Author Topic: Simulation Hypothesis  (Read 32 times)

Cabshear

Simulation Hypothesis
« on: April 12, 2019, 01:41:26 am »
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf

Greetings,

Above is a linked argument by Nick Bostrom who argues that we could be living in a complex computer simulation. A recent hypothesis has take new life amongst technologists in Silicon Valley, that we are living in a computer simulation.

"The universe is 13.8 billion years old, so any civilizations that may have arisen throughout the cosmos have had loads and loads of time to hone their technological know-how, the SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk explained early this morning (Sept. 7) during a long, wide-ranging and very entertaining appearance on comedian Joe Rogan's popular podcast"

The idea, made popular by the Matrix films by the Wachowski Brothers, has some serious truth to it, outside of the exhaustive mysticism that many of us LHP practitioners tend to reject.

And yet...

Video Games, Films, and VR have developed graphics that have become harder and harder to distinguish from what appears to be "real life." Thus, can we be so sure that have not done this before? It would seem crude to say that we are in a somewhat "real" MMORPG, but we not only have experience but we learn and grow from those experiences.

How does this play into a magical practice? Or why there are some who value this potential concept and others do not? In the fictitious story of Harry Potter there are muggles and there are magical oriented people. The muggles cannot see nor can they understand the bigger picture behind magic. Some of the even hostile to the idea. When it comes to programming there are some who see the GUI (Guided User Interface) and there are some who seem the underlying programming that gives life and functionality to that GUI. Some passionately deny that there is any underlying construct, that there is only the GUI. The first group the pops into my head are the "New Atheists" like Dawkins or Hitchens. Just as passionate and evangelical as the Christians that give their rebellion it's much needed fuel.

Magic has often been referred to as a "mental technology" it directs a potential non-local mind toward larger conceptualizations. Is it possible that magic could be a "hack" to the underlying construct which causes PSI phenomena? Or that it directs a non-local mind, within the construct, toward more opportunistic situations? While the Simulation Hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis I am curious if the existence of PSI phenomena and UFO phenomena could have something to do with the possibility of a simulation.

The Map is not the Territory. However, this could be a very useful map!

HS!

https://youtu.be/3d9i_0Ty7Cg

https://www.amazon.com/Simulation-Hypothesis-Computer-Scientist-Quantum-ebook/dp/B07M81F1KG/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=1MUTCXVSJYA7Y&keywords=simulation+hypothesis&qid=1555033217&s=gateway&sprefix=simulation+hyp%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1

 
Warmest Regards,

Fenrys F
-Vampire Initiate and Satanist



idgo

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2019, 07:38:41 pm »
GUI is traditionally lengthened to "graphical", not "guided", though if we're doing custom backronyms my vote is for "godawful".

How does this play into a magical practice? Or why there are some who value this potential concept and others do not?

My current preferred technique for comparing theories or worldviews against one another is to look for differences in the outcomes that using each would yield. With this strategy, I notice that dogmatic atheism can help scientists use the tools of science to expand their knowledge and experience in directions and at velocities that could be prohibited by any attempt to balance it with religion. (then again, the SSOTBME compass of contrasting religion/science/magic/art is quite fresh in my mind right now and likely overrepresented in my reasoning).

I find that gaining fluency in new metaphors adds those metaphors as words to the vocabulary of extremely abstract thought, which can in turn occasionally trickle back into concrete thoughts and ideas that I might not have encountered if I'd restricted myself to the familiar. And "everything is the outcome of an underlying program" is one hell of a metaphor, because it raises questions about that program which someone without the metaphor might be unable to articulate, and thus they're questions that it's unlikely people have explored before, and that smells like a possibility of finding new "bugs" in the "reality program", or "rediscovering what magics work in our day and age", or whatever you want to call that outcome.

Most of those bugs are useless, sure. It's like, at the end of that one movie where they take the macguffin away to the warehouse full of crates? If you want to find all the other macguffins in the warehouse, you're better off looking in the closed crates than in the ones that've already been opened and looted, because although not all closed crates will have a treasure, all remaining treasures will be in some closed crate. That's the closest I can get right now to expressing why I see value in examining previously unexplored areas of thought, at least.

Magic has often been referred to as a "mental technology" it directs a potential non-local mind toward larger conceptualizations. Is it possible that magic could be a "hack" to the underlying construct which causes PSI phenomena? ... While the Simulation Hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis I am curious if the existence of PSI phenomena and UFO phenomena could have something to do with the possibility of a simulation.


I'd take "the map is not the territory" a step further, and claim that all words (perhaps all verbal thoughts as well) are the outcome of using the knife of consciousness to chop up "reality" into little pieces small enough not to choke one's logical faculties. This dispenses the handy metaphor that a scientist and an artist arguing about whose worldview is "really real" are like two diners, one of whom was served bacon and the other a pork chop, arguing about whose meal really came from a pig.

Have you ever watched speedruns of video games? They're delightful in how the runners follow every rule of the game as it was expressed by the coders (whether or not the coders intended to implement those rules is a whole other story), and yet manage to perform feats that would look from within the game entirely like magic. There's a moral in how they find such bugs, about how sometimes the things most popular to assume are least well enforced because they usually don't need to be because everyone assumes them, which also applies to social engineering and other modern low magicks.

The way you phrase your own questions smells to me to be adjacent to an argument that "magic", by its very nature, can only ever be discussed using metaphors. Hell, even science is taught predominantly with metaphor; culture is not without its similarities to a LISP machine building ever larger and subtler "words" out of smaller and coarser ones.

So yeah, asking "if there's an underlying consciousness, how could we tell? what could it do? what have I never done before that I could do now to see if its outcome proves or disproves it?" is the polar opposite of dogmatic religious belief, and could fall into "magic" or "science" depending on who happens to attempt it and how the results reproduce and what the scientific establishments of the day when you ask it happen to be like.

Or that it directs a non-local mind, within the construct, toward more opportunistic situations?

There's a science word really close to this, which I had filed as propriokinesis, but might actually be proprioception. I probably picked up the former from https://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comments/99ck86/the_human_body_and_consciousness/ which, while a fun little read, is only tangentially related right here. All I mean by it when I use it is that the "I" bit of the brain seems to be incredibly flexible and happily scales itself up and back when we extend our bodies or take those enhancements off. Parking a car is a perfect example -- one usually thinks  "How close is my bumper to that wall?" or "how close am I?" rather than "how close is the car that I am driving?".

I suspect that if you took a dogmatic scientist and tried to get them to prove that "mind" is "local", as you seem to be using those terms, they might be unable to do it. Thus, I'd claim that your question is inherently magical already, because its prerequisite assumptions are somewhere between unproven and unprovable. And if we're working in the realm of magic, I can claim that transitively any magical question's answers will also be magical, and due to the defined constraints of magical thinking, I only need the presence of a positive example rather than the absence of any negative example as would be required for "scientific" proof.

If my mind was a car, SSOTBME was an overly enthusiastic tuneup. On the one hand my logical thought is playing nicer with my non-logical thought than before (it's making that funny NOPE sound a whole lot less!); on the other hand I'll be spilling drips of its snake oil for awhile.