the mix of design and random mutant manifestation:
people are creative. there are a lot of things in the world of Earth that were by design obviously, all the things that humans have made, and built, but was the creation of Earth itself by design? or was it an accident of fate?
if life on Earth is a simulation, in the sense that some people are not real, and are actually simulants, that is, what we see as a human might not be truly representative of a conscious other being, how were they created? were they gestated in the great unconscious, built from the memories and subconscious imagination of all involved? fragments of conversations, actions, a dose of personal spirit, randomly mutated and mixed together, become manifest in the world of Earth?
perhaps some things that you might suppose were created, were not, and existed always from time zero, like human itself, trees, houses, etc. if we suppose that material objects are actually only mental constructs in actuality, and by the fact that physical motion is not real, the whole mechanical motion in a material universe, this model, it could only be a virtual construct, does that not lead to the possibility that things could be altered very quickly? how fast does the mind change? perhaps so fast that it is, in a sense, out of control, not unlike a dream.
and if the simulation were completely by design, wouldn't it be a better simulation?
CLEARCHARGE
Showing posts with label simulated reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label simulated reality. Show all posts
Saturday, January 7, 2017
Saturday, November 26, 2016
On the Concept of Simulated Humans
on the concept of simulated humans:
let us steer a middling course between the two extremes, of one, the solipsistic nightmare where no other human you see in your world is real, is in fact simulated, and the other, that everyone you meet is a real person, that what you see and hear, in person, is an accurate representation of another person somewhere else in reality. so we have a situation where some people are real, some are not, we are dealing with a confusing world where both cases exist.
what would you call a simulated human anyway? an illusion, a simulant, a robot, what? in any case, you cannot escape the conclusion that even though a simulated human may not be real, it is probably in some or most part just like someone real however. though perhaps some simulated people are what some people merely imagine a person could be like and that no one is really like that?
if we could categorize type and made a careful study of different personalities, well, we might say this simulant is a lot like so and so, who is real, and a little like someone else too, and partly like someone's imagination. maybe some simulated people are completely like someone real, yet we never meet the real person on whom it is based. it's like meeting a proxy of a real person, is it not? and how many types of personalities are there? maybe we could then guess or have an idea of how many real people there are.
the recent expansion in computing suggests perhaps there is more order than there is in reality. we can deduce that because computers now exist, there is something "computer" about reality, and always was, as a base assumption. however, that this whole concept of simulated humans is so strange, so weird, so not ideal, suggests that there was no orderly power behind the creation of all this on Earth, that there is something of chaos extent in the world.
of course, it is interesting to guess the numbers. what is the ratio of real to simulated humans? if it's extreme, it would not be that confusing, it would be like either they're all real, or they're all simulated! but what if it were 1:1? or 1:10? how do we work out who is real and who is simulated? if we assume Earth is more false and the ratio is more like 1:10,000 then we might never meet anyone real in our lifetime on Earth, yet they still exist!
CLEARCHARGE
let us steer a middling course between the two extremes, of one, the solipsistic nightmare where no other human you see in your world is real, is in fact simulated, and the other, that everyone you meet is a real person, that what you see and hear, in person, is an accurate representation of another person somewhere else in reality. so we have a situation where some people are real, some are not, we are dealing with a confusing world where both cases exist.
what would you call a simulated human anyway? an illusion, a simulant, a robot, what? in any case, you cannot escape the conclusion that even though a simulated human may not be real, it is probably in some or most part just like someone real however. though perhaps some simulated people are what some people merely imagine a person could be like and that no one is really like that?
if we could categorize type and made a careful study of different personalities, well, we might say this simulant is a lot like so and so, who is real, and a little like someone else too, and partly like someone's imagination. maybe some simulated people are completely like someone real, yet we never meet the real person on whom it is based. it's like meeting a proxy of a real person, is it not? and how many types of personalities are there? maybe we could then guess or have an idea of how many real people there are.
the recent expansion in computing suggests perhaps there is more order than there is in reality. we can deduce that because computers now exist, there is something "computer" about reality, and always was, as a base assumption. however, that this whole concept of simulated humans is so strange, so weird, so not ideal, suggests that there was no orderly power behind the creation of all this on Earth, that there is something of chaos extent in the world.
of course, it is interesting to guess the numbers. what is the ratio of real to simulated humans? if it's extreme, it would not be that confusing, it would be like either they're all real, or they're all simulated! but what if it were 1:1? or 1:10? how do we work out who is real and who is simulated? if we assume Earth is more false and the ratio is more like 1:10,000 then we might never meet anyone real in our lifetime on Earth, yet they still exist!
CLEARCHARGE
Sunday, October 2, 2016
The Random Inflated Simulated World
the random inflated simulated world:
to begin with, the world as a whole, or the universe, or reality, was much simpler, people were alone, if you like, but communications, the propagation of sounds and images, and later meetings, rapidly inflated the world, or the unconscious at least. if i state that i began alone, but met several people the first day, and lived eventually on earth, with a purported population of millions, you can see the course of history.
if we consider that earth is a simulation of some kind, that all is not quite as it seems, it is not quite "real", that some facts are not true, that indeed some people are not true, what of these people populating it? now false facts are easy to manufacture, the imagination works constantly, people are crazy, to be blunt, and dreams happen, and to acknowledge that birth on earth began itself as an awakening from a dream about earth, it is therefore easy to be sceptical about much of earth and the people populating it. what makes up a person or what represents them? a certain personality, emotions, and things they've said or done, their own personal light and sound perhaps, and what you might call a certain flavour or mood to a person, indeed how do we recognize people in dreams if we see them but indistinctly if not by the flavour they give off? if we posit that not all people we see and meet are representations of real people then what are they but random composites of real people, saying and doing things that real people have done plus perhaps some random causal factor? they are not "real" but they are just like someone real or several real people. perhaps some of these people have a biography, they are consistent, or perhaps some people, that we only see for a minute say, walking past us on the street, never appear again, and have none!
assume that the general speed of the world is fast, change can be almost instantaneous, communication is not perfect, for errors and mutation exist, giving rise to the random nature of the universe, and our own eyesight and hearing, or our projection field, is prone to inflation and errors too, all give credence to this argument of a simulated world. it wasn't meant to be this, but this is what happened.
CLEARCHARGE
to begin with, the world as a whole, or the universe, or reality, was much simpler, people were alone, if you like, but communications, the propagation of sounds and images, and later meetings, rapidly inflated the world, or the unconscious at least. if i state that i began alone, but met several people the first day, and lived eventually on earth, with a purported population of millions, you can see the course of history.
if we consider that earth is a simulation of some kind, that all is not quite as it seems, it is not quite "real", that some facts are not true, that indeed some people are not true, what of these people populating it? now false facts are easy to manufacture, the imagination works constantly, people are crazy, to be blunt, and dreams happen, and to acknowledge that birth on earth began itself as an awakening from a dream about earth, it is therefore easy to be sceptical about much of earth and the people populating it. what makes up a person or what represents them? a certain personality, emotions, and things they've said or done, their own personal light and sound perhaps, and what you might call a certain flavour or mood to a person, indeed how do we recognize people in dreams if we see them but indistinctly if not by the flavour they give off? if we posit that not all people we see and meet are representations of real people then what are they but random composites of real people, saying and doing things that real people have done plus perhaps some random causal factor? they are not "real" but they are just like someone real or several real people. perhaps some of these people have a biography, they are consistent, or perhaps some people, that we only see for a minute say, walking past us on the street, never appear again, and have none!
assume that the general speed of the world is fast, change can be almost instantaneous, communication is not perfect, for errors and mutation exist, giving rise to the random nature of the universe, and our own eyesight and hearing, or our projection field, is prone to inflation and errors too, all give credence to this argument of a simulated world. it wasn't meant to be this, but this is what happened.
CLEARCHARGE
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Consider Simulation Earth
consider simulation earth:
"it's called naive realism but it's completely what everyone has to go by in life here on earth. you have to accept the external world as a model in principle at least, you know, you have to learn to navigate from A to B on the planet, and assume everyone you see is a person you could interact with."
"what i always had a problem with, even when i was a kid when i more or less accepted everything, is this, i see things in front of me, you know, really at a distance, well, are they really things in front of me or is that just like a physical part of my eyesight, my field of vision, in front of me, and could it really be both? and then when i teleported, i knew physical motion was not real, so the world had to have some kind of virtual aspect to it."
"yeah, there's a kind of duality between naive realism and science against what's thought of as magic, don't you think? it's like, you teleport, well honey, mechanical motion and the external world were never real, so hey, why not? it's like you're watching a 3D YouTube video that just jumped to another scene, right? you're walking along and you suddenly teleport to another part of town. clairvoyance and telepathy? well, you just pick up what the people actually right next to you like forever because nobody really moves in real space think. objects not behaving scientifically? well, nobody said the laws of motion work perfectly, especially when people are emotional. telekinesis and mind over matter? well, as idealism has it, the world is mostly a mental construct. shapeshifting? well, i've had different bodies in my dreams. no big deal."
"yeah but still, what i'm saying, when you realize that earth is not what it seems, that it must have some virtual aspect at the bare minimum, i mean, you go a bit wild in what you think. right, if you dismiss solipsism to start with, the concept that you're the only one in existence, as too depressing for one, and two, it doesn't seem likely that my own unconscious could produce this much on its own, there must be other people, and then on the other end of the scale, you dismiss naive realism, that everyone you see is a real person, that there are billions of people on earth, i mean, even if one person you saw on the street were not real, was a fault in the system, that would deny naive realism, wouldn't it? so then you try to strike a median view, so let's say just under half the people are real, you still need a lot of people to produce all this media, right? but then you think, is there really just one simulation earth running? maybe it's like most people are still in alpha version, i'm running beta version, and there are details that are different in different versions, though fundamentally the simulations are the same, like, i think Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States but in alpha version, Abraham Lincoln doesn't even exist, or something like that. and then you think, well, maybe some other countries are completely virtual, you know, maybe you shouldn't go there, it would strain the simulation. and you think, maybe all the Russians are in like the Russian sector of real space, maybe the English speakers are spread out. how are real people connected and what data flows through, anyway?"
"yeah, but doesn't it make you paranoid about the virtual people, the NPC's, the non player characters? is there any control over them? i mean, it's like someone a long time ago imagined someone, someone who never exists really, and then eventually when simulation earth is up and running, they've manifested as a character in it. how else could they have got there?"
"well no, in the end, they're not real, they're like some kind of electronic configuration. i mean, it's not like they're external demons trying to enter this reality!"
"in a paranoid fit one night, that's exactly what i thought. it's scary, people that are not real, like, taking over reality."
"i mean the unconscious produces details, the imagination constructs personal like data or something, it's probably harmless. just think of them as robots."
"well that just leads to the question, is it programmable in some way? can we somehow break into the system and change the outcome? code the Matrix? you know, if it's like an electronic arcade game, can we cheat?"
"yeah, there's lots of stuff on that, you know, the law of attraction, consciously concentrating on outcomes, writing stuff down, and so on. and there's a quote from Star Wars: Episode I, Qui-Gon Jinn says to Anakin Skywalker, "your focus determines your reality." but what you said about an arcade game, i was thinking, if in an advanced amusement arcade you had the most convincing virtual 3D reality game, wouldn't there be a moment you think to yourself when you took the headset or whatever off, this is just what the regular world is?"
"and would people take life so seriously if they thought of it as just an arcade game, a virtual experience? but i guess for now, there's nothing else. i mean, it's not like there ever is an external world that's real, that there's a room there where my brain is and there are plugs leading into the computer, no, it's completely cleanly invisibly wired, you know? i haven't got the best memory. i would say i have impressions and ideas of what life was before earth but nothing i can definitively say is a memory. it's not convincing to me the theory that time is a linear chain of progressive change, that the future will keep being different from the past. i don't think that's the case. i think it's most likely that when i die, game over on earth, i just go back to what it was before, you know?"
CLEARCHARGE
"it's called naive realism but it's completely what everyone has to go by in life here on earth. you have to accept the external world as a model in principle at least, you know, you have to learn to navigate from A to B on the planet, and assume everyone you see is a person you could interact with."
"what i always had a problem with, even when i was a kid when i more or less accepted everything, is this, i see things in front of me, you know, really at a distance, well, are they really things in front of me or is that just like a physical part of my eyesight, my field of vision, in front of me, and could it really be both? and then when i teleported, i knew physical motion was not real, so the world had to have some kind of virtual aspect to it."
"yeah, there's a kind of duality between naive realism and science against what's thought of as magic, don't you think? it's like, you teleport, well honey, mechanical motion and the external world were never real, so hey, why not? it's like you're watching a 3D YouTube video that just jumped to another scene, right? you're walking along and you suddenly teleport to another part of town. clairvoyance and telepathy? well, you just pick up what the people actually right next to you like forever because nobody really moves in real space think. objects not behaving scientifically? well, nobody said the laws of motion work perfectly, especially when people are emotional. telekinesis and mind over matter? well, as idealism has it, the world is mostly a mental construct. shapeshifting? well, i've had different bodies in my dreams. no big deal."
"yeah but still, what i'm saying, when you realize that earth is not what it seems, that it must have some virtual aspect at the bare minimum, i mean, you go a bit wild in what you think. right, if you dismiss solipsism to start with, the concept that you're the only one in existence, as too depressing for one, and two, it doesn't seem likely that my own unconscious could produce this much on its own, there must be other people, and then on the other end of the scale, you dismiss naive realism, that everyone you see is a real person, that there are billions of people on earth, i mean, even if one person you saw on the street were not real, was a fault in the system, that would deny naive realism, wouldn't it? so then you try to strike a median view, so let's say just under half the people are real, you still need a lot of people to produce all this media, right? but then you think, is there really just one simulation earth running? maybe it's like most people are still in alpha version, i'm running beta version, and there are details that are different in different versions, though fundamentally the simulations are the same, like, i think Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States but in alpha version, Abraham Lincoln doesn't even exist, or something like that. and then you think, well, maybe some other countries are completely virtual, you know, maybe you shouldn't go there, it would strain the simulation. and you think, maybe all the Russians are in like the Russian sector of real space, maybe the English speakers are spread out. how are real people connected and what data flows through, anyway?"
"yeah, but doesn't it make you paranoid about the virtual people, the NPC's, the non player characters? is there any control over them? i mean, it's like someone a long time ago imagined someone, someone who never exists really, and then eventually when simulation earth is up and running, they've manifested as a character in it. how else could they have got there?"
"well no, in the end, they're not real, they're like some kind of electronic configuration. i mean, it's not like they're external demons trying to enter this reality!"
"in a paranoid fit one night, that's exactly what i thought. it's scary, people that are not real, like, taking over reality."
"i mean the unconscious produces details, the imagination constructs personal like data or something, it's probably harmless. just think of them as robots."
"well that just leads to the question, is it programmable in some way? can we somehow break into the system and change the outcome? code the Matrix? you know, if it's like an electronic arcade game, can we cheat?"
"yeah, there's lots of stuff on that, you know, the law of attraction, consciously concentrating on outcomes, writing stuff down, and so on. and there's a quote from Star Wars: Episode I, Qui-Gon Jinn says to Anakin Skywalker, "your focus determines your reality." but what you said about an arcade game, i was thinking, if in an advanced amusement arcade you had the most convincing virtual 3D reality game, wouldn't there be a moment you think to yourself when you took the headset or whatever off, this is just what the regular world is?"
"and would people take life so seriously if they thought of it as just an arcade game, a virtual experience? but i guess for now, there's nothing else. i mean, it's not like there ever is an external world that's real, that there's a room there where my brain is and there are plugs leading into the computer, no, it's completely cleanly invisibly wired, you know? i haven't got the best memory. i would say i have impressions and ideas of what life was before earth but nothing i can definitively say is a memory. it's not convincing to me the theory that time is a linear chain of progressive change, that the future will keep being different from the past. i don't think that's the case. i think it's most likely that when i die, game over on earth, i just go back to what it was before, you know?"
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, March 9, 2013
One or the Other or a Bit of Both?
one or the other or a bit of both:
about earth, there are the facts commonly accepted, about population, that there are billions, age, billions again, and so on. now it must occur to anyone who has ever experienced, either visually or audibly, what could be called "errors", that something is perhaps not quite right about the many assumptions people make. now medical science would have it that these "errors" are strictly those of the individual in question, so to speak, and not of earth itself or science. however, what if the fault does lie with whatever earth is and blame is not on the person's senses? inevitably, the more glitches in the system that appear, the more you become convinced that there is some huge electronic machinery at work underlying everything, a supercomputer that simply does not work perfectly.
by visual "errors", those that i have experienced personally, from most shocking to least, first of all, a sudden total change in place, to teleport to another location, secondly, less striking perhaps, but common enough, a sudden change in text, for example, looking at a printed train timetable at a railway station and the times change, thirdly, maps that are all wrong from what you know, fourthly, definite changes in books you have, on second reading, some passages have disappeared, fifthly, and often you cannot be sure about this, objects have been rearranged in the room when no has been present or they have vanished.
actually, the only ones who could firmly believe in all that the media presents about earth and what their teachers taught them in geography and science, the only ones who actually "buy it" are those for whom there are no discernible "errors", those who have supernormal lives.
it is all too easy, however, to dismiss all common scientific theories and leap to the other extreme, that all of life on earth is a vast computer simulation and perhaps therefore you are the only real person on earth and everyone else is virtual, if you like, non player characters or NPC's, illusions, philosophical zombies, etc. such is the nature of the beast when something happens that makes you question reality. it is most likely that neither extreme, the one of a densely populated earth where everyone is real and the other of the empty simulation with a real population of one, is true. it is not all or nothing, but a little of both.
it is interesting that the thinker always thinks in absolutes first or extreme positions. this may sound perverse, but often something may be true and false, even if only time and space make the difference. now it is true, then it was false! it is true here, but not there! define your terms! clarify! what i am speaking of is a tendency, perhaps almost a hope, to think that something would be true now, here and everywhere, for all time! that things contradict themselves moments later exposes this fallacy in our thinking.
what is the suitably complex, averaged world view? it is most probable that there are many people on earth but not as many as purported, and that some people truly are not real, they are part of the background simulation. there are questions about history too. if we assume the numbers prone to exaggeration, we would guess that the true age is much younger. when the first real person was inserted into the simulation earth is another question. note that to teleport rules out the whole model of classical mechanical motion in reality.
CLEARCHARGE
about earth, there are the facts commonly accepted, about population, that there are billions, age, billions again, and so on. now it must occur to anyone who has ever experienced, either visually or audibly, what could be called "errors", that something is perhaps not quite right about the many assumptions people make. now medical science would have it that these "errors" are strictly those of the individual in question, so to speak, and not of earth itself or science. however, what if the fault does lie with whatever earth is and blame is not on the person's senses? inevitably, the more glitches in the system that appear, the more you become convinced that there is some huge electronic machinery at work underlying everything, a supercomputer that simply does not work perfectly.
by visual "errors", those that i have experienced personally, from most shocking to least, first of all, a sudden total change in place, to teleport to another location, secondly, less striking perhaps, but common enough, a sudden change in text, for example, looking at a printed train timetable at a railway station and the times change, thirdly, maps that are all wrong from what you know, fourthly, definite changes in books you have, on second reading, some passages have disappeared, fifthly, and often you cannot be sure about this, objects have been rearranged in the room when no has been present or they have vanished.
actually, the only ones who could firmly believe in all that the media presents about earth and what their teachers taught them in geography and science, the only ones who actually "buy it" are those for whom there are no discernible "errors", those who have supernormal lives.
it is all too easy, however, to dismiss all common scientific theories and leap to the other extreme, that all of life on earth is a vast computer simulation and perhaps therefore you are the only real person on earth and everyone else is virtual, if you like, non player characters or NPC's, illusions, philosophical zombies, etc. such is the nature of the beast when something happens that makes you question reality. it is most likely that neither extreme, the one of a densely populated earth where everyone is real and the other of the empty simulation with a real population of one, is true. it is not all or nothing, but a little of both.
it is interesting that the thinker always thinks in absolutes first or extreme positions. this may sound perverse, but often something may be true and false, even if only time and space make the difference. now it is true, then it was false! it is true here, but not there! define your terms! clarify! what i am speaking of is a tendency, perhaps almost a hope, to think that something would be true now, here and everywhere, for all time! that things contradict themselves moments later exposes this fallacy in our thinking.
what is the suitably complex, averaged world view? it is most probable that there are many people on earth but not as many as purported, and that some people truly are not real, they are part of the background simulation. there are questions about history too. if we assume the numbers prone to exaggeration, we would guess that the true age is much younger. when the first real person was inserted into the simulation earth is another question. note that to teleport rules out the whole model of classical mechanical motion in reality.
CLEARCHARGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)