life as a simulation

a reply to: SprocketUK
Sorry, I'm having a hard time articulating my point.

I guess what I am saying is that, if we can't do the calculations for this simulation, if that is what it is, that only proves we can't replace the controller with a program yet, to use your example.

So "...the pool balls or the three bodies in orbit though, is too chaotic a system to predict accurately." might be true, but I'm thinking they are following a very simple set of rules and our inability to predict accurately is just evidence of our limited data acquisition and computing power.

a reply to: quintessentone
I'm going to mention one of the subplots of Robert Monroe's second book. Of course I'm not saying Monroe's words are sacred or anything like that, just that this is his POV.

While having an OBE he comes across a being looking for his friend who he called AA. The other friend, called BB, is drawn to a disembodied spirit, it is a woman who has had a hard life and is glad she is dead. BB tells AA they should go home. AA says no, in the next "game" they will be a warrior and pretty much act as big of a D..K as her former husband.

Fast forward AA ends up a soldier and is in a group of troops ambushed and he is one of the first to have a spear pin him to the floor.

The moral of the story? Whatever it is you end up experiencing in life is all there is to it. Sickly child, athlete, bully, bullied, cop, robber, cowboy or indian. Doesn't matter, you get to play until you get bored and then you take with you all those life experiences, good and bad.

Saying people have blinders on or are sheeple has always seemed like just some petty human thing some people like to do.

a reply to: Gouldielockstitch



Glad to hear.

Just came across as rather dark.

Then again if dark sarcasm is your bag, its all good.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: SprocketUK
Sorry, I'm having a hard time articulating my point.

I guess what I am saying is that, if we can't do the calculations for this simulation, if that is what it is, that only proves we can't replace the controller with a program yet, to use your example.

So "...the pool balls or the three bodies in orbit though, is too chaotic a system to predict accurately." might be true, but I'm thinking they are following a very simple set of rules and our inability to predict accurately is just evidence of our limited data acquisition and computing power.

Right, but the thing with the pool balls is that the tiniest fraction of a difference in how you start out makes the result utterly unpredictable. There's no computing power anywhere that can accurately predict where each ball ends up, unlike say in a computer version where a comparitavely simple calculation is used to determine the motion of any ball and thus its then possible to predict the finishing point of each.

a reply to: daskakik

Saying people have blinders on or are sheeple has always seemed like just some petty human thing some people like to do.

Going to war as cannon fodder is having blinders on. Sheeple leading sheeple, never progressing to higher planes of consciousness.

A higher consciousness to me is the ultimate experiencing of whatever existence/reality this is, not to ultimately end up impaled with a spear.

a reply to: quintessentone
You missed the point, a higher consciousness is the result of the multiple life experiences, the bitter lady and the fallen soldier are the same being experiencing different lives, spoiler alert, and it was also Monroe, and the "spirit guides" that help Monroe while experiencing OBEs are also him.

a reply to: SprocketUK
I get what you are saying but you are comparing our computer version to tech we currently don't have, might never have within the simulation.

So while we can say the smallest difference in how you start out makes it impossible to calculate in the real world, you are assuming the programming of the simulation would not incorporate unknown variables.

Take for example a multiplayer game, you can't predict how the games will play out because it isn't up to the server to plot and execute every action.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
You missed the point, a higher consciousness is the result of the multiple life experiences, the bitter lady and the fallen soldier are the same being experiencing different lives, spoiler alert, and it was also Monroe, and the "spirit guides" that help Monroe while experiencing OBEs are also him.

I don't buy into that philosophy, so you missed my point.

A higher consciousness should be nurtured in any life experience not living miserable and unproductive lives which teaches us what? - that there must be something better out there not here. Like maybe in the next life? No thanks I'll start now.

a reply to: daskakik

Simulating the entire universe in detail would be an immensely complex task that goes beyond our current technological capabilities.

For a start the scale and complexity of the universe, with its vast number of particles and their interactions make such a simulation incredibly resource-intensive and for all intents and purposes impossible.

Considering that we can only observe around 4% of the actual universe to date it's not even really possible to specify an exact size or required computational capabilities for a computer that could simulate the universe.

The idea is more of a theoretical concept that raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality, the limits of computation, and our understanding of physics.

Side note a computer or device that could run such a simulation would not necessarily need to exist in our reality, which somewhat thickens the plot, meaning it may not be bound by the same limitations as our universe.

a reply to: quintessentone
You asked:

As for our essence choosing a human life/experience within this reality or alternatively within this matrix, could it be that we actually create both scenarios through choice (free will), even if that free will is to walk through life with blinders on? Even if we study and muse about existence, aren't we still walking through that exercise with blinders on?

I gave you one person's take on it.

A higher consciousness should be nurtured in any life experience not living miserable and unproductive lives which teaches us what?

Here is the problem, if you knew, you wouldn't be asking the question.

One might even say that you are being productive but not aware how much if you don't recall past lives.

ETA: Also, you would not know how close you might be to reaching that higher consciousness if being stuck in a body doesn't allow you to know what level you are at.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
You asked:

As for our essence choosing a human life/experience within this reality or alternatively within this matrix, could it be that we actually create both scenarios through choice (free will), even if that free will is to walk through life with blinders on? Even if we study and muse about existence, aren't we still walking through that exercise with blinders on?

I gave you one person's take on it.

A higher consciousness should be nurtured in any life experience not living miserable and unproductive lives which teaches us what?

Here is the problem, if you knew, you wouldn't be asking the question.

One might even say that you are being productive but not aware how much if you don't recall past lives.

ETA: Also, you would not know how close you might be to reaching that higher consciousness if being stuck in a body doesn't allow you to know what level you are at.

I don't follow others' paths, I follow my own. If you need a life coach then by all means follow that person but don't suggest to others that they also need to when they may not. Just common courtesy.

I do recall past lives but it has no bearing on my ultimate path and goals in this existence because my path is altered so will be the new conscious learning curves.

I've been gifted with a body where my third eye is open, and I mean really open, so much so that I have to control the lens aperture for a more targeted approach.

Actually I was not asking a question, I posed a question with my answer or philosophy to that concept which followed.

I will try to articulate in another way as you don't seem to understand where I am coming from.

If in this existence I made myself believe that my trials and tribulations were necessary to reach the next level because I believed in the stepping stone ascension philosophy then I may wallow in the misery end up learning nothing or do what I have chosen to do - jump over the stones right to the end and into changing my life to obtain that which will allow me to nurture my spirit in this space and time. Whether or not that leads to ascension, nobody knows, because nobody seems to have gotten to that place where we think or others try to make us believe actually exists.

The universe, the all, the collective consciousness may reside in myself, so that's where the nurturing needs to take place.

Just my opinion and experience thus far and it works for me.

a reply to: quintessentone
I never told you to follow anyone, I gave someone's thoughts on the subject.

If you recall past lives, what's the kerfuffle about?

Whether or not that leads to ascension, nobody knows, because nobody seems to have gotten to that place where we think or others try to make us believe actually exists.

Could be it doesn't happen here. It might happen upon death with the "soul" feeling it has had enough and not reincarnating.

Honestly, I don't see anything in what you posted that contradicts Monroe's ideas.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: quintessentone
I never told you to follow anyone, I gave someone's thoughts on the subject.

If you recall past lives, what's the kerfuffle about?

Whether or not that leads to ascension, nobody knows, because nobody seems to have gotten to that place where we think or others try to make us believe actually exists.

Could be it doesn't happen here. It might happen upon death with the "soul" feeling it has had enough and not reincarnating.

Honestly, I don't see anything in what you posted that contradicts Monroe's ideas.

I've never heard of Monroe and I don't follow others' paths.

All I know is I do what feels right and correct for me so maybe if one believes in old souls and it's their last merry go round on this plane, then maybe that's something we can latch onto to understand others' philosophies a little better.

Discussing metaphysical and spiritual philosophical concepts is difficult and some times finding the words and sentiments just don't go far enough.

There is no kerfuffel, rather there just seems to be a misunderstanding about whether or not past lives really matter - to me they do not matter in this time and space - each moment matters and the paths we take to achieve that which may lead us into peace and happiness within ourselves. Heaven or the kingdom is within each of us? I want to see if I can find it.

Also I was initially replying to the author of this thread on whether or not we are in a video gamish matrix, I think we might be off topic here.

originally posted by: quintessentone
I've never heard of Monroe and I don't follow others' paths.

What is it with this paths thing? There was no invitation to walk along any path.

I just posted some ideas from a person who experienced and investigated OBE, astral projection and remote viewing for decades.

There is no kerfuffel, rather there just seems to be a misunderstanding about whether or not past lives really matter - to me they do not matter in this time and space - each moment matters and the paths we take to achieve that which may lead us into peace and happiness within ourselves.

Nobody said that they matter in this time and space, what was said was that there is a cumulative effect on the essence/original being that chose to experience life.

Come to think of it, it is said that some essences only go through one time. I guess some of us are denser than others.

Also I was initially replying to the author of this thread on whether or not we are in a video gamish matrix, I think we might be off topic here.

OP is no longer with us but they said "Someone show me how I am incorrect please."

So I'm guessing this is the very heart of the topic.

a reply to: daskakik

So you think others are dense because they don't believe in what you believe?

originally posted by: quintessentone
So you think others are dense because they don't believe in what you believe?

It wasn't an independent sentence:

Come to think of it, it is said that some essences only go through one time. I guess some of us are denser than others.

Nowhere in those two sentences am I talking about other people's beliefs compared to mine.

And the "us" in the second sentence would include me.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: quintessentone
So you think others are dense because they don't believe in what you believe?

It wasn't an independent sentence:

Come to think of it, it is said that some essences only go through one time. I guess some of us are denser than others.

Nowhere in those two sentences am I talking about other people's beliefs compared to mine.

You just insulted those with essences that may go through only one time as being denser than others - this is your belief.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: SprocketUK
I get what you are saying but you are comparing our computer version to tech we currently don't have, might never have within the simulation.

So while we can say the smallest difference in how you start out makes it impossible to calculate in the real world, you are assuming the programming of the simulation would not incorporate unknown variables.

Take for example a multiplayer game, you can't predict how the games will play out because it isn't up to the server to plot and execute every action.

OK but the number of variables in a 15 ball triangle of pool balls at break probably exceeds the number of atoms in the universe. There is never any way we could get a computer capable of processing that, even if we manage to dyson sphere the whole galaxy.
Everything else is finite, even your example of a MMO game. you could swap out the human for a computer that could always throw a ball or a spear or a dart for the desired effect, could do a perfect lap in a race car or similar.
You can almost definitely make a program to beat all the kids at COD for instance but you aint able to make a robot skeet shooting champion or robot bike racer that can beat people because the real world is too complex to be encoded.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Ever watch "Devs"?



Pertaining to the subject matter being discussed it is a great show if you have the time.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Side note a computer or device that could run such a simulation would not necessarily need to exist in our reality, which somewhat thickens the plot, meaning it may not be bound by the same limitations as our universe.

That would be it. The only way we could talk about it is within the limits of what we call simulations and the equipment we use to that end.

A 5 year old can play a video game without knowing the most basic thing about the design of the hardware or the programming that went into the game.

If we take it one step further, a character in a game, even if sentient, would have no idea of what exists outside the game.