(Stillness in the Storm Editor) The notion that we are living in a computer simulation has gained increasing popularity of late. It suggests that everything we think, feel, touch, see and interact with is actually code in an ultra-advanced computer program run by an equally advanced alien civilization.
An Organized Universe
It sounds like a compelling idea for several reasons.
When we look at how the universe is organized, from the very small to the very large, there are systems of motion and energy expressed in scales. The Scaling Law Nassim Haramein derived from observations of energy as a function of radius demonstrates that the same general geometric relationships (proportions) are repeated throughout the cosmos.
Abstract. From observational data and our theoretical analysis, we demonstrate that a scaling law can be written for all organized matter utilizing the Schwarzschild condition, describing cosmological to sub-atomic structures. Of interest are solutions involving torque and Coriolis effects in the field equations. Significant observations have led to theoretical and experimental advancement describing systems undergoing gravitational collapse, including vacuum interactions. The universality of this scaling law suggests an underlying polarizable structured vacuum of mini white holes/black holes. We briefly discuss the manner in which this structured vacuum can be described in terms of resolution of scale analogous to a fractal-like scaling as a means of renormalization at the Planck distance. Finally, we describe a new horizon we term the “spin horizon” which is defined as a result of a spacetime torque producing boundary conditions in a magnetohydrodynamic structure. — SCALE UNIFICATION – A UNIVERSAL SCALING LAW FOR ORGANIZED MATTER, Nassim Haramein, Michael Hyson, E. A. Rauscher.
Wading through the science lingo, what is essentially being described here is that the same geometry (a torus) appears at all scales of universal expression. The hydrogen atom has a toroidal structure. The human body produces a toroidal electromagnetic field via the piezoelectric liquid crystal oscillator of the heart. The Earth’s magnetosphere is toroidal. The Solar System is Toroidal. And so on.
| Torus Geometry at small and large scales. Top middle, hydrogen atom. |
These observations describe organization, at massive levels, all throughout the known universe. Everywhere we look in the cosmos, we see a precisely unfolding dynamic of organization, which mainstream science still hasn’t really come to terms with. In other words, why would the same toroidal shape be reflected at all scales, from the very small, the average, to the massive, if it wasn’t a governing principle of some kind? This trend compels some to conclude we are living in a simulation. But as we’ll discover, there is a much deeper and more inclusive explanation available.
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics involved in the study of how slight changes in deterministic systems compound over time, making long-term prediction impossible. But unlike the name suggests, it is a theory based on the premise that if one knew all the initial conditions of the universe, they would be able to predict everything that happens thereafter. That is, the universe is not chaotic at all, it is quite predictable, we simply lack a complete understanding
While we could debate the validity of such a premise, the important point to note is that it is a theory founded on holism—although that isn’t explicitly stated. By this I mean, slight changes have holistic effects, therefore, everything must be interconnected via some process—that is the supposition behind chaos theory. Thus, the universe isn’t chaotic at all, it just appears chaotic because our capacity to track all causal events and to determine what it looked like in the beginning is lacking.
And there are more examples of universal organization, leading some to conclude that antiquated theories about the universe being fundamentally chaotic and random are in error. But most of the big thinkers that have promulgated these theorems are not of the opinion that there is a Creator, a supreme and ultimate intelligence that caused the universe to begin unfolding. As a result, a somewhat short-sighted, yet interesting theory has emerged—Simulation Hypothesis.
Simulation Hypothesis vs. Creationism or Intelligent Design (a Conscious Universe)
We’ve already covered the key components of this theory, but for the sake of discussion, let’s list them again.
Simulation Hypothesis contends that the universe, as we know it, is a vast computer simulation, with each one of us as stimulants or variables of random elements able to change the system from within—to a certain extent. The universe is organized by the rules of the computer program, but the stimulants provide a random factor.
Now let’s compare this with a theist, creationist or intelligent design theory.
Note: I will refer to a universe founded on consciousness as the prima materia, as Creationism Intelligent Design, or Hermetic—but none of these should be confused with any religious belief or dogma, despite the fact they are somewhat related. There are vast differences in dogmatic creationism and theist science, hermeticism, and the like.
The creator of the universe, at some eternally distant moment in the past, made reality as we know it, with a built-in system of rules generally known as Natural Law. This reality is ultimately an illusion when compared to the primal reality of the Creator, namely because the creator is an infinite, absolute and eternal being, whereas the creation itself is finite, localized, and time-space conditioned. Within the universe are aspects of the creator, we know of as souls that were given life by “life-giving breath,” who can change the creation from within via free will. The universe, in this theory, is organized by the rules of Natural Law, with each soul contributing the random element via free will.
Sound familiar?
Simulation theory suggests that the ultimate creators of the simulated universe are aliens. Creation theory suggests that the ultimate creator is a perfect transcendent personality. All the remaining components of the theory are almost identical. Computers have rigid programming rules that cannot be broken. Creation has Natural Laws that cannot be broken. The computer has stimulants (people) that cause changes in the system. The creationist universe has free will (souls) that cause change via volitional actions or choice.
Simply put, Simulated Hypothesis is an atheistic euphemism for creationism or intelligent design. If you can’t buy into a belief that the universe was created by “God” then you have an excellent replacement that is essentially the same. Instead of a perfect god that has a plan for each of his children, we have a mysterious alien species that created the simulation.
But there are some major differences between theist theories and Simulation Hypothesis. For starters, theist theories, especially those that refute original sin and a hateful god, center around the belief that a human being is a soul, growing more creator-like through successive incarnations. Within this viewpoint, your life has deep, all-encompassing, transcendent meaning—the creator itself needs your soul to reach maturity, just as much as every other aspect of the universe. Doesn’t that sound encourage?
Conversely, Simulation Hypothesis is a variant of nihilism and atheism. It does away with the aforementioned observation related to grand universal organization by saying we’re in a computer simulation. Does your life have meaning? Maybe, but that depends on the character and nature of these advanced aliens that created the simulation. Does your life have purpose? Maybe, but it could just as easily have no meaning at all—what is outside the alien computer server? Our entire reality could be nothing more than a computer game that was left on by accident. Ultimately, Simulation Hypothesis incorporates universal organization but robs it of any personally uplifting and rewarding value. It’s another randomness theory that seeks to “debunk” transcendent meaning, saying we’re all just simulants in a computer game.
Who or What Created the Universe?
For confirmation of this supposition that Simulation Hypothesis is appealing to those who can’t or won’t entertain creationist theories, consider this quote from Musk in response to the question “is there some master intelligence [that created the simulation]?”
“I think probably not because then you have to say: Where does the master intelligence come from? So it sort of begs the question. So I think really you can explain this with the fundamental laws of physics. You know its complex phenomenon from simple elements.” – Source
Although Musk doesn’t say he is an atheist, the answer he provides details a belief system that denies the existence of an intelligent creator—suggesting intelligence, in general, is simply the laws of physics, “complexphenomenon from simple elements.” To be clear, I am not casting judgment on those who reject creationist views—I was an atheist for 28 years of my life, so I know from first-hand experience how this belief alters the perception of reality, just like any belief. But I am citing presuppositions related to the belief system.
I am asserting that the intellectual and philosophic challenges that life poses, particularly: Who are we? Where do we come from? What is the ultimate purpose and meaning of life, the universe, and everything?—are not answered by Simulation Hypothesis and those who ascribe to nihilistic atheism.
More to the point, the rejection of observed phenomena, namely the meaningfulness and purposefulness of life and existence, can’t be dismissed by saying “it’s all random.” That isn’t a viable explanation that materially incorporates observed phenomenon into a holistic theory. How does “randomness” explain these phenomena? The answer is it doesn’t—at least no one has been able to provide a truly viable explanation that it does.
Musk reveals the flaw in this theory by in that there can’t be a master intelligence, ” … because then you have to ask: Where does the master intelligence come from?” There has to be a creator to create this “intelligence.” He skirts around this issue by citing the laws of physics and the theory that complex phenomenon comes from simple elements. But this theory hasn’t been proven, despite decades of researchers attempting to do so.
In one example the rationale can be deduced from the observation that reproduction of some species occurs through coupling; people come from other people. In this way, it’s logical to conclude that an ultimate theory of the universe can’t be founded on intelligence without also wondering where it came from.
A transcendent creator solves this paradox provided by Simulation Hypothesis because ultimately the creator is both creature and creator, the observer and the object observed. Hence a transcendent personality. We could discuss this one point at length, but suffice it to say, the great thinkers of the past acknowledge the paradox Musk raised in his commentary, concluding the universe must be personal and not mechanistic. The solution for this seeming inconsistency is that reality, at its ultimate level, is a singularity, a grand harmony of oneness.
Consider that within a dream or imagined reality, we can observe an envisioned scene as a single observer (a person) while also having the ability to watch and experience all other objects in the scene. Within our imagination, we are everything and possess omniscience, as well as the potential for omnipotence. Therefore, within our own minds, we can create an analog that is equivalent to the transcendent nature of the Creator. In other words, the best way to explain the ultimate reality of existence, within a creationist view, is that the universe is a dream within the mind of the creator, and we are dreamers within that dream. This explination incorporates all phenonena, unlike nihlistic atheism that can only maintain itself if it throws whole bodies of evidence out the window.
Side note: It might seem hard to accept the fact that science, on the whole, has missed the mark so badly when it comes to addressing valid questions about the nature of consciousness and existence—questions usually answered by religion. But if you look at how science, at present, tends to reject any phenomena that draw into question established dogma and doctrine, then it is easy to understand the dilemma. Science is chiefly the method of discerning principles of reality via careful study of phenomena. This means that all phenomena should be studied. A scientific organization that dismisses a valid observation or phenomenon because it goes against established thinking is no longer science-centric, it is religious or institutional. Thus, when you consider how science has operated for at least the past 100 years, it becomes clear that anything that doesn’t fit into the accepted box is rejected. This is where we find ourselves today. Instead of humanity benefiting from progressively accurate and precise principles of reality, whole domains of existence are dismissed. If knowledge is a completed puzzle, and science tells us how the pieces fit together, then clearly throwing entire portions of the puzzle away won’t help us in getting a complete picture.
Simulation Hypothesis: Intelligent Design-lite
The theory I am putting forth is that those who ascribe to Simulation Hypothesis do so because it is a theory they can buy into without having to let go of the rejection of an intelligent creator—because it is a theory of intelligent design. They get all the benefits of an intelligent universe, from personal life purpose in the game to transcendence of the material world, without having to explore ideas of a spiritual creator. But there are some apparent inconsistencies to consider.
Simulation theory, like other materialist theorems, has built-in circular logic. For example, if the universe was created by an alien civilization, who created the aliens? Musk’s answer alludes to the fact that there is no “master intelligence” and that intelligence itself emerged from “the laws of physics.” But that isn’t a real answer, just a diversion, and it leads to the next question, who or what created these laws?
A similar discrepancy can be found in the Big Bang Theory: if the universe was created 16 billion years ago from nothing, who or what caused that event to be set in motion? Did the fundamental laws of physics exist before the material of the universe expanded? If so, what existed before? And why is it that conservation of momentum and energy—sacred principles within physics—ceased to exist at the moment of the big bang?
Plus there’s another problem, what is the ultimate purpose of the universe? Within materialist viewpoints, there is no purpose.
The belief is that everything we see unfolded randomly, whether in a Big Bang universe or a Simulated reality. It’s a convenient yet mind destroying tactic to avoid the harder question, what if everything in life has meaning!? What if randomness isn’t valid at all, and everything we think, feel, and do has grand cosmic meanings that reveal universal values? The viability of the latter question is born out by those brave enough to entertain these notions. It seems that when we consider all meanings and suss out a tapestry for explaining all phenomenon, the effect is the development of a personally uplifting, and socially sustaining view of reality—the theist view. And it should also be said that theists were the ones who founded the United States of America and the governance system of a republic democracy. Granted, this isn’t a perfect system, but it was one of the first of its kind that acknowledged the inherent rights of all people, equally.
On this question of is the universe a simulated reality, a computer program? I think the answer is, maybe.
Simulation and the Hermetic Universe
Studying hermetic tradition and Natural Law describes a universe that is just as organized as a simulated reality, but with fewer inconsistencies and poor logic. All the key elements are there, from definite rules and principles (Mentalism, Correspondence, Vibration, Polarity, Rhythm, Causality, Gender) except there aren’t any irreconcilable paradoxes. Interestingly enough, the hermetic universe—which, by the way, is effectively equivalent to a great many other ultimate belief systems about reality—has been described as a dream within the mind of the creator.
Everything, from time, space, matter, energy, electromagnetism, gravity—literally everything—is a thought-form within the mind of the All, governed by rules in dimension. So if we substitute the word thought-form for computer code, we’re essentially discussing the same overarching concept.
In other words, reality is—for all intents and purposes—a simulation, just not one buzzing inside of an alien computer. At least this is the most logical explanation I found thus far.
The Search for Truth
One interesting point I’ll leave you with is that ultimately what makes the most sense, what explains all the observable phenomenon, in reality, is usually the simplest and true. This is what forms the basis of Occam’s Razor. The only difference is that unlike reality, the human mind can dissociate. It can pick and choose what to accept and in the process distort perception and the product of scientific study, knowledge. From this distorted place, we can concoct all sorts of theories that feel true from our limited point of view. Thus in our search for ultimate truths, we must not fall into the trap of thinking we know it all. Untested or unvetted assumptions will compound into significant errors that eventually make any resulting theory of everything untenable.
Errors in thinking plague nearly every field of science on Earth today. Assumptions about reality, which have not been properly verified, become sacred cows that block the imagination in its ability to transcend such limitations. We tend not to think outside of the boxes we place on our consciousness. The rejection of an ultimate creator—without a valid cause—is one of the biggest blocks to overcome. Nietzsche declared the death of God, not as something to be proud of, but as a dire warning. That it would lead to untold suffering, which in my view, was an extremely accurate prediction.
All this being said, I bear no ill will or judgment for anyone who entertains materialist theories of creation. As I said earlier, I spent most of my life in that camp, and combined with my inquisitive nature, have explored a lot of these ideas looking for the best one to explain everything. Eventually, I had to set aside my atheistic views because they just weren’t good enough to explain everything I was observing.
Ultimately, if we want the truth, we need to follow it wherever it leads. But the good news is, there’s no rush—at least when it comes to the big truths of reality and existence. So don’t feel pressured to swap one set of untested beliefs for another. Instead, explore these ideas like a child explores a bedtime story, just be honest with yourself when they no longer provide answers to the questions your asking.
– Justin
by Anna LeMind, June 6th 2015
The idea that we may be living in a computer simulation is not new. It seems that it just got more support as Elon Musk, one of the greatest visionaries and inventors of our time, said in a recent interview that we could actually be characters in a highly advanced civilization’s video game.
- There is a high probability that the human race will go extinct before reaching a so-called posthuman stage of development (i.e., being capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations); or
- Posthuman civilizations are very unlikely to run ancestor simulations; or
- The human civilization is almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Send an email to [email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.
August 21st, 2016: Minor grammar corrections were made throughout the introductory text of this article.
April 24th, 2018: Additions were made to the introductory portion of this article.
Source:
With the “simulation hypothesis” getting more and more attention, people need to consider the following scenario (which is indistinguishable from the simulation hypothesis from our position in “reality”)
What if we are god, along with everything else? To make that clearer: what if the eternal, omnipresent entity known as God by religious folk of all stripes, is simply a superintelligent being, and what we see around us springs from the “mind of god”
To put it yet another way: the only thing that truly “exists” is God; the universe exists within the mind/dream/imagination of God.
What does that make us?
Our meat puppets (bodies) exist as a projection in God’s mind, and our souls are essentially God’s interface with the world it created within its mind. When we experience something, God then also experiences it; that is the purpose of life, the physical world, and existence itself- to provide God with a means of “experiencing”.
I think you’re spot on. The “code” simulation hypothesis folks talk about is effectively the laws of creation. However, I’ve observed that many who proffer the simulation hypothesis theory lack the epistemological understanding of how mathematical modes and computer code relate to reality itself. Simply put, the map is not the territory. Just because you can model reality with computer code doesn’t mean the code IS reality. If those who subscribe to this theory understood this relationship, they’d realize that they were, in fact, developing a scientific case for the existence of a divinely perfect and infinite being IMO.