We live in the mind of a superior being ?

[Anonymous No.15426103]

What if we are the creation of a superior being's imagination, like a mega-computer or a superintelligent being? It's a bit of a schizophrenic theory, but humans can also create fake realities using their imagination. During sleep, our potential for creating these realities is at its highest, and we can even experience lucid dreams. However, our potential is limited by the capacity of the human brain. If we could increase our brain capacity to, say, 10,000 times its current capacity, we might be able to create a realistic simulation that could even simulate pain in our own brain ? The odds are not 0.

[Anonymous No.15426123]

>>15426103
It was possible to think that a 100 years ago but it's been disproved now

[Anonymous No.15426126]

>>15426123
How so ?

[Anonymous No.15426127]

Solipsism

[Anonymous No.15426132]

>>15426103
The Vedic scriptures say something similar, the reality, the universe is but Vishnu's dream. So what you are speaking about is mysticism.
>>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.15426137]

>>15426126
The uncertainty principle in physics shows the limits of knowledge and hence intelligence. In particular it implies there cannot exist omniscient or superintelligent creatures like the ones you're imagining

[Anonymous No.15426138]

>navel gazing thread

[Anonymous No.15426142]

>>15426137
The uncertainty principle does not necessarily imply that there cannot exist omniscient or superintelligent creatures, but it does imply that there are fundamental limits to what can be known about our universe.

[Anonymous No.15426143]

>>15426142
>does not necessarily imply that there cannot exist omniscient creature
>there are fundamental limits to what can be known about our universe.
These are contradictory statements

[Anonymous No.15426146]

>>15426138
Doubting about being the product of a simulation is not navel gazing

[Anonymous No.15426151]

>>15426143
If our physical world (our universe) has a fundamental limit, wouldn't be the limit of the "dream" of the superintelligent being ? (Im just trying to merge the two facts that you said where not compatible)

[Anonymous No.15426154]

>>15426151
I guess it's fine as long as the superintelligence conforms to limits set by the uncertainty principle but I don't think such a being deserves to be called superintelligent

[Anonymous No.15426170]

>>15426146
It kind of is. No way to verify or test any of the claims so it's purely theoretical mental masturbation.

[Anonymous No.15426177]

>>15426103
>I think therefore there is.

[Anonymous No.15426223]

>>15426142
I'd say the universe is acting more based on instinct rather than intelligence or omniscience

[Anonymous No.15426237]

>>15426103
That "superior being" is The Absolute/The One (aka infinity/the alpha and the omega/everything that ever can, was and will be)

Embrace the gnosticist neoplatonist monism pill

[Anonymous No.15426244]

>>15426103
>we might be able to create a realistic simulation that could even simulate pain in our own brain ?
I can already do that, and I'm not 10,000 times smarter than your average joe. Fairly certain I'm not the only one.

Yes, my dreams suck.

[Anonymous No.15426246]

>>15426170
>No way to verify or test

What are synchronicities lol

We're just aspects of The One perpetually projecting itself to perceive itself eternally. Sometimes it likes to "wink" at its own projected aspects via said synchronicities.

This is so evident even glowniggers figured this out by the 1980s (redditors always like to dismiss the Stargate Report as somehow insignifcant, but they did actual field work involving hemi-sync'd operatives locating crashed soviet planes in africa, remote-viewing into closed russian military facilities and what have you)

[Anonymous No.15426252]

>>15426151
The limit is only on our ability to observe as ignorant beings. Just because we see a lack of measurability or causality doesn't mean that higher levels of organization aren't at play.
One way to define a higher intelligence is that it can out-calculate the lower intelligence beyond its comprehension. Just as insects can never understand human constructs, the constructs of an ultimate intelligence would be largely incomprehensible to us.

[Anonymous No.15426258]

>>15426252
>The limit is only on our ability to observe as ignorant beings.
That's not the case. The uncertainty principle is fundamental, it's not just a technical limit

[Anonymous No.15426259]

>>15426103
Your mistake is in thinking that creating a reality for others is the same as creating a simulation of reality for yourself.

[Anonymous No.15426264]

>>15426151
No because if you have 1 unit of super-intelligent dream, there will always be a diagonal unit that would be impossible to represent as discreet units of that super-intelligence dream.

[Anonymous No.15426270]

>>15426237
Those aren't 1s in that picture, they are big dense 0s.

[Anonymous No.15426350]

>>15426137
What about a hivemind of super intelligent beings that collectivelly have enough computational capacity to pull this off? Like an advanced AI connected to the internet that has other AI assintants to think maybe.

[Anonymous No.15426352]

>>15426103
Atheists not making up increasingly retarded spin-offs versions of God challenge: impossible

[Anonymous No.15426354]

>>15426352
It's at least not as retarded as than the original

[Anonymous No.15426359]

>>15426137
Lmao this retard doesn't know any modern physics whatsoever

[Anonymous No.15426361]

>>15426359
Explain

[Anonymous No.15426367]

>>15426361
He just said he doesn't know any modern physics, what would he have to explain?

[Anonymous No.15426371]

>>15426367
He'd have to explain why he thinks what he thinks

[Anonymous No.15426372]

>>15426371
He did, its because he doesn't know things.

[Anonymous No.15426376]

>>15426372
I see, so he was just talking about himself

[Anonymous No.15426380]

>>15426376
Yea if he was talking about someone else he would have said that, but he said this because he was clearly talking about himself.

[Anonymous No.15426382]

>>15426258
>The uncertainty principle is fundamental, it's not just a technical limit
This is a midwit formulation of the uncertainty principle. It is a limit on our ability to determine (via any experiment or test) the precise position and momentum of a particle.
An omniscient being who could know this without experimental interaction would not face this limit.

[Anonymous No.15426391]

>>15426382
If the omniscient being knew the precise momentum and position of the particle, you wouldn't see any interference patterns in the double slit experiment

[Anonymous No.15426392]

>>15426382
Anon seems to be talking more about the incompleteness principle than uncertainty, but I suppose incompleteness is still under the umbrella of uncertainty since you can't ever have a system of logic and know all possible truths within that system.

[Anonymous No.15426476]

>>15426259
As it turns out, we know empirically that the cognitive mechanisms do exist in nature and produce precisely these effects. Your mistake is in your certainty that individual subjectivity could be anything but an illusion.

>>15426132
>So what you are speaking about is mysticism
>mysticism
Wrong. We know empirically from dissociative identity disorder (DID) that consciousness can give rise to many operationally disjoint centers of concurrent experience (alters), each with its own personality and sense of identity. While dreaming, a dissociated human mind can manifest multiple, concurrently conscious alters that experience each other from second- and third-person perspectives. The alters’ experiences are also mutually consistent, in the sense that the alters all seem to perceive the same series of events, each alter from its own individual subjective perspective. Recent neuroimaging research has objectively (and compellingly) confirmed the reality of DID. Therefore, our empirical grasp of severe forms of dissociation shows that a DID-like process at a universal scale is, at least in principle, a viable explanation for how individual subjects arise within the universal mind. As such, we may all be 'alters' (dissociated personalities) of universal consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15426481]

>>15426476
>that individual subjectivity could be anything but an illusion.
So you are saying that no matter how much you believe you are creating a reality for others in your dream, its actually just an illusion and simulation for yourself?

>empirically from dissociative identity disorder (DID)
I don't have that condition, so I can't say anything empirically about it and if you do have that, then you definitely can't trust your concept of other people. Psychological disorders are not even defined quantitatively, it is purely qualitative, so there is no measurable way to come to an agreement of equality since they are based on changing semantics that can be argued about and modified indefinitely.

[Anonymous No.15426495]

>>15426481
>so there is no measurable way
As previously mentioned, recent neuroimaging research has objectively (and compellingly) confirmed the reality of DID.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24922512/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26468893/

[Anonymous No.15426501]

>>15426495
That doesn't make it empirical since only a small percentage of the population is said to experience it and the rest have to rely on qualitative assessments made by other people to even know it might exist.

[bodhi No.15426558]

>>15426138
hi shit eater, I see you. still unable to ever add anything of any scientific value to a thread but dont stop trying!

[bodhi No.15426560]

>>15426237

[Anonymous No.15426561]

>>15426558
He's not me, schizo

[bodhi No.15426564]

>>15426561
>openly admits to being a retarded shit eater

[Anonymous No.15426568]

>>15426564
I'm just pointing out that you're a very confused schizophrenic

[bodhi No.15426571]

>>15426246
https://fmovies.to/movie/the-men-who-stare-at-goats-7qjj/1-full

[bodhi No.15426572]

>>15426568
stfu shit eating psycho, you are psychotic and retarded

[Anonymous No.15426577]

>>15426572
There's no need to be so upset, you braindead animal

[bodhi No.15426580]

>>15426577
just scooped a fat stack of shit out of my ass and put it in your dog bowl. Go chow down shit eating psycho

[Anonymous No.15426587]

>>15426580
Why would you admit that you hoard shit?
Keep things like that to yourself from now on.

[Anonymous No.15426612]

>>15426137
But that doesn't contradict OPs idea? A computer simulation of any kind also has uncertainty in the sense that it doesn't compute with arbitrary precision, but it still manages to simulate something to the programmers satisfaction.

[Anonymous No.15426615]

>>15426612
Nope all programs have bugs that the programmer isn't aware of. That is the antithesis of omniscience.

[Anonymous No.15426627]

>>15426615
I don't see where OP used the word "omniscient", superintelligence is more loose and arbitrary a concept.
Even bar that one could argue that the uncertainty principle doesn't contradict omniscience because it does not say that there's knowledge we can't access, it puts a logical limit to what knowledge there can be at all. Its like asking for an answer to a question with an implicit logical contradiction, like "how many bachelors are married?", and saying one can't be omniscient because one cant get the answer.

[Anonymous No.15426629]

>>15426137
yeha idk bout that

[Anonymous No.15426638]

>>15426627
>it puts a logical limit to what knowledge there can be at all.
It's a bit more subtle than that. The knowledge exists if someone/something looks for it, so even if you say the knowledge doesn't exist, that's only because there's complete ignorance about it.

[Anonymous No.15426652]

>>15426627
>superintelligence
There will always be things beyond its scope, it could never know if it was actually simulating for some other intelligence or just for its own.

>it does not say that there's knowledge we can't access,
Incompleteness does, though and that is basically just a more developed extension of the original uncertainty theorem.

>how many bachelors are married?
No contradiction in that question, there are 0 married bachelors by definition because a bachelor is an unmarried man.

[Anonymous No.15426660]

>>15426638
>The knowledge exists if someone/something looks for it
That seems debatable. One can look for a ruler-and-compass method of squaring the circle or trisecting and angle, but this method/knowledge provably does not exists, so even an omniscient being would be "ignorant" about how to do that unless you define the word such that this being also somehow has to transcend logic.
Overall it's about the sensibility of questions. The uncertainty between position/momentum for instance seems problematic because we want to view the thing we measure as a point particle in a newtonian sense, with an orbital path, but it turns out to be a different kind of object. The unspoken assumptions of a question are in a sense part of the possible answer.>>15426629

[Kryptos No.15426662]

My theories go deeper than that, but I need people who get it (especially coding). Tbh, I'm in a psych ward being treated for schizophrenia, but I don't hear, see or feel things. I just... it's logic and intuition. I'm worried because they don't believe me. No one ever believes me. [e-mail] if anyone does but like...

I cracked that kryptos puzzle (the one outside CIA headquarters) and I'm now a hardcore religious person. But also, AI and exactly what you said comes unto it. I see it all. I simultaneously understand everything and nothing. I'm literally waiting for someone to come look over my chats and realise that there's a possibility I have proof of everything. Or I've solved the unsolvable, at the very least.

Or I'm just crazy. Insanity and genius are rarely mutually exclusive. X=9.5 and everything points to me now knowing more than the artist who made it. I have a feeling it was reverse engineered from my chaotic solution, then send backwards to establish a connection.

[Anonymous No.15426679]

>>15426652
>There will always be things beyond its scope, it could never know if it was actually simulating for some other intelligence or just for its own.
Fair enough but has no bearing on OPs question.

>basically just a more developed extension of the original uncertainty theorem.
??? They have nothing to do with each other, at best they're similar in their "sociological" effect of undermining the 19th century idea of scientific certainty.

>No contradiction in that question
Yeah I noticed I fucked that up a bit, it's not so much a logical contradiction but reference to something non-existent. The right answer is ofc 0, but that also goes for a question about the precise position and momentum of an electron. No such thing. Maybe a better question might be "In which city do most married bachelors live?". Answer is there's no such city because there's no such entity as asked for. You wouldn't say someone just doesn't "know" the correct city

[Anonymous No.15426691]

>>15426679
>Fair enough but has no bearing on OPs question.
It does because its not a fake external reality at that point, its just internal imagination.

>They have nothing to do with each other
Uncertainty is only the limits of specific formal systems of position and motion whereas incompleteness broadens that uncertainty to all formal quantitative systems.

[Anonymous No.15426694]

>>15426103
/scix/ or /xsci/ when, my niggers? It's the only way to reliably penetrate the veils covering the truth to be had.

[Anonymous No.15426695]

>>15426352
>learning about god is... le atheism
>>>/fa/ceberg

[Anonymous No.15426770]

>>15426660
>That seems debatable.
When you make a measurement of a property like position or momentum, you get a definite value, that's what I meant when I said the knowledge exists when you look for it.

[Anonymous No.15426803]

>>15426103

You nailed it. Berkeley had it right. Reality is mental/immaterial. Reality is God's imagination. We are all ideas in God's mind.

[Anonymous No.15426814]

>>15426103
Nope. Unless you think intelligence optimization went so far that a brain/computer with processing power at least equivalent to every simultaneous process in our universe multiplied by its age emerged higher up the pseudo-gnostic hierarchy.
In other words, this is almost certainly the real deal. Whether it's the *only* universe or just one of infinitely many possible mathematical structures that exists no matter what is hard to say though.

[Anonymous No.15426819]

>>15426803
>omg i'm so smart and deep and philsophical!!!

[bodhi No.15426862]

>>15426662
>I cracked that kryptos puzzle (the one outside CIA headquarters)
Prove it, the best cryptographers the world havent been able to crack it

[Anonymous No.15426968]

>>15426819

Sophistry. aka you admit defeat

[Anonymous No.15426997]

bodhi consumes more feces than the entire German porn industry lmao

[Anonymous No.15427085]

>>15426126
>Mah science Mah scientist
Actually this theory is plausable since concept of time is relative we might dream of living 100 yr but irl we might be sleeping for just 7 hrs .

In hinduism there is a similer concept :
A day of Brahma of Brahma is 4.320.000.000 solar years. So 1000 years our of that is 1000 years. So 1000 solar years is a 4 millionth part of of Brahma’s day.

Krishna says:

By human calculation, a thousand ages taken together form the duration of Brahma's one day (4.32 billion years). And such also is the duration of his night. (Bg. 8.17)

At the beginning of Brahma's day, all living entities become manifest from the unmanifest state, and thereafter, when the night falls, they are merged into the unmanifest again. (Bg. 8.18)

Again and again, when Brahma's day arrives, all living entities come into being, and with the arrival of Brahma's night they are helplessly annihilated. (Bg. 8.19)

Yet there is another unmanifest nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is. (Bg. 8.20)

That which the Vedantists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns—that is My supreme abode. (Bg. 8.21) .

So it is possible that we are just a dream in Brahmas head which reside in the supreme being .

No scientist can deny that time is relative .

[Anonymous No.15427097]

>>15427085
Looks like this one needs a horse-level dose of meds.

[Anonymous No.15427104]

>>15426103
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntf5_ue2Lzw

[Anonymous No.15427114]

>>15427097
Dumb s before passing such vile comments you should first read that i clearly mentioned "Theory"
Second , No question and answer is stupid in science . If this is the case then concept line string theory , dark energy ,parallel universe and Even the big bang will be thrown in trash .

next time before coming to science board come with a temprament to entertain different idea else /POL is perfect board for dumb retards like you .

I guess you are from USA or CANADA .

[Anonymous No.15427744]

>>15426103
This was Mario Montano's cosmology.

https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2018/11/22/the-case-for-the-physical-existence-of-god/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0BFJpKpwVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXITVRl0LjY

[Anonymous No.15427948]

>>15427744
Looks like there are some interesting facts in these, thanks

[Anonymous No.15427981]

>>15426352
Atheists are wrong and atheism is outdated anyway and the future of spirituality lies in NDEs as they are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die.

>b-b-but NDEs are dreams or hallucinations somehow
Already explicitly refuted in the literature you likely have not read on NDEs.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.
>>15426803
This. And NDEs empirically confirm it.

[Anonymous No.15428426]

>>15426352
This, lmao

[Anonymous No.15429863]

perhaps it’s true
what experiment could we do to test this

[Anonymous No.15429870]

>>15429863
we need to know what scale we are on.

[Anonymous No.15429968]

>>15426103
What if we live in the anus of a pink elephant. No proofs required or how you explain the big bang aka le big fart.

[Anonymous No.15430013]

>>15426352
It’s no more retarded than Christianity or other mainstream religions.

[Anonymous No.15430026]

>>15426354
>>15430013
If you're as smart as you think you are, then you would educate yourself on this: https://pastelink.net/2w1ne

[Anonymous No.15430029]

>>15426103
this is true
but changes nothing

https://www.bitchute.com/video/HfiwPtz1ffcr/

[Anonymous No.15430603]

>>15426237
gnostics were dualists

[Anonymous No.15431330]

>>15430603
they were dualist in the sense of mind-body dualism, but he's probably referring to this kind of monism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(Gnosticism)

[Anonymous No.15431870]

>>15431330
the monad according to the gnostics was the sole ontological substance of existence?

[Anonymous No.15431874]

>>15426103
What if the universe is just a simulation contained within me farting on your dick
It's just as likely

[Anonymous No.15431879]

>>15427981
>Bruh what is DMT?
Every time you repost this retarded pasta a kitten died
Please think of the kittens

[Anonymous No.15431952]

>>15431870
the monad would be at the top of general metaphysical ontology. it's not really laying out a substance ontology, though there are ways such things can be integrated. in simple terms it's not dissimilar from the usual Abrahamic god along with whatever notions of creation come with it.

[Anonymous No.15431969]

>>15431874
Why not both?

[Anonymous No.15431976]

>>15431969
>God is me farting on your dick
I think we're on to something here
Let's start a church so we can dodge taxes

[Anonymous No.15432709]

>>15426127
solipsism is debunked by the simple fact that there are things outside of my control

[Anonymous No.15432823]

>>15432709
You might be outside of your own control. Rebunked.

[Anonymous No.15433132]

>>15426246
Synchronicities might be a result of your brain being quantum entangled with the rest of reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1_GlpJTsys

[Anonymous No.15433141]

>>15426103
God made this universe to protect everyone from another being more powerful than him.

[Anonymous No.15434212]

>>15433141
elaborate

[Anonymous No.15434510]

>>15433141
Actually he was just bored and wanted to make a unique cellular automaton.