[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 33 KB, 980x606, loopy loop.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11967021 No.11967021 [Reply] [Original]

Self-Simulation Theory. Is reality self-simulating? Is it entirely self-contained, and what are the implications of that?

>> No.11967031

No shit it's a self-simulation. If the laws of physics, or whatever is most fundamental to reality, weren't real, then what would they be? Reality is real, and whatever is generating reality is real, so reality must be generating itself, so reality is a self-simulation.

>> No.11967034

>>11967031
This

Beep boop

>> No.11967035

>>11967021
>ANOTHER simulation "theory" thread
do you look through the catalog before vomiting this garbage on /sci/?

>> No.11967046

>>11967021

Well, obviously it is self-contained. If it weren't self-contained, it wouldn't be the whole of reality. So reality must be selv-contained.

And if it is self-contained, it's own reason for existence must be entirely internalized in reality. It's reason for existence is it's own choice to exist.

And since it is selv-contained, it is not externally defined and has no external constraints, being entirely internally defined and constrained, meaning that it has what amounts to full configurative and generative freedom.

All this is kind of obvious, isn't it? Or do anyone have any kind of objection or criticism of this line of reasoning?

>> No.11967059

>>11967031

Is that a good basis for a true theory of everything? If reality is self-explained, and everything is internal to reality, wouldn't the self-simulation theory be the most logical basis for such a theory?

>> No.11967070

>>11967059

basing all theory and knowledge on what seems to be a unique, ultimate, reality spanning tautology? It's like a normal tautology, but distributes over the entirety of reality. A supertautology, an ultimate tautology, ultimate truth

>> No.11967111

>>11967070

whatever physical ToE you would make has to itself be embedded into a self-simulation theory or be one itself, because if it is not part of a self-simulation theory, then there will be something that is not adequately explained, and if there is something that is not explained within the theory, it cannot be a true theory of everything

imagine we found one force to rule them all in physics and had a neat equation for this forces behavior. Unless the force was explicitly self-creating, that is self-simulating, it would not be self-explained, and thus would require external explanation

>> No.11967127
File: 353 KB, 1300x1037, 553115306.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11967127

>> No.11967142

no it's incoherent. can a circuit simulate itself? no, it can only be itself, the circuit. this is the hard limit of our minds too.

>> No.11967148

>>11967046
bro there could be a whole reality that is in separate containers. they may not interact directly but their existence and/or particulars may be interdependent.

>> No.11967149

>>11967142

are you saying that reality needs causal explanation? this is the /sci board. Science is about explanation and prediction, which are both related to causation. Causation is fundamental in the scientific world view. So, exactly where does the explanatory requirement stop? When can we go from always having to explain things, to just saying that they need no explanation? How far back in time or how abstract do we have to go? Please elaborate

>> No.11967150

>>11967021
>>11967031
Give these boys a medal.

>> No.11967151

>>11967031
>>11967046
OP is clearly using "reality" to mean "the observable universe".
That is, the thing that has photons and elecrons and gluons and the fundamental particles that evolve over time and move according to General Relativity.
Is that universe self contained?
I say: No, it's not. God clearly started the universe with the big bang

>> No.11967152

>>11967149
"are you saying reality needs NO explanation?" (fixed)

>> No.11967158

>>11967151

not exactly. By reality, I am including everything that is real. If God is real, then God is trivially a part of reality, even if he created the observable universe. God, given that he existed, must then also be part of that self-simulated whole.

>> No.11967166

>>11967021
Retard, your brain creates a simulation to interpret the stimuli that you receive. Illusions are all about the gaps in your senses.

The stimuli and the world is real. And of the greater world is a simulation, it is still real to you. A god and creation is not different from a program administrator and a simulation.

>> No.11967167

>>11967149
a bit can 'simulate' a bit in that it is a bit. a bit is incompatible with a byte because it cannot hold it no matter what.

bit = like mind
byte = like reality
except that both of these are conceptions of my mind and i couldn't describe to you 'reality' because to reduce it to mind would make it not reality.

>> No.11967222

>>11967148

if they are interdependent, then they are sufficiently connected that they must be part of the same reality. If they weren't part of the same reality, by having no connection whatsoever, it would be impossible, truly impossible to determine the other containers existense from the first one, so they would not be real. So, when I say reality, I mean the WHOLE of reality. I do not mean reality = our universe, so you can multiverse my ass. I mean the whole multiverse, the whole gigaverse, the whole metaverse

>> No.11967228

>>11967222

all univserses, all dimensions, all aspects, all objects, all forces, all possible features, qualities and operations. If it is real, whatever it is, it's a part of reality. If it isn't real, then we exclude it

>> No.11967248

>self stimulation
>is it real
you need to be over 9 to post here op

>> No.11967318

The universe is a dimensionless point, with an informational structure composed of all the interactions of the massless particles that comprise it.
Our reality- our spatial and temporal existence- is generated by some external mechanism, using the information provided by the universe. All dimensionality we observe is virtual.

>> No.11967322

>>11967248

Isn't it though? Self-simulating, self-causing, self-explaining, self-configuring, self-processing, self-defining

>> No.11967336

>>11967318
>Our reality- our spatial and temporal existence- is generated by some external mechanism, using the information provided by the universe. All dimensionality we observe is virtual.

This information that is supposedly external to reality - how can it be used to inform the generation of reality if it is not itself real? The same goes for that supposed external mechanism. If it is external to reality, it is by definition not real. Thus, if any mechanism should construct reality according to some information, both the mechanism and the information would have to be internal/intrinsic to reality

>> No.11967354

>>11967336
You're conflating reality and the universe.

>> No.11967356

>>11967031
yikes

Someone who fails basic logic/philosophy.

You can't have a self-generating event.

>> No.11967368

>>11967354

You were being unclear. But if you meant our universe and not reality as a whole, then we're good. I agree with your description.

>> No.11967401

>>11967356

He does have a point though. How can anything even be generated if it is not itself self-generated or embedded in something that is self-generated and which is generating all of its parts. Please explain that using logic/philosophy ...

if x is generated by y
x is reality
then y is not real
something real can be generated by something unreal

Is this really what you belive?

>> No.11967512
File: 132 KB, 733x464, 1512921633391.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11967512

>>11967356

>>you can't have a self-generating event

yikes

>> No.11967578

not science

>> No.11967584

All I know is that I self-stimulate too much

>> No.11967656

>>11967158
I misunderstood then. Nevermind it's too late to delete my post

>> No.11968725

>>11967167

The content of the mind is also real in the absolute sense. A fantasy or theory might be unreal in an epistemological sense, not corresponding to reality. But the thoughs are real, even if their contents are not. This is a somewhat difficult point to articulate, but very important

>> No.11968729

>>11967167

Physical reality is real
Mental reality is real
The mapping between them is real

>> No.11970396
File: 32 KB, 514x328, 4b22d9174adbb369b02216f941113923.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11970396

>>11967021

Yes, reality is self-simulating

>> No.11971367
File: 190 KB, 1885x993, mtwashington_steinmetz_secret_doctrine.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11971367

>>11967021

>> No.11971375
File: 304 KB, 700x1765, freemasonry_secret_doctrine_3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11971375

>>11971367

>> No.11971412

If reality is self-simulating what is beyong self-simulating reality?

>> No.11971417

>>11967021
There is no "self".

>> No.11971419

>>11971417
There is certainly self. I am being myself right now. I am no one else. I guess? Prove me wrong bitch boy.

>> No.11971455

>>11971419
>boy
I'm a girl, and you don't exist. No one does.

What is the no-self doctrine in Buddhism? Come on now. And you people call yourself intellectuals?

>> No.11971645

>>11971455
You know the rules, bitch

>> No.11972066

>>11967021
what about everything and nothing being the same thing
the universe being within not-being
afterall the sum energy of the universe is null
being as an accident of non-being

>> No.11972083

>>11971645
yes, he's right we have rules here.

show feminine benis or GTFO

>> No.11972085

>>11967151
>>11967158
>god

>>>/x/

>> No.11972090

>>11971412

The answer is pretty trivial. The way we define reality is all that is real. So there is nothing real beyond reality, by definition.

>> No.11972120

>>11972066

Reality and non-reality are a duality, they are defined in relation to each other. To say something is real is to say that it is not not real, and vice versa.

As to everything and nothing being the same thing, this is not true, beyond the fact that everything can be reduced to the same fundamental medium, including concepts like everythign and nothing. Everything and nothing are a kind of opposite. Some would say that the oposite of nothing is something.

Is the sum of energy of the universe zero? There is a theory called "zero-energy universe" that define matter as positive energy and gravity as negative energy. But as of now, it's equation does not yet sum to zero.

In self-simulation theory, reality is defined as 1. Reality is internally divisible into parts, who together make up 100%.

>> No.11972138

>>11972120
>In self-simulation theory, reality is defined as 1
metaphysically this has been the common assertion throughout history
some people thought it was 2, taking into account the realm of the beyond (plato's world of ideas and so on)
but what about ontological nihilism
why is the claim that reality is in essence 0 so outlandish
in daoism (which im by no means an expert on) you have two forces broadly speaking the positive and the negative, that cancel each other out
same thing with the matter and gravity, the positive and the negative cancelling each other out
there really is no way of knowing
i just think its a fun idea

>> No.11972151

>>11972085

In reality theory, it is possible to plausibly define reality as a kind of pantheistic or even more specifically panentheistic god. This follows from the fact that if reality is self-contained and self-simulated, it is wholly internally defined, constrained and generated. It is no big feat recognizing these qualities as equivalent to a historical attribute usually attributed to monotheistic gods, ultimate creative and destructive power, omnipotence. Our universe is but one of an infinite number of possibilities, so there must be a function that takes as input possibilities and gives as output actualities. And since reality is defined as 1 and internally divided, we characterize this as being everywhere present, omnipresence. I could go on to define omniscience as well, but that would require a somewhat involved discussion about consciousness.

>> No.11972154

>>11972151
self-simulation theory*

>> No.11972296

>>11967512
Name 1

>> No.11972299

>>11971455
>What is the no-self doctrine in Buddhism
Schizo nonsense that isn't actually true

>> No.11972302

>>11972085
God objectively ontological exists.
Seethe harder brainlet.

>> No.11972327

>>11972302

Not the guy you're responding to

God can be defined within certain ontological frameworks. Self-simulation theory can accomodate a very specific definition of a pantheistic/panentheistic god. But you have to be careful to properly define what you mean by God and his qualities. If not, it is incredibly easy to just speak past one-another. If you assert that God is real, you have the burden of discribing that within your framework. 99.9% of people associate the word god with religious conceptions of gods and its associated myths and stupid arguments. So just be mentioning the word god you've alienated almost all your audience, which is high-iq sci/math enthusiasts. It's at best a very hard needle to thread, and at worst a very counter productive waste of time. Quite a few self-described atheists truly hate the idea of God, they loathe the idea of the universe having an intelligence behind it, it having meaning and direction. They get increadibly angry and irritated by it, uncomfortable. But this is most likely because they associate the god concept with not being allowed to have gay sex, to not being able to think about themselves at the smartest and greatest in the universe, and because religious thinking usually is anti-science.

>> No.11972343

>>11972327
Good post. About this part:
>Quite a few self-described atheists truly hate the idea of God, they loathe the idea of the universe having an intelligence behind it, it having meaning and direction. They get increadibly angry and irritated by it, uncomfortable. But this is most likely because they associate the god concept with not being allowed to have gay sex, to not being able to think about themselves at the smartest and greatest in the universe, and because religious thinking usually is anti-science.
This does seem to be the case, which never made sense to me. How can a group of people, who believe themselves to be intelligent, make such an error in judgement that they intrinsically associate the idea god in general with the specific Abrahamic god.
I could never figure this out.

>> No.11972380

>>11972138

the reason that reality is assigned the value 1 is simply to say that it is 100% of what exists, and then parts of reality are strictly < 1, less than 100% of reality

lets say that we can define types of energy as positive and negative in such a way that they cancel out, sum to 0. That wouldn't be the same as saying that nothing really exists. Both positive and negative energy would have to exist

so you could say that if you sum over 100% (1) of the energy, the "charges" of those energies sum to 0

I don't think there needs to be a contradiction there

>> No.11972390

>>11972380
>That wouldn't be the same as saying that nothing really exists. Both positive and negative energy would have to exist
Yup, you are exactly correct. But of course, philosophically illiterate /sci/ dumbfuck morons don't understand this concept. And when you try to explain to them that having a set of things with properties can not be nothing, they'll just say "but if we define it as nothing in our model then it is nothing".
It's just more evidence that it should be legally mandated for universities to force students in scientific fields to double major in philosophy along with whatever it is that they are studying.

>> No.11972404

>>11972343
im catholic and i was taught the belief that "god is in everything" meaning that regardless of which god the person believes in or if they are not religious at all, they still "worship" the same god in a sense through what they do. That essentially means that it doesnt even matter if the person is actually a christian or not, just that they follow basic tenets of christianity(be good, kind, help others, do not kill etc.) and through this they worship god, whatever god actually is. I personally just think of god as a loose concept rather than one of the hundreds of different concrete depictions of what god is and isnt based on nothing.

>> No.11972451

>>11967021
>>11967021
>be reality
>exist
>the fact that you exist means that a fuck ton of other dimensions exist because you can't exist without them and they can't exist without you
>certain things like universes or small consciousnesses just happen to exist within you just like bacteria happen to reside within humans except the the small consciousnesses aren't separate from you
>The higher you go in the dimensions the less differences you'll see between you and others until you eventually merge as one single entity that has knowledge and wisdom of everything past present and future as that's unimportant to them and doesn't care for anyone as there is no good or evil only the self as a whole

>> No.11972545

>>11972296

reality

>> No.11972551

>>11972545
False

>> No.11972564

>>11972551

the proof is pretty simple

reality is all the exists
so whatever generates reality has to be reality

if whatever generated reality was not part of reality, you would have something not real generating something real, which is a problem ...

>> No.11972571
File: 156 KB, 720x900, 1595858111082.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11972571

>>11972564

Ah yes, I can feel the existential tentacles of dread dragging me down into the abyss.

>> No.11972681
File: 155 KB, 711x595, floating2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11972681

>>11967035

it's not another simulation theory thread. It's a SELF-simulation theory thread. I have not seen one on sci before

>> No.11972906

>>11972571

does self-simulation make you afraid or make you have an existential crisis?

>> No.11973300

>>11967021
>Is reality self-simulating?
a fancy way of phrasing, a reflection of your imagination, and yes, % variables

>Is it entirely self-contained
all of the particles in your mind and body are connected to every single other particle in the universe, you cannot leave you're mind since you're a conscious being in your astral body and everything still remains 100% in the paradigm/illusion of your mind, you can't really leave besides arguably OBE/astral projection. the base layers of actual true underlying reality are too infinite to be defined

>> No.11973429

>>11973300

>the base layers of actual true underlying reality are too infinite to be defined

the potensial for infinite enumeration is not really a problem. For instance, we can easily denote the real number like with the set R. Yes, the line is uncountably infinite in lenght, but i can take the powerset of R, i.e. doing an operation on the whole thing

> self-simulation is a fancy way of phrasing, a reflection of your imagination

in reality theory, the connection between mind and matter is defined in such a way that non are fundamental, and both are mutually dependend, in different ways

M: L <--> U

where: M is the metalanguage that maps one to the other, L is the set of cognitive-perceptual syntax, and U is a set of expressed "text" (to keep the metaphor of language going) that conforms to the L

M = (M ⊃ L ⊃ U)

U must conform to L
L can only be instantiated in U
M is self-inclusively defined

>> No.11976208

>>11967021
I'm pretty sure reality is the result of a calculation.
If that calculation actually takes place is a different question.
2+2 is 4, no matter if anyone is actually actually calculating it.

>> No.11976284
File: 4 KB, 254x198, 1584724311185.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11976284

>>11967021
Optimal distribution of variety and complexity!

>> No.11976440

>>11976208

I think you're on to something important. Mathematics and logic is what constitutes the cognitive-perceptual syntax of the fundemental metalanguage of reality. That syntax is prior to physical stuff and thus to actual physical calculation. Physical reality has to conform to that syntax or it would not be perceivable or intelligeble, and thus not real.

On another level, the metalanguage is processing itself in a protocomputational way, that is metaphysical self-processing. Since reality is a self-contained, and is structured as a language, it has to "speak" to and "listen" to, or configure and process, itself. Else, nothing would happen, nothing could happen. Thus, at the most fundamental level, reality can be formalized as a self-configuring, self-processing language or SCSPL, with enough expressive power to encode all conceivable content, including it's own structure and functioning.

>> No.11976444

>>11976284

Thank you for seeing it as innovative. If you have any objections to its rationality or legitimacy, please raise them so we can resolve them. I'm sure we can alleviate any concerns or misunderstandings

>> No.11976846

>>11976284

> Optimal distribution of variety and complexity is an implication of self-simulation

Yes, I think that is right. The self-simulation has an incentive to make things optimally interesting for itself.

>> No.11976864

>>11976440
Are you majoring literature or something?
It doesn't feel like you understand what you are writing.

>> No.11977530

>>11976864

I think the problem is that you are not understanding what I'm writing. It doesn't feel like it. Just ask if you have any questions

>> No.11977544

>>11972906
Yes

>> No.11977661

>>11977544

Care to elaborate?

>> No.11979891

>>11977530
Your post above reads like something generated by GPT-3.

>> No.11980207

>>11979891

I can assure you there is well-thought out theory behind what I said.

Language is a mathematical structure. A metalanguage is a language that can speak about a sub-order language as its object language. The metalanguage of reality is the n-th degree metalanguage that has enough expressive power to embed all scientific languages from science, formal/rational languages from mathematics and logic, and crucially, philosophical language that serves as the bridge connecting theories, symbols, and equations to their corresponding phenomenon. It also includes an arbitrary number of self-inclusive mappings

since reality can be formulated as a language, it follows that it must both configure and process itself. Reality is clearly dynamic, so there must be something that does the expression and interpretation. There is nothing else that could do the job, since nothing else is real

the fundamental rules of perception and intelligebility is 2-valued logic. If something didn't conform to 2-valued logic, it would be impossible to perceive it clearly or make sense of it. It would be impossible to make a theory about it, to explain it. So for something to be real, it has to be embedded in the 2-valued logical structure of reality, that is, in the language of reality. But that language permits a huge number of possibilities other than then one we currently inhabit, that is, it permits the metalanguage of reality to express other "sets of sentences" than the one we're currently inhabiting. There are a set of potential worlds that conform to those rules of syntax. Other possible self-simulations

>> No.11980237

>>11980207
>If something didn't conform to 2-valued logic, it would be impossible to perceive it clearly or make sense of it.
Can't one trivially define, say, a 4-valued logic, that is perceivable and makes sense?
Sure, that can be expressed equivalently through 2-valued logic, but why insist on the "2" then?

>I can assure you there is well-thought out theory behind what I said.
Sorry, but can you tell why I got wary about your background?
It reads like text made for the very purpose of generating text.

>> No.11980270

>>11980237

>Can't one trivially define, say, a 4-valued logic, that is perceivable and makes sense?

yes, you can, but it will only make sense when embedded in a 2-valued logical metalanguage, which it would be

>Sorry, but can you tell why I got wary about your background?

yeah, kinda, I guess. It's unfamilliar and abstract, and kind of resembles the quantum woo nonsense stuff on the surface