The Computer Simulation

Written by Jay09784691

There's a growing interest in the idea that humans are present in a computer-simulated reality either as simulated consciousnesses within a simulated environment, or external consciousnesses tapped into an advanced video-game. It's an interesting concept and something worth considering, only I question the validity of taking it in a strictly literal sense.

There are many people interested in this subject area and those are usually far more educated and informed than I, so while I have my reservations, it's worth reading into some of the literature around the subject from those that have looked into it in a more substantial way. Check out Rizwan Virk and his book The Simulation Hypothesis, also Thomas W. Campbell and his book My Big TOE: Awakening. I'll likely be reading these  myself after I've written my thoughts down on the subject, as I'd prefer to not be influenced in advance of writing this post.

In previous articles, I've explored the idea that human consciousness appears present in a more complex reality than we're normally able to comprehend, since we're sense deluded, and it appears to exist within a different dimensional space to our physical bodies. Our bodies being three-dimensional and our consciousnesses being X-dimensional. The X is obviously still to be determined.

At best I think simulation theory is an approximation of what's going on. It helps people understand that material existence is a subset of the wider reality. As far as I'm concerned a computer is a further subset to the one we're already present in. If we put ourselves in a virtual reality game, we are further subsetting ourselves from the physical reality, which itself is a subset of another broader reality.  By suggesting that we are present in a simulation we're applying our creation to our creator (in a manner of speaking) by using computer simulation as a hypothesis. Each level of existence likely creates something to make their lives easier. Just as we created the computer, the computer will eventually create another lower level. If we're to put ourselves within a VR headset it changes our physical perception and even our perception of who we are and what our aim is - temporarily at least.

Presumably, any additional spatial dimensions, when they're properly discovered, would have to be part of the same pre-existing simulation. What if those increase the complexities to the current universe by significant orders of magnitude? If they're not already "observed" before now (as observation may be crucial) did the additional dimensions apply before the observation? Especially if three dimensions and time seem sufficient for physical reality (except for consciousness). I would have thought that a computer simulation would need to have some set rules due to the temporal dimension and method of how computation is performed, whereas humans as being part of a larger consciousness (a type of God if you will) would have some level of creativity and could be joint creating reality and making the rules as we go along.

The idea of a type of consciousness simulation is a more acceptable concept, compared to computer simulation, based on how I feel about reality and due to the experiences that I've had.

Dissociative states may be humans accessing some type of transcendental reality. Computer simulation suggests that either transcendental realities are also simulated - and not brought into physical existence by observation - or they are the unplugged reality (i.e., outside of the simulation). It begs the question, why would the computer simulate transcendental realities if it breaks the simulation, is wholly unnecessary and has no basis in physical reality? Alternatively, these transcendental states can be accepted within the concept of humans being present in a broader reality, while inclusive of the physical.

If our being and consciousnesses are based purely on mechanism then it makes sense that simulation theory is a possibility, if however, we have non-mechanical or immaterial elements (consciousness certainly suggests so) then it signifies a different and more complex outcome. A character from a videogame doesn't consciously think and plan a strategy, it simply follows preprogrammed commands. Conversely, humans get bored following commands and having repetition.

Elon Musk uses the observation effect from quantum mechanics to prove simulation theory. He suggests that a computer wouldn't "render" an unobserved environment and would use an approximation instead. I guess he's referring to Schrödinger's Cat as evidence. Schrödinger showing that a cat can be both dead and alive until observed, or measured, by a human. If we compare that to the double-slit experiment, the unobserved particles (while in superposition) are both theoretically in a more complex state (i.e., ALL states simultaneously - pretty significantly more complex) and evidentially in a more complex state, since the wave-like interference pattern is visibly more complex than that of an observed particle interference pattern.

Multiverse theory and simulation theory seem to be mutually exclusive of one another, both cannot be right - although both CAN be wrong. Considering it's hypothesized that we live in a multiverse with an infinite number of permutations that's infinitely complex, I seriously doubt any computer capable of those simultaneous calculations would care if something were or were not observed.

For a computer simulation to be true, the wider reality would have to be broadly similar to this reality and have similar, or less restrictive physics, since it’s said that a computer is the source. I suggest that the wider reality isn’t similar but would likely have complexity way in excess of what we’re currently experiencing. Just as a photograph contains elements of the imaged area, it doesn’t contain the full truth and metrics of the source, it’s simply an approximation - the truth will have many orders of magnitude more variables and for want of a better word, data. Our material existence is part of something significantly and profoundly more labyrinthine. Despite our usual ignorance of the wider reality, we’re always able to access it, it’s just that or the most part we’re processing according to our usual understanding of what’s considered “real”.

The more we begin to acknowledge more complicated truths, the better we’re able to understand them, but it takes a certain amount of will and intention of understanding beyond simply reading words. Alternatively, psychoactive drugs can make the process of comprehension much simpler to achieve.

In summary, it’s clear that we analogise to what we know. So we see correlations to items we know about and use them as a description for something else, but we're then in the danger of believing the analogy in a literal sense. So the idea that we're in a type of computer simulation works as analogy (since we appear in a subset of a broader reality), but shouldn't be taken literally - that we're in a computer-based simulation.