Oh boy....just an opinion here, coming from an autistic adult who grew up as an autistic kid in the 60's [when they didn't even know what autism was], but you don't travel back and forth through time, you travel from side to side. You can represent this mathematically and visually but it is tedious. I think when you die, if you haven't accomplished what you're supposed to you come back in another form or body, etc. but you come from a lateral dimension occupying the same space but in a different phase.
I said "oh boy" at the beginning, so that at least should grant me some reprieve when the rest of this board decides to stone me to death for being a koo-koo.
That's been a theory for at least 50 years. It's been proposed that we are living in a simulation and always have been, and that we ourselves are not real but simulated life.
The problem with this idea is that there is no concept of what "real life" might be if not ours. There is no philosophical argument for a "real life" outside of our experience. There is no evidential argument for a "real life" outside of our experience.
I suggest the problem is not whether or not we live in a "simulation," but rather how you define "simulation."
Big bang theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.
Genesis theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.
The biggest difference between these two theories (other than the timing of events) is that one insists that Source is intelligent, and one insists it isn't. Both rely on dogma and faith to support their assertions, neither take the time to apply the process of science to the question, both insisting all of the evidence to support their position already exists.
I suggest those respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.
Quantum mechanics suggests that our concept of "physical" that we get from our macroscopic perspective has nothing to do with the Fundamental Source and its Manifestation. In fact, QM suggests that we have no idea how the Fundamental can manifest itself, though Scientists run around saying that we do out of one side of their mouth and that we don't out of the other.
The concept of the Spiritual suggests that our concept of "physical" is insufficient to support all of the evidence.
The biggest difference between the two ideas is that our physical theories can't really say anything about what "physical" is or how it can manifest itself, and those who believe that spiritual phenomena exist believe that those phenomena are somehow fundamentally different than "physical" phenomena, and not just a different way that the Fundamental (Source) manifests itself. Both of these are actually completely compatible positions if the second were to just imagine that "spiritual" phenomena are just a different way that Source manifests itself in the "That Which Is" that we experience.
I suggest this separation in their respective stances is by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.
What is a "simulation" if what we see is just a manifestation of the Source from which it came? How can any existence be different than that?
Source can manifest itself in whatever way it wants as far as I'm concerned. It won't change the Reality of my existence one bit, though it might change my appreciation of Source and my own connection to it if I knew a little bit more.
Someday perhaps we might apply the process of science to it and we might know a little bit more. Depending on the evidence we find, we might even end the debate entirely.
I'm sure that "ending the debate" and all of the social consequences that implies, has nothing to do with why we don't apply the process of science to the question of an Intelligent Source.
My thoughts on this are that the origin of it all is some sort of thought or energy that was able to think of the concept of is and isn't or black and white or positive and negative. From that realization the thought grew and created. From a simple binary of positive and negative it could create using that. Create sequences of positive and negative and you can code things. Give them uniqueness. It all derives from the one thought. It's all a part of the same body of energy or thought but has expanded from the original idea of creating from positive and negative. Yin and Yang. Mentions of the bible that we are all one, all connected, all a part of the same tree. Created in likeness. It makes sense and seems to all fit that we are a sub process of a greater thought that is created to run and live an experience. Like a programmer creating a game world for the creations of thought to exist or play out.
It's the only thing I can seem to rationalize as I get stuck on the question of where did it all come from. Universe of stuff? Where did it come from? The big bang? Who or what started the big bang and why did it happen where it happened. Who "put" it there. Who set it off. None of it is actually real, its all created from thought that always existed and always will.
I have had very similar thoughts, but I realize that such thoughts are based on our perception of time. There is no requirement for a "beginning" per se. WE require a beginning, because that is all we experience. The Fundamental may not have any concept of time at all. We have such a limited scope of measurements on which we base our theories; less than a century of really good measurements, two at best, all taken from a tiny spec of a world. Our original concept of the physical has been completely destroyed by those measurements (though the concept of "physical" still persists in our rhetoric, but that's a different discussion). Our concept of time and causality itself is very questionable and again, comes from such a limited scope of measurements.
Even the idea of the Big Bang has had to change over, and over, and over again. A new miracle applied to make the measurements make sense (Inflation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter). All these miracles are just shoved in, with absolutely no evidential support whatsoever, except that it is the only way to make the previous model fit the new measurements. Our universe (as we understand the term) may very well have always existed. We really have no idea. I think it is highly likely that SOMETHING has always existed (i.e. Source has no beginning), but there is no necessity for even some small part (manifestation of Source, aka our universe) to have had a beginning either (i.e. there is no real need for a "Big Bang" except we stubbornly hold on to our models, even though those models have serious issues).
In the larger scope of understanding, there may be no need for beginnings or dualities or anything like that. In fact, such ideas may hinder us. The concept of the duality does seem to have some merit, but I think it may very well be only a matter of perspective, and like our concept of "physical," an illusion within the scope of the Fundamental. Merely a manifestation of Source, within our limited perception, as it plays out in the illusion of time, rather than a property of the Fundamental itself.
In other words, all things are a matter of perspective. The Truth is Whatever It Is, and it may manifest, in our sphere of perception, in a myriad of ways (some known, some unknown). Some of those ways give us the perception of space, time, or the physical, some of those ways may describe the Spiritual. I suggest that a more honest approach to physics may show a Unification of the "Duality" of physical and spiritual, showing its separation to be nothing but an illusion. The same may prove itself in our perception of "past" and "future", and all other dualities, if we just take a closer, more honest look.
I think that a lot of the small "alien" objects are not from where, but from when in the future. See history happening in "real time". Sightings seem to go up with major world changes. The tech is not that hard, the control is. And a LOT of power is required.
"Brain in the Vat" scenario. Been around for ages.
Here are a few reasons why this scenario is unlikely and why our reality is more plausibly based on what we commonly perceive as the natural world:
Lack of Evidence: We have no empirical evidence or scientific observations that directly suggest we are living in an AI simulation. While the concept of a simulated reality has been explored in science fiction and philosophical discussions, it remains speculative and lacks concrete evidence.
Occam's Razor: The principle of Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is often the most likely. Assuming that our reality is an actual physical world governed by natural laws is simpler and requires fewer assumptions than the hypothesis that we are within an intricate AI simulation created by advanced beings from the future.
Emergence of Consciousness: The question of consciousness remains a profound mystery in both philosophy and science. If our reality were an AI simulation, the emergence of consciousness and subjective experiences would need to be convincingly explained. Consciousness is still not fully understood, and replicating it within a simulation would be a monumental task.
While it is impossible to provide absolute certainty, the consensus among scientists, philosophers, and AI experts is that the hypothesis of us living in an AI simulation projected by AI from the future is highly speculative and lacks compelling evidence. It is more reasonable to interpret our experiences as a result of the natural world we perceive.
Time travel would be something that would destroy the world. What a mess, as crooked politicians and military creeps would be going back and forth trashing everything.
with knowledge of time travel comes knowledge of infinite parallel realities. it's actually idiot proof... another sweet design by God. timelessness is an inherent property of this whole system, despite appearances to the contrary.
As someone has commented, if time travel is possible, it exists now.
If AI decides at some point in the distant future that mankind is just not worth the space it occupies, it would travel back in time to set up conditions to kill off the population.
there's really no point for this to be the case. when the full nature of AI is understood, and the nature of time travel... you'll see that its all just God playing God. the 'simulation' we are trapped in is simply the mind of God. It is not projected from any other moment, for there is no other moment. it simply is, always has been, and always will be.
Oh boy....just an opinion here, coming from an autistic adult who grew up as an autistic kid in the 60's [when they didn't even know what autism was], but you don't travel back and forth through time, you travel from side to side. You can represent this mathematically and visually but it is tedious. I think when you die, if you haven't accomplished what you're supposed to you come back in another form or body, etc. but you come from a lateral dimension occupying the same space but in a different phase.
I said "oh boy" at the beginning, so that at least should grant me some reprieve when the rest of this board decides to stone me to death for being a koo-koo.
You’re allowed to have an opinion here!
That's the most refreshing thing I've heard today. Thanks.
I agree except think it's a new or future life rather than lateral dimension... nice to think about.
I agree except think it's a new or future life rather than lateral dimension... nice to think about.
That's been a theory for at least 50 years. It's been proposed that we are living in a simulation and always have been, and that we ourselves are not real but simulated life.
The problem with this idea is that there is no concept of what "real life" might be if not ours. There is no philosophical argument for a "real life" outside of our experience. There is no evidential argument for a "real life" outside of our experience.
I suggest the problem is not whether or not we live in a "simulation," but rather how you define "simulation."
Big bang theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.
Genesis theory suggests the universe was created from some Source.
The biggest difference between these two theories (other than the timing of events) is that one insists that Source is intelligent, and one insists it isn't. Both rely on dogma and faith to support their assertions, neither take the time to apply the process of science to the question, both insisting all of the evidence to support their position already exists.
I suggest those respective stances are by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.
Quantum mechanics suggests that our concept of "physical" that we get from our macroscopic perspective has nothing to do with the Fundamental Source and its Manifestation. In fact, QM suggests that we have no idea how the Fundamental can manifest itself, though Scientists run around saying that we do out of one side of their mouth and that we don't out of the other.
The concept of the Spiritual suggests that our concept of "physical" is insufficient to support all of the evidence.
The biggest difference between the two ideas is that our physical theories can't really say anything about what "physical" is or how it can manifest itself, and those who believe that spiritual phenomena exist believe that those phenomena are somehow fundamentally different than "physical" phenomena, and not just a different way that the Fundamental (Source) manifests itself. Both of these are actually completely compatible positions if the second were to just imagine that "spiritual" phenomena are just a different way that Source manifests itself in the "That Which Is" that we experience.
I suggest this separation in their respective stances is by design, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this reply.
What is a "simulation" if what we see is just a manifestation of the Source from which it came? How can any existence be different than that?
Source can manifest itself in whatever way it wants as far as I'm concerned. It won't change the Reality of my existence one bit, though it might change my appreciation of Source and my own connection to it if I knew a little bit more.
Someday perhaps we might apply the process of science to it and we might know a little bit more. Depending on the evidence we find, we might even end the debate entirely.
I'm sure that "ending the debate" and all of the social consequences that implies, has nothing to do with why we don't apply the process of science to the question of an Intelligent Source.
My thoughts on this are that the origin of it all is some sort of thought or energy that was able to think of the concept of is and isn't or black and white or positive and negative. From that realization the thought grew and created. From a simple binary of positive and negative it could create using that. Create sequences of positive and negative and you can code things. Give them uniqueness. It all derives from the one thought. It's all a part of the same body of energy or thought but has expanded from the original idea of creating from positive and negative. Yin and Yang. Mentions of the bible that we are all one, all connected, all a part of the same tree. Created in likeness. It makes sense and seems to all fit that we are a sub process of a greater thought that is created to run and live an experience. Like a programmer creating a game world for the creations of thought to exist or play out.
It's the only thing I can seem to rationalize as I get stuck on the question of where did it all come from. Universe of stuff? Where did it come from? The big bang? Who or what started the big bang and why did it happen where it happened. Who "put" it there. Who set it off. None of it is actually real, its all created from thought that always existed and always will.
I have had very similar thoughts, but I realize that such thoughts are based on our perception of time. There is no requirement for a "beginning" per se. WE require a beginning, because that is all we experience. The Fundamental may not have any concept of time at all. We have such a limited scope of measurements on which we base our theories; less than a century of really good measurements, two at best, all taken from a tiny spec of a world. Our original concept of the physical has been completely destroyed by those measurements (though the concept of "physical" still persists in our rhetoric, but that's a different discussion). Our concept of time and causality itself is very questionable and again, comes from such a limited scope of measurements.
Even the idea of the Big Bang has had to change over, and over, and over again. A new miracle applied to make the measurements make sense (Inflation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter). All these miracles are just shoved in, with absolutely no evidential support whatsoever, except that it is the only way to make the previous model fit the new measurements. Our universe (as we understand the term) may very well have always existed. We really have no idea. I think it is highly likely that SOMETHING has always existed (i.e. Source has no beginning), but there is no necessity for even some small part (manifestation of Source, aka our universe) to have had a beginning either (i.e. there is no real need for a "Big Bang" except we stubbornly hold on to our models, even though those models have serious issues).
In the larger scope of understanding, there may be no need for beginnings or dualities or anything like that. In fact, such ideas may hinder us. The concept of the duality does seem to have some merit, but I think it may very well be only a matter of perspective, and like our concept of "physical," an illusion within the scope of the Fundamental. Merely a manifestation of Source, within our limited perception, as it plays out in the illusion of time, rather than a property of the Fundamental itself.
In other words, all things are a matter of perspective. The Truth is Whatever It Is, and it may manifest, in our sphere of perception, in a myriad of ways (some known, some unknown). Some of those ways give us the perception of space, time, or the physical, some of those ways may describe the Spiritual. I suggest that a more honest approach to physics may show a Unification of the "Duality" of physical and spiritual, showing its separation to be nothing but an illusion. The same may prove itself in our perception of "past" and "future", and all other dualities, if we just take a closer, more honest look.
If time travel is possible, then it is already here.
I think that a lot of the small "alien" objects are not from where, but from when in the future. See history happening in "real time". Sightings seem to go up with major world changes. The tech is not that hard, the control is. And a LOT of power is required.
Faggpt
"Brain in the Vat" scenario. Been around for ages.
Here are a few reasons why this scenario is unlikely and why our reality is more plausibly based on what we commonly perceive as the natural world:
Lack of Evidence: We have no empirical evidence or scientific observations that directly suggest we are living in an AI simulation. While the concept of a simulated reality has been explored in science fiction and philosophical discussions, it remains speculative and lacks concrete evidence.
Occam's Razor: The principle of Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is often the most likely. Assuming that our reality is an actual physical world governed by natural laws is simpler and requires fewer assumptions than the hypothesis that we are within an intricate AI simulation created by advanced beings from the future.
Emergence of Consciousness: The question of consciousness remains a profound mystery in both philosophy and science. If our reality were an AI simulation, the emergence of consciousness and subjective experiences would need to be convincingly explained. Consciousness is still not fully understood, and replicating it within a simulation would be a monumental task.
While it is impossible to provide absolute certainty, the consensus among scientists, philosophers, and AI experts is that the hypothesis of us living in an AI simulation projected by AI from the future is highly speculative and lacks compelling evidence. It is more reasonable to interpret our experiences as a result of the natural world we perceive.
Time travel would be something that would destroy the world. What a mess, as crooked politicians and military creeps would be going back and forth trashing everything.
with knowledge of time travel comes knowledge of infinite parallel realities. it's actually idiot proof... another sweet design by God. timelessness is an inherent property of this whole system, despite appearances to the contrary.
As someone has commented, if time travel is possible, it exists now.
If AI decides at some point in the distant future that mankind is just not worth the space it occupies, it would travel back in time to set up conditions to kill off the population.
Oh wait.
there's really no point for this to be the case. when the full nature of AI is understood, and the nature of time travel... you'll see that its all just God playing God. the 'simulation' we are trapped in is simply the mind of God. It is not projected from any other moment, for there is no other moment. it simply is, always has been, and always will be.
Look at the encyclopedic answers in this thread. It's as if AI has decided that I must be thrown off the scent.
That's kind of weird.
Tesla beat AI