Simulation

[Anonymous No.17623053]

Okay bros, I am ready to go down this rabbit hole.
I want to read anything and everything which sticks to the belief/philosophy/shtick that the world we are living in is not a real world - be it an illusion, simulation, foul trick or something else entirely. From what my dumb ass has gathered, these books are a must:
>Plato's complete works
>Aristotle's complete works
>The Nag Hammadi library
>Zhuangzi
>Descartes's complete works
>Berkeley's complete works
>Time out of Joint
>Simulacron-3
>Breakfast of Champions
>Neuromancer
>Vurt
>Diaspora
>The Algebraist

This post was almost 100% influenced by me having watched World on a Wire earlier today. Phenomenal film.

[Anonymous No.17623503]

Please...

[Anonymous No.17623518]

>>17623053
>>17623503
Sorry anon, afaik eventually all concrete philosophy ends at "we don't really know what reality is" so anything beyond that is in the realm of religion.
One thing I can tell you, though, is that the argument for simulation theory by Nick Bostrom is completely wrong and don't make a fool of yourself telling everyone that "it's mathematically proven that we live in a simulation" like so many people I've seen.

[Anonymous No.17623522]

the futurological congress by lem

[Anonymous No.17623571]

if our reality is a simulation then what is the purpose of it

[Anonymous No.17623784]

>>17623053
Read Difference and Repetition by Deleuze. It doesn't argue that the world is a simulation, but rather multiple simulations. Yet these simulations don't have a original real world to be modelled after, but are all slightly altered copies of themselves. So anything we do in philosophy and other domains where thinking is required, is to construct a simulation, after one copy fails and shows itself to be non-representative of the real world, which we falsely assume to be a thing. So we piece things back together and thus co-create a new simulation, till that one falls apart. This happens add infinitum and is the source of all human and non-human creativity, its the fractured (non)world responding to it's own problems.

[Anonymous No.17623792]

>>17623784
So in truth the world is nothing but the process that produces different simulations with different problems inside them. What is real is not what we see or think, but what our thinking and seeing is a response to.

[Anonymous No.17623823]

>>17623792
In fact you, the subject is just reality tricking itself. Its a spontaneous reordering and division of the oneness that is. Everything that you see is just a habit within the mess, a way of seeing the mess. Be it you, your dog, a rock, or a star.
They are all procedural. They don't have a distinguishing essence or shit like that to ground them in reality.

[Anonymous No.17623833]

>>17623823
In fact it is only the fact that they make a difference, that they are a contrast to everything else which gives things their is-ness.

[Anonymous No.17623843]

>>17623784
>>17623792
>>17623823
>>17623833
That was a basic rundown. I could also try to mention the implications this has on time but I'd probably get a headache doing so.

[Anonymous No.17623861]

>>17623843
I'd say the main takeaway is that there is no distinction ontologically between the truthful and false or fictitious. No reality is true or grounded, what is true is only the process of realities flowing into each other. The true question of reality was never of true vs false; or of binaries like yes and no, but an open-ended question like what now? What is the solution to the problem? Or how can I work with this idea? These are the questions people should ask themselves, not true or false.

[Anonymous No.17623879]

I believe that this is something along the lines of a big collective dream of some kind, and that once I die, I'll wake up.

OP I suggest you watch Waking Life, or if you don't feel like it, just this clip from it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hmSELTAKZQ

[Anonymous No.17623931]

>>17623518
>anything beyond that is in the realm of religion
Any concrete examples you know of?

>>17623843
>the implications this has on time
Please do.
>but I'd probably get a headache doing so.
I'll make you tea.

[Anonymous No.17623969]

>>17623518
It doesn't say we live in a simulation. It says that either
A. we live in a simulation with probability almost 100%
B. we don't progress technologically
C. Posthumans won't simulate their ancestors

[Anonymous No.17623977]

>>17623931
Time is nonlinear af
The present you are in is not the real present. The real present is the thing that generates the present you think and speak about. Because once you speak about the present you are no longer referring to the present you are in, but the recent past. The present is all there is, yet it is ungraspable. Yet the past and the future are necessary to give you the possibility to speak of a present. The past is an act of memory located within the present. Yet any noticed present is located in the past. These two dimensions of time are always refering to each other in a circle. But if everything happens within the circle, how can there be new shit? Well, the circle can and will be cut on occasion, this cut is the eternal return of difference. So basically this cut is when you are forced out of thinking and memorizing and habitual acts, it is the arrival of a future, the arrival of a problem, its the simulation falling apart so to speak. This forces you to make a new circle. This is how time operates, by constructing and dissolving itself.
Can I get a jasmin tea?

[Anonymous No.17623988]

>>17623969
I think B is most likely, everything will go to shit several times over before we achieve that level of technology

[Anonymous No.17623995]

>>17623977
Oh wait...
>this is how time operates by constructing and dissolving itself...
within itself, within itself, within itself, within itself, within itself, within itself, within itself, within itself, within itself, within itself...
I think you get the idea

[Anonymous No.17624022]

>>17623977
>These two dimensions of time are always refering to each other in a circle.
One circle can quite literally begin where another one ended, it takes nothing more than a pencil to show you this. But I het what you mean.
Jasmin tea coming right up!

[Anonymous No.17624068]

>>17624022
The cut first has to rip one circle apart. Why? Because thats more cooler and Nietzschean, according to Deleuze.
Thx for the tea bruh

[Anonymous No.17624785]

>>17623969
I don't understand B and C

[Anonymous No.17624802]

>>17624785
What don't you understand?

[Anonymous No.17625223]

>>17624802
The sentences make no sense to me. What does it mean that we don't progress technologically and why wouldn't "posthumans" (what?) simulate their ancestors?

[Anonymous No.17625276]

>>17625223
B) We don't live in a simulation because humans never invented (never will invent) the technology to create a simulation
C) future humans will have the ability to create a simulation, but choose not to

[Anonymous No.17625396]

>>17625276
>B) We don't live in a simulation because humans never invented (never will invent) the technology to create a simulation
What if aliens are simulating us?
>>17625276
>C) future humans will have the ability to create a simulation, but choose not to
Cool, but highly unlikely. Thanks

[Anonymous No.17626653]

Does this count?

[Anonymous No.17626707]

DUDE

[Anonymous No.17627894]

bump