Author Topic: Simulation Hypothesis  (Read 1287 times)

Williams1001

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2019, 04:41:51 pm »
the image that is projected from the black hole's surface would be a 3+1 dimensional hologram (the 3 dimensions of space and the time dimension), hence a holographic universe (although i think there are better ways to formulate the simulation hypothesis). however, the stored information may not last forever because of hawking radiation, which is where particles and antiparticles are created near the event horizon and the antiparticle gets absorbed while the particle is emitted before it gets annihilated. the antiparticle has negative energy, and so the more of these antiparticles the black holes absorb, the more energy it loses and the more mass it loses since m=E/c^2. therfore, if the universe is a holographic projection from a black hole surface, then the energy of the entire universe will not be conserved. therfore, i don't necessarily think it is a good approach to use black holes to formulate the simulation hypothesis.

the pixelated spacetime on small scales can be compared to the pixels on a computer screen, hence a simulated universe. and yes, quantum mechanics also shows that we can't accurately measure things on small scales, and that is why spacetime appears or seems to appear quantized, but i think the pixelated space is potential evidence of a simulated universe.

i should clarify my remark on time travel. i believe it is possible to go forwards through time, but not backwards. thus, it is only a one way ticket. the reason why i think one cannot go backwards through time is that the time axis would have to be bent all the way around creating a "time loop" and i see no possible way in doing that. the reason why i think one can travel forwards in time is evident from the twin paradox, most, if not all paradoxes in special relativity can be solved by drawing spacetime diagrams and showing that spacetime gets skewed. but the problem with achieving forward time travel is that one has to go near c, and the most efficient way is to orbit a black hole. trying to get to a black hole in the first place is basically impossible with our current technology. my remark on time travel was to show what happens when you approach black holes. of course time travel has nothing to do with formulating the simulation hypothesis and that is why i didn't draw the conclusion from that, so i think discussing time travel diverges from the the topic. i could create a topic to discuss time travel.

 

Liu

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2019, 07:19:26 pm »
Thanks for the clarifications!
I still don't see why the holographs or that pixelation would point to a simulation, though.
It might make things easier to simulate I guess than if they are a continuum, but I'm not that sure about that - storing a function to draw a curve typically takes less storage at least than storing every pixel of that curve.
But just because it would make it possible to be a simulation it doesn't mean it is, or even just that it would be likely.

Williams1001

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2019, 04:51:48 pm »
Thanks for the clarifications!
I still don't see why the holographs or that pixelation would point to a simulation, though.
It might make things easier to simulate I guess than if they are a continuum, but I'm not that sure about that - storing a function to draw a curve typically takes less storage at least than storing every pixel of that curve.
But just because it would make it possible to be a simulation it doesn't mean it is, or even just that it would be likely.

your welcome. i suppose everyone has a different understanding and because of that, it may be more or less difficult to understand other people's perspectives and their reasons for what they conclude about the world. you're right about what you said it taking less storage to to store functions and about about the possibility of it to be a simulation and in fact, i read something (i can't remember where) that says everything is possible, just not probable.   

Km Anu

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2019, 07:36:27 am »
your welcome. i suppose everyone has a different understanding and because of that, it may be more or less difficult to understand other people's perspectives and their reasons for what they conclude about the world. you're right about what you said it taking less storage to to store functions and about about the possibility of it to be a simulation and in fact, i read something (i can't remember where) that says everything is possible, just not probable.   

Does this mean that the generation is non-procedural? I'm having trouble keeping up too, but I think I understand the gist. What I'm struggling with is why information would need to be stored if reality is produced in the moment according to set laws or "programmed assets and algorithms."

Williams1001

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2019, 10:11:17 pm »
reality is much greater than what first meets the eye, and because of that,
things may not always go "according to plan" (look at quantum mechanics for example).
hence, i believe that generation, going from one state to the next, is not always procedural,
or adhering to a plan. there may be some rules, guidelines, principles, etc. that things,
when viewed as a whole, would follow, but on an individual scale, things behave differently
than they would as a whole. as for the storage of information, i don't think there is a need for the universe to store its information since things get created and destroyed all the time, making it pointless for the universe to store its information. does this help?

Km Anu

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2019, 10:11:35 am »
reality is much greater than what first meets the eye, and because of that,
things may not always go "according to plan" (look at quantum mechanics for example).
hence, i believe that generation, going from one state to the next, is not always procedural,
or adhering to a plan. there may be some rules, guidelines, principles, etc. that things,
when viewed as a whole, would follow, but on an individual scale, things behave differently
than they would as a whole. as for the storage of information, i don't think there is a need for the universe to store its information since things get created and destroyed all the time, making it pointless for the universe to store its information. does this help?

It does, but I think we're not using the same definition of procedural generation, and aside from that, these kinds of logical models aren't my specialty by any means. But as I understand it, procedural generation is defined as "In computing, procedural generation is a method of creating data algorithmically as opposed to manually, typically through a combination of human-generated assets and algorithms coupled with computer-generated randomness and processing power. In computer graphics, it is commonly used to create textures and 3D models." (wikipedia)

Like how Minecraft builds worlds using set algorithms and a set of existing assets. However in this case the algorithms are largely unknown (We know of a few. We have sciences built around them) and there are no pre-loaded assets, necessitating time. The assets are constantly being changed by variations in the environment driven by physical processes, following laws that behave like extremely complex algorithms. Fractalization may just be another complex algorithm the universe uses to generate the world around you using the materials expanded from the begging, using those processes to change matter to new forms. And regarding the evolution of  lifeforms, adjusts the design according to its compatibility to the system.

Hapu

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2019, 08:13:39 pm »
The key difference between a computer simulation and modern science's theorized material universe is telos (which the former can have and the latter by convention cannot).

One reason to reject the atheist/materialist perspective is the intuition that without telos the world we live in could never have come into being.
 
The computer simulation hypothesis is a 21st century way to sneak telos back into our cosmology. Sure, we get into an infinite regression if we push too hard. Who wrote the simulation? Might they be in a simulation themselves? if so, who wrote that one? But I think all of that misses the point. OUR reality - the one WE live in - would have telos so all's right with the world.



Williams1001

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2019, 09:36:33 pm »
It does, but I think we're not using the same definition of procedural generation, and aside from that, these kinds of logical models aren't my specialty by any means. But as I understand it, procedural generation is defined as "In computing, procedural generation is a method of creating data algorithmically as opposed to manually, typically through a combination of human-generated assets and algorithms coupled with computer-generated randomness and processing power. In computer graphics, it is commonly used to create textures and 3D models." (wikipedia)

Like how Minecraft builds worlds using set algorithms and a set of existing assets. However in this case the algorithms are largely unknown (We know of a few. We have sciences built around them) and there are no pre-loaded assets, necessitating time. The assets are constantly being changed by variations in the environment driven by physical processes, following laws that behave like extremely complex algorithms. Fractalization may just be another complex algorithm the universe uses to generate the world around you using the materials expanded from the begging, using those processes to change matter to new forms. And regarding the evolution of  lifeforms, adjusts the design according to its compatibility to the system.

i don't know much about computers (especially programming), but i would still think that it would be non-procedural generation. where would the algorithms and the computer generated randomness be generated from? unless if our universe was created using a quantum computer (i wonder how information conservation plays into quantum computing) in another universe or possibly outside of spacetime, which i highly doubt is the case, then i suppose the universe's generation would be procedural.

Km Anu

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2019, 06:07:11 am »
Quote
i don't know much about computers (especially programming), but i would still think that it would be non-procedural generation. where would the algorithms and the computer generated randomness be generated from? unless if our universe was created using a quantum computer (i wonder how information conservation plays into quantum computing) in another universe or possibly outside of spacetime, which i highly doubt is the case, then i suppose the universe's generation would be procedural.

Base forces are the algorithms.  Whatever is happening would be outside of our perspective. It would me a limitation of actual processes substituted by artificial ones. Meaning wherever this is happening is else where because we're in it. It could even be somewhere that "In" and "somewhere" arent a thing

If we accept that everything started from one point, or is a snapshot of an iteration of points, that establishes an initial condition, and the chaotic processes we observe are explainable by definite laws. An algorithm that dictates our reality, or a preset fixed property is exemplified in physical laws, laws of thermodynamics, time could even exist to prevent paradoxes,  or useless repeated processes. This is just an example. Base matter explains pre-programmed assets. Meaning if an object is visited twice at different points in time (assuming it is truely undisturbed) through observation the simulation always recreates the object the same way.

I want to add that I dont think we live in a simulation. I think we are becoming better at creating worlds based on the world we live in, and that producing increasingly accurate pocket worlds and naming them simulations is humanity's way of being afraid of their own ability to emulate nature.


Km Anu

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2019, 06:26:29 am »
Quote
1. Time is merely a measurement of explanation.  Explaining only leaving and arrival "time".  Nothing in the universe has a finite clock to it.  It's merely a construct of understanding.  The universe doesn't answer to time. 

Time is measurable in the OU, and variant in relation to gravity, or perhaps volume perhaps volume. There is a question as to weather or not time and space actually exist or are simple constructs of perception to bind experience, however that would make space-time a repeated instance of subjective construction, most likely driven by another similar force in the OU binding experiences across isolative Intellect. Neither can be proven from where we are right now, living within the perception of everything inside our bodies, since our bodies are a material barrier. The question becomes that of individuality existing or not. If it does, synched time perception validated by material evidence remains a function of the OU. If we have to consider the world is a simulation (which I dont personally) we have to accept that time perception is  likely driven by something real and perceptible,  variant from being to being.

Quote
Dimensions are merely a perspective.  Not particularly a place within a place.  The same matter cannot mirror itself within the same space.

Using a Material universe model, dimensions are difficult to explain spacialy. However it has be presented that the third dimension has been expanded whereas higher dimensions rest "on top" but in some new direction, compressed.

Quote
What really gives validity to this subject is studies showing that strands of dna can be formed by sound alone.  The implications of the power of hyper frequencies is very intriguing!  It's even faster than light!

Can you cite these, that really does sound interesting. Sound is not faster than light, but I may be misunderstanding your meaning. Non matter is faster than light though, and its filling the universe! Key search words for that would be dark matter.

Quote
We don't even know all the forms of energy in the universe, there is a lot to be learned and logic tells me for every type there's a counterpart.  It's just how energy works as it transfers. 

This statement casts a lot of understanding about consumption of energy on another thread, but yes. We perceive some things as non existence unless we can measure an effect from that non existence and deem it matter, like the dark matter I mentioned above. Everything vibrates up and down. If we chose to see up, we perceive matter. If we chose to see down, we notice matter iant there, and can measure that effect by force, although existence also produces force. Here force can be viewed as change or stimulus. Or even Xeper if we're talking about thought.

Quote
At no point do I feel like I am being controlled in daily activities.

Nor do those that use the model. Living in a simulated reality doesnt mean individuality(or ability to effect the environment and therefore the self) is being directed. It means that reality is being generated by definable processes created by something with some purpose for that creation. If I'm in a sandbox programmed to behave like a box of sand, I still have the ability to mold the sand however I want. But I cannot change the sand by some means of presdidigitation to water. I can manipulate the sandbox by flattening the sand and making myself a level field to build, (effect the environment)  but I cant banish the sand with a wave of my hand. There you have built a simulated reality within your reality with definate rules (physics, matter, time in which events take place) existing alongside confined will. Through manipulating the environment you learn ways to change it, and may even find a way to stand up and step out, but for now you're in it trying g to figure all that out.

Quote
If it is a simulation, it's a rather grand simulation.  I assume if we fly away from our "universe" until it becomes a ball of light.  We will see many more of them.  Fly out from that and the cluster becomes a ball, we'll see even more until we reach a point in which we can go no further.  Our idea of what existence is; is fool Hardy and moot at best.  We really don't give it enough credit and just claim to be all knowing.  We're complete fools.

Reminds me of science class in highschool seeing plant cells under a microscope for the first time. It's a universe (plant) made of smaller universes (cells) and it's the basis of most complex life. All things are a form of expression, and those group to make more complex creations. This is all encompassing fractalization and requires a lot of abstract thinking but is useful at times.

Sorry about the multiple edits, I'm using a tablet atm and the keyboard tends to lag :/



« Last Edit: August 24, 2019, 06:51:22 am by Km Anu »

Williams1001

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2019, 12:05:28 am »

Base forces are the algorithms.  Whatever is happening would be outside of our perspective. It would me a limitation of actual processes substituted by artificial ones. Meaning wherever this is happening is else where because we're in it. It could even be somewhere that "In" and "somewhere" arent a thing

the way i see it is what is happening now is outside of our perspectives because it takes time for light to travel to our eyes from what is happening. because of that, what is seen is what already happened less than a fraction of a second ago. which makes the various forces, laws, and things by which reality is shaped and moved exist objectively and independent of our observation of them.


If we accept that everything started from one point, or is a snapshot of an iteration of points, that establishes an initial condition, and the chaotic processes we observe are explainable by definite laws. An algorithm that dictates our reality, or a preset fixed property is exemplified in physical laws, laws of thermodynamics, time could even exist to prevent paradoxes,  or useless repeated processes. This is just an example. Base matter explains pre-programmed assets. Meaning if an object is visited twice at different points in time (assuming it is truely undisturbed) through observation the simulation always recreates the object the same way.


i think it is a possibility that everything started from a single point since inflationary period shows that the universe underwent a violent outward explosion. this can be verified by the existence of the microwave background and the fact that the universe is constantly expanding.
the laws and algorithms by which the universe behaves is perhaps woven into the fabric of existence. thus, by logical necessity, reality doesn't behave paradoxically (although, trying to reconcile the apparent contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics has proven arduous) and that the processes we observe must obey these laws. so i suppose existence itself could be what generates ( maybe somewhat procedural?) reality. as for the base matter, in a simulation or video game on a computer, objects would be recreated the same way every time the character visits them if the objects remained undisturbed since all the objects would have to be reloaded when the character leaves and enters the area. i suppose if reality were a simulation, then this would be a possible explanation to the Copenhagen interpretation, where reality is created upon observation (i do not agree with the Copenhagen interpretation because it is measurement, not observation, that collapses the wave function since measurement effects the experiment).



I want to add that I dont think we live in a simulation. I think we are becoming better at creating worlds based on the world we live in, and that producing increasingly accurate pocket worlds and naming them simulations is humanity's way of being afraid of their own ability to emulate nature.

i too don't think the universe is a simulation. i think there are better arguments that conclude essentially the same idea as the simulation hypothesis, that what we see is not the real version. for example, the idea that we are trapped in our own perceptual bubbles and therefore, we cannot know the objective world and that our minds filter out information and because of that, what we perceive is not entirely real are both better arguments. however, i don't fully agree with those arguments because i think that what we perceive is objectively real, it's just that there is more to the world than what we see and that our senses don't lie, it's just that our brains filter out information. what would we say about the senses if the brain didn't filter out the information?

Km Anu

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2019, 12:48:35 am »
Quote
for example, the idea that we are trapped in our own perceptual bubbles and therefore, we cannot know the objective world and that our minds filter out information and because of that, what we perceive is not entirely real are both better arguments. however, i don't fully agree with those arguments because i think that what we perceive is objectively real, it's just that there is more to the world than what we see and that our senses don't lie, it's just that our brains filter out information. what would we say about the senses if the brain didn't filter out the information?

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. We absolutely cannot directly experience the objective universe, its an observable fact. You can validate that fact at this very moment by closing your eyes and noting your inability to perceive light. In that moment, light does not exist outside of your memory from your perspective. While we may be (and likely are) surrounded by forces or energies that we cannot perceive, it does not mean that perceiving something and thinking about it objectively is the same as direct experience. Also, limited perception serves to validate the position of simulated reality, and strengthens its theory of procedural generation. I feel as though I have not outlined enough how this is done, so a good point of reference can be found here, explaining how it works in a triple A video game title. >>>https://youtu.be/AFISmcAigfY

And I couldnt find the video, but horizon zero dawn uses a system that deepens the game outside of the player's  field of vision, a phenomenon that may have implications in relation to the quantum effect of wave particle duality.

Hapu

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2019, 12:27:28 pm »
I confess I place little credence in the computer simulation model as literal fact. However, as a 21st century metaphor, it intrigues me.

One question to ask would be, in the simulation are we NPCs (Non-Player Characters) or are we Players? To me, an NPC only exists inside the simulation, whereas a Player exists outside the simulation. The Player plugs into the simulation when his/her avatar (the body) draw its first birth, stays plugged in until his/her avatar (the body) takes too much damage, and then unplugs, thus returning his/her attention to the Real World, which emphatically is not Earth.
 
The preceding sentence is in fact a capsule summary of what New Age practitioners believe to be the case. They just use different jargon.

Williams1001

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2019, 07:12:03 pm »


I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. We absolutely cannot directly experience the objective universe, its an observable fact. You can validate that fact at this very moment by closing your eyes and noting your inability to perceive light. In that moment, light does not exist outside of your memory from your perspective. While we may be (and likely are) surrounded by forces or energies that we cannot perceive, it does not mean that perceiving something and thinking about it objectively is the same as direct experience. Also, limited perception serves to validate the position of simulated reality, and strengthens its theory of procedural generation. I feel as though I have not outlined enough how this is done, so a good point of reference can be found here, explaining how it works in a triple A video game title.
And I couldnt find the video, but horizon zero dawn uses a system that deepens the game outside of the player's  field of vision, a phenomenon that may have implications in relation to the quantum effect of wave particle duality.

there are sounds that we can't here (look at the dog whistle for example), there are colors that we can't see (colors outside of the visible spectrum). these colors and sounds exist despite of our inability to see or hear them. so there exists an objective world, a world that doesn't depend on our observation. we only see and access part of this objective reality, but not the entirety of it. we can see some of the colors (the visible light spectrum), and hear some of the sounds, but not all of them because the brain doesn't present us with all of the information that it receives (due to sensory gating and maybe to prevent sensory overload). important information is presented to us and the rest of the information is filtered. so what we end up perceiving is a small portion of reality and not the entire picture (we can't access the entirety of it, but we can change our perspectives and look at different portions of reality and also, what we perceive also depends on our ability to perceive, like deafness, blindness, etc.). if the brain didn't filter information, we would experience reality in a much greater range. all of this is the reason why i say there is more to reality than what firsts meets the eye. because of this, what we can know about the objective world is also limited to some degree. we can still know some objective knowledge. for example, the fact that there is no such thing as a married bachelor is an objective fact that we can know with 100% certainty without the need to observe anything. it is true that knowing objective knowledge is not the same as direct experience. perception is dependent on objective reality and can be used to study some of the nature of objective reality. take a look at the Rorschach test, when we observe the ink blots, we see one shape in it, but we look again and they appear to be in another shape. we constantly see new shapes, yet, one thing about them stays the same and that is the ink blots themselves. so the ink blots themselves exist objectively, their information is first picked up by the senses (which is why i say that the senses don't lie, the brain lies), the brain filters it, and we are presented with an incomplete image, of which, the shapes continue to change because of the many ways we can perceive and because of individuality where people experience the same thing differently, hence there is also a subjective view to what is perceived, what is perceived has some sort of connotation to it. procedural generation then, may be the process by which our brains construct what we end up perceiving using the information obtained by the senses from objective reality and what is perceived can be described in terms of a simulation, hologram, etc. so i agree with some of your ideas, i just think that objective reality isn't a simulation or subjective in nature, just what is perceived isn't complete and comes from an objective source.

Km Anu

Re: Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2019, 10:44:57 am »
Quote
The preceding sentence is in fact a capsule summary of what New Age practitioners believe to be the case. They just use different jargon.

Exactly! The hypothesis validates existing concepts and presents the observer with a system of symbols very relevant to the modern era, validating metaphysical concepts with scientific and statistic data. The "validity" of simulated reality theories is irrelevant, their ability to help an individual perceive their world as a sandbox with respawns is the value.

Quote
there are sounds that we can't here

Hear*. The ability to hear is how you perceive sounds.

Quote
(look at the dog whistle for example)

You cannot hear a dog whistle, so you cannot perceive the vibrations it makes.

Quote
there are colors that we can't see

Sight is the ability to perceive light. replace see with perceive.

Lets take these insights and apply them to your 2nd to latest post.

Quote
for example, the idea that we are trapped in our own perceptual bubbles and therefore, we cannot know the objective world and that our minds filter out information and because of that, what we perceive is not entirely real are both better arguments. however, I don't fully agree with those arguments because I think that what we perceive is objectively real, it's just that there is more to the world than what we see and that our senses don't lie, it's just that our brains filter out information. what would we say about the senses if the brain didn't filter out the information?

Here lies the fallacy. You do not live in the objective world, your body does. Your mind is inside your body, and your perception is a product of your mind relaying information to your "self." When you touch something, you touch it with your body, an ASPECT of self but not its entirety. As a consciousness you will never directly experience the objective universe. Actually, that isn't true. You did when you came into being(Hey I exist in the world) , and you will when you die (hey, I stopped existing in the world, maybe.), but other than that I've never smelled or seen or heard anything with my consciousness, I've used my bodily senses to accomplish that task. So if you are contained within your body, and your body is in the world, literally always touching it, then the only aspect of your being that touches the objective universe (or reality) is your body. If you're confined to a body, then you are inside of a perceptual bubble that is shaped like a body.

Quote
I think that what we perceive is objectively real

Yeah it might be, its kind of hard to be sure when you're in a bubble.

Quote
because the brain doesn't present us with all of the information that it receives

That's true, but those things aren't outside of our perception at all. Ever lose something to discover its in your hand? or right in front of you? That's something that your brain filtered from your attention re-entering your attention because you willed it to. However, the implication that you are making is that your brain actually receive WAY more but doesn't show it to you. It does, welcome to the concept of the subconscious, deep mind, total mind, gnosis, trance states, it all depends on who you're talking to. Its everything outside of what you choose to place your focus on, that focus, memory, and personality constructing consciousness. This is an opinion, but not a new one.

Have you ever heard of a mantis shrimp? They are an animal that can see more colors than us. The colors exist in the OU, but we have no perception of them because we lack the necessary hardware to perceive them. Our brain doesn't filter them out, we never see them.
Here is some further reading on the mantis shrimp. VVV
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6169/411

Quote
we can't access the entirety of it, but we can change our perspectives and look at different portions of reality and also, what we perceive also depends on our ability to perceive, like deafness, blindness, etc.

Yeah, in the present moment you can consciously shift your perspective. You can simply choose to experience something else. This isn't a change in incoming information, its deciding to turn your head and look at something else in the sense of physical perception. Thought perception is a little more complex. Simplified for brevity, people either view things as "I want that" or "I do not want that." Conflicting political view? "I don't want that." or "I don't believe that." 100 dollars? "I want that." Working overtime for 100 dollars? "I don't want that." we decide if we want a thing or not based on our ego. Its like your personality, opinions about your memories, morality, culture, family beliefs, mental health, past experiences in genera to include trauma, etc. Its what makes you you (without the body). Everything inside that makes you unique, Or at least for this conversation it is. You shift you perspective by transforming the ego. So, from above, I want the 100 dollars. I don't want to work extra. Hey, a paradox! The mind will make a decision based on the ego. If you're over worked, you're less likely to be able to change "I don't want that," to "I want that." But if you can, that is a perspective shift.

Quote
if the brain didn't filter information, we would experience reality in a much greater range

No. I can't actually demonstrate the sensation to you, but this can be done in "Gnosis" or some definition of trance state. All consciousness may be considered, but only in its previous states. If by perception you mean perception of the self by turning the conscious downwards towards the subconscious, you're wrong. And if the brain did not filter information, we would simply be unable to focus. In fact, as a person that experiences ADHD-PI, I can tell you that when the ability to direct focus is lost and the subconscious is in control, it makes you just sit there. You actually experience reality at all other than being in it, the mind just spins in circles like a loading screen.

Quote
procedural generation then, may be the process by which our brains construct what we end up perceiving using the information obtained by the senses from objective reality and what is perceived can be described in terms of a simulation, hologram, etc. so I agree with some of your ideas, I just think that objective reality isn't a simulation or subjective in nature, just what is perceived isn't complete and comes from an objective source.

That is very different than the concepts I have presented. That puts the simulation inside the mechanism that interprets(the mind). I am framing the O.U itself as the simulation, not your perception of it. And what I'm suggesting is that the simulation isn't anywhere you aren't looking. The concept of non-existent matter is nothing new to science, in fact many great minds believe on its smallest perceivable level, particles exhibit wave properties, fluctuating from a pole of non-existent to existence. More information may be found here VVV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality