality, but it actually put you into a simulated universe? What if the universe you were in was the real one all along?

>>393
Yet another possibility that I had not considered. That case is not an injustice, I think. But, in that case, I would be kind of mad at myself - If I was going to run away from reality, I should have chosen a better simulation than this one.

>>395
Simulation usually implies a loss of detail, if one is the simulation of the other you could look for this "loss."

>simulation
Poor choice of words, it's probably more like a dream in an infinite mind.

okay Lain.
This discussion just came up on a chat feed.
I then came here and within the same minute after clicking ukko, I see this thread.

I dont know what that means but synchronicities mean something.

>>397
what if it's an emulation?
or a virtualization?

then that means we gotta do what we do best.
misbehave.
then we search for glitches, understand how it works,

and we hack it.

for freedom. for humanity.

>>449
I beleive its called 'science'.

But we cannot tell what is right, so any ''errors'' are simply laws of nature to us. a dwarf scientist from my fortress would simply recognize diagonal motion as an impossibility. To me, its an inaccuracy of the simulation, but to Urist McPhysicist , its just the way the world works.

>>449
If any glitches did occur, the higher beings running the simulation could either erase the instance from out memories, turn back time to before the glitch, or other methods to make sure we never found out. If our simulation has been running for 13.7 billion years, I would think many glitches have occurred in the past, simply erased from our memories.
Unless we're also adding the philosophy of Lastthursdayism, the idea that the entire universe was created last Thursday and every memory from before then is fabricated.