Post New

The new Atheist Shrewds board will hereafter be a meeting place to discuss philosophy and life

THE question about life for me since youth is "What is Reality?", with the related questions "Why are we are here?", "Who/what caused it?" and "If there is a purpose - which is it?".

"What is Reality?" in modern times leads to the Simulation Hypothesis whose answer is "This world/universe we think is the total and only Reality is just a (computer) Simulation".

The simulation hypothesis is far older than "Matrix", even in movies. In my youth I was hugely impressed by the German movie "Welt am Draht" ("World on a wire") from 1973 which is based on the novel "Siumulacron-3" by Daniel F.Galouye.

In the movie a group of scientists simulate an artificial world with humans in it. The new technical director and main protagonist Stiller discovers evidence that "Reality" is not what he thinks it is, that his world (and therefore he himself) is just a simulation too. Part of the evidence is that he founds memories of his fellow scientists are manipulated so that evidence pointing to that deeper reality vanishes, evidence which naturally is "critical" for the experimentators "one level higher", as they want their subjects to be unaware that they are "not real", but just bits and bytes in a computer.

The end of that movie is highly mysterious: Stiller (+the unavoidable female lover) manage to swap his consciousness with the technical director one level higher and therefore to "escape" the simulation, into the real world. That's the end of the movie, according to wikipedia and according to a friend who watched it a few days ago. I was stunned as it's not the end I saw but had to find out that wherever I look, youtube or elsewhere, nowadays it is the end of that movie.

I say "nowadays" as the "Welt am Draht" movie me and my partner saw decades ago was a few minutes longer, with a drastically different end: After Stiller escapes into the real world he and his lover leave the building. They are in a big city and then they start running out of the city, into the wilderness (maybe to avoid Stiller becoming unmasked as a simulation and captured?). They run and run. Suddenly the world around them becomes more and more grey and hazy until there is simply nothing. No objects, nothing. END.

For the viewer this end of course(?) means "This 'Reality' is nothing more than another simulation and they reached it's border".

I described to my friend who whereever he looks can't find this version my partner and me have seen decades ago, but only the a few minutes shorter movie with the completely different "happy" end.

And ended my email to him with a funny joke: Maybe WE are in a simulation and the experimentators one level up manipulated/shortened the movie and articles about it, so that not too many people can see that end which plants the seed of for them "critical" thoughts (awareness that they might be in a simulation) in their minds?

Which in turn led me to continue my email with: Wouldn't it be the greatest irony if my joke is not really a joke at all???

As you all know Elon Musk believes we are indeed in a simulation. The thought is not new. I always have to think on Plato and his "Cave Allegory" from nearly 2500 years ago, according to which we are prisoners in a cave, seeing only the shadows of the objects outside the cave, thrown onto a wall of the cave by the bright light outside, mistaking those shadows for Reality itself.

The simulation hypothesis is taken seriously not only by Musk, the engineer, but also by scientists. A few years ago I read about a proposed experiment of a group of physicists. It was about finding evidence for this hypothesis. Their assumption: If we are in a computer simulation that computer has limits. Limits of computing power and limits of storage capacity. The latter would result in the simulation having limits too. Because of the limited storage Space(time) cannot be infinitely fine, but must be simulated in this computer granular, discrete, in (very fine but nevertheless) chunks. This would have effects on the cosmic background radiation, would cause it to have specific attributes, a "fingerprint", which we should be able to measure.

Thesis: If we can find this specific attributes in the background radiation it would provide strong evidence (not: proof!) for the simulation hypothesis that we are indeed in a simulation. If we don't find that fingerprint we simply don't know more than before (maybe we are in a simulation, maybe not).

I don't know how far those physicists are in the meantime with their proposed experiment. But the main assumption "The simulation must have limits" reminds me very much on this "disappeared" last minutes of "Welt am Draht".

What I see as a weakness of their Thesis: Why must that computer have computing and storage limits? This is too anthropocentric for me, sinmply assuming that an alien computer must be based on the same principles as computer as we know them. Who says that?

One more thought (of not an atheist, but an agnostic and lifelong sceptic): Is there a difference between being in a computer simulation, with our "creators" being programmers --- or whatever "God" being the programmer?

In the hope this post might start a discussion :-)

There is a lot to unpack in there. But, as I became an atheist (I wasn't raised that way, but evolved as I slowly realized the nonsensical nature of "scriptures"...and the blatant errors in logic and science), it really condensed down the problem for me.

Ultimately, there is no purpose to life. A purpose implies a design, which implies a designer. And we have no evidence, or even a logical reason, to suppose that there is one. So, there is no purpose to life. Though, on an individual level, you give your own life your own purpose on your own. Is it to be happy? To help your fellow man? To help the environment? That's entirely up to you. There is no reason to believe there is anything more to it than that.

I am aware of the argument for our reality being a "simulation". Again, without evidence or a logical reason, there is no reason to believe that. Yes, it is conceivable (and I am familiar with the "odds" argument). Like Russell's Teapot, you have to provide compelling evidence or I will remain a skeptic (and default to "no, until proven otherwise").

As for "what is reality"? That gets very hairy, since almost everyone will dive into quantum mechanics at some points when discussing that. Even if they don't understand QM. (I was a physicist, so I can tell you most people who talk about it don't actually understand it. Heck, some aspects I won't claim to understand.) Distilled down a lot, one could argue that this universe is a collection of fields that manifest the various observational phenomena that we see/observe/measure.

Ultimately, there is no purpose to life.

All animals except man realize the ultimate purpose to life is to live it. Samuel Butler in 'The Way of All Flesh'

Happiness is relative, which means if you have no relatives you are happy. :)

We are always having our perception about reality refined, and if we live long enough and continually learn, we realize we're limited and just aren't going to know for sure. So just do what you can and don't worry about it. It's much more important to live your life.

As for simulation, makes thought provoking stories, good discussions, the OP is describing a Mandella effect of sorts on the original ending. And it's all holograms being projected out the edge of a black hole. :)

All animals except man realize the ultimate purpose to life is to live it.

Except that it's highly debatable just how much "realizing" non- homo sapiens species are doing. They "live" for sure, but how many "realize" it? Dolphins, whales, elephants, great apes? Probably. Cuttlefish? Maybe. Dogs, cats, mice? Again, maybe. Trout? Jellyfish? Bees? Flies? Bedbugs? Trees? Flowers? Very much less clear.

Mandella effect of sorts

Like all those people who believe Trump did great things for them and the county when he was president (oops, sorry - wrong board!) 😉

Like all those people who believe Trump did great things for them and the county when he was president (oops, sorry - wrong board!)

Is it the wrong board?

Analogies, metaphors, similes..... we use them to make sense of things, to gauge values and actions.

Trump just happens to be an epic 'thing'; an example for alllll kinds of atheist-relevant discussions at this juncture.

Orange Jesus will be a benchmark forevermore in discussions of human behavior, cult response, biblical hypocrisy, general amorality, outright fraud, misogyny, pandering, bigotry, narcissism...

I mean, c'mon... a POTUS who surrounds himself with heavily armed guards, shooting people with rubber bullets so he can walk to a church with a bible for a photo op.... whose 'spiritual guide' is a prosperity preacher..who cheated on all his numerous wives... whose whole family is steeped in fraud... and conned an entire political party to kiss his ring... who hires cronies that don't give a damn about the planet...

Orange Jesus is the poster child for the 7 mortal sins. His ultimate purpose is to cultivate his cult.

Distilled down a lot, [quantum mechanics] could argue that this universe is a collection of fields that manifest the various observational phenomena that we see/observe/measure.

I'm a lifelong science-oriented philosopher whose main quest has been,
and continues to be, understanding the nature of existence.
For about sixty-five years I've been writing notes (essentially to myself)
related to this inquiry, while trying keep up with scientific understandings.

FWIW, I'm prompted to share some recent entries in my notes that,
at least to my mind, seem relevant to this discussion:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~9mar24~~~
“Someone’s responsible for all this f...ing mess.”
  — TV series Peaky Blinders (season5/ep6 — 35 min from end)

Witnessing this reminds me that observation suggests a singular origin;
raising the question:
  How is causality manifest within original singularity?

Singularity is evolving self-reflection —
  comprised of recollection, cognition, anticipation, expression,
all organically propagating as remembrance —
the entirety ubiquitously regarded as all-encompassing awareness.

Thus does acknowledgement of transcendent experience
apprehend underlying complexification.

~~~9mar24~~~
I’m compelled to ask myself, what’s next to be said or done?

Behavioral possibilities are invariably infinite.
The direction of experience is dictated by intent,
the summary of all prior interactions.

Present expression is indeed a response to all prior experience.

The simultaneity of cognition and expression
poses the ultimate spacetime paradox:
How can anything exist within nothingness?

Any answer is impossible absent ubiquitous experience.

~~~10mar24~~~
So what does any or all of that mean?

To my obviously feeble reckoning,
nada ding is ever sculpted by and within boundless emergence
ubiquitously solicited by intentionally fashioned recollection.

What’s the most effective response to the ever-emergent question:
  ‘What’s best for everything, including me?’

~~~12mar24~~~
Ubiquitous apprehension entangles boundless experience.

However we may be regarded, we’re ongoing becoming.

~~~13mar24~~~
Boundlessly evolving organic perception
ubiquitously hosts emergent experience.

Each of us is even now emergent within ever-evolving experience.

~~~14mar24~~~
Ubiquitously evolving experience
nurtures boundless emergence of infinitesimally exponentiating
enculturating organisms.

My personal proclivity is for experience —
ever-evincing (inherently)evolving intent —
to optimally observe, theorize, hypothesize and speculate
regarding whatever’s now churning within present awareness.

~~~14mar24~~~
Ongoing experience of existence
even now eventuates as whatever’s happening now.
Individuating experience is ubiquitously reflective.

Ubiquitously emergent organically evolving experience
is reflected in awareness.

Experience refers to the becoming of existence.

There is an evolving universal reservoir of experience —
the collective of all organically evolving (self)perception.

This universe is naught but a minuscule slice of existence,
cast within ubiquitously refining (self)perception.

(Self)perception is a narrowing of infinitely abundant awareness.
Original singularity hosts boundless such ephemeral focal points.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obviously that's essentially a lot of puzzling.
Hopefully it will resonate with some here. If not, my apologies.
As an aside, I regard myself as neither atheist nor agnostic,
but rather as nothing in particular.
Or perhaps as an infinitesimal glimpse of infinity.

Tom

Except that it's highly debatable just how much "realizing" non- homo sapiens species are doing
------------------------------
and it's debatable how much realizing man is doing. Here's the original quote and I get to realize what 54 years does to memory. :)


“All animals except man know that the principal business of life is to enjoy it.”
― Samuel Butler

You can now debate 'know'. :)

“All animals except man know that the principal business of life is to enjoy it.”
― Samuel Butler

You can now debate 'know'. :)

Well, it strikes me that Butler's statement is equivalent to "Man is the only animal with the capacity to think about his life." And that is also up for debate.

More like "Man is the only animal with the capacity to [make himself miserable] think[ing] about his life."

More like "Man is the only animal with the capacity to [make himself miserable] think[ing] about his life."

The flip side is that Man is also the only animal with the capacity to fantasize that he is the most important thing in a Universe created expressly for him by a loving god: the better to console himself over his misery of course. 😊

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.