*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
My Simulation Hypothesis
« on: January 03, 2014, 04:21:45 PM »
Quote
"Everything intuited or perceived in space and time, and therefore all objects of a possible experience, are nothing but phenomenal appearances, that is, mere representations [and] have no independent, self-subsistent existence apart from our thoughts."

-Immanuel Kant

I'm coming out, FES. 

This is a post I've thought about writing for a long time, but I haven't because it isn't strictly zetetic.  I've been reluctant to speak out because I needed to be sure of my own mind.  But it's a new year, and it's time to start the discussion.

The earth is flat.  I know that as surely as I know my own name  Observations support this.  I can see it as clearly as the colour of the sky.  Down is down, the horizon is actually the vanishing point, and we exist in a closed system distinct from all other celestial bodies.  Our earth is flat.

The earth is stationary.  It does not rotate or move in any way relative to perceived space around us.  We see evidence of this because objects farther from the hub do not exhibit effects of centripetal force.  Universal acceleration could account for the force we perceive as gravity, but my instincts say that this force is something still undefined.  All our interpretations may be wrong.

The earth is infinite, but not (in my opinion) in the way some infinite plane theorists think.  More on this later.

Some observations can also support a spherical earth.  The southern sky, lunar phases, eclipses, have been used to support a spherical earth.  This interpretation is wrong.

What follows is hypothesis.

Our earth is flat because it was engineered that way.  It was designed for us.  It's our puzzle.  I am of the belief that we live inside a simulation.

The simulation becomes more advanced as we solve the puzzles before us.  Our predecessors believed that the earth was flat because all observations supported that conclusion.  They still do. 

The simulation began to introduce subtleties that seemed to contradict their findings.  The spherical, geocentric model was widely accepted because all observations seemed to support that conclusion.  They still do. 

The heliocentric model arose because the simulation evolves.  It becomes more complex as our model of the universe becomes more complex.   We're being tested.

Those first observations, of a flat and stationary earth, were correct.  The remain valid today, we're simply being fed more complex data, possibly to see what we'll do with it.  The "curved shadow" on the moon during an eclipse.  The retrograde motion of planets.  The inscrutability of quantum mechanics.  The seemingly arbitrary limitations placed on physics such as the speed of light and the conservation of angular momentum.  All of these things are, to me, clear indication that we're being tested by an overseer.  I do not know its purpose.

Our earth is an infinite plane around which phenomenological evidence of various "truths" manifest.  In this model, Antarctica is a discrete continent and there is no ice wall.  Rather than expanding off into an infinite ocean, however, the infinite plane of our earth simply loops back onto itself.  You can never reach the edge because no edge exists.  Our earth seems physical.  Based upon observation and intuition alone, I do not believe it is an electronic or computerized simulation.

Or, our earth is a finite plane resolved to a disc, but the spatial dimensions around the southern hemidisc are bent to a greater extend than near the hub, perhaps by aether / UA.

We experience bending light.  The curvature of light is the same as the curvature of earth in the spherical model.  Those of us who support a spherical model believe the earth is round because light sometimes makes it look round.  This ambiguity, as well as the ambiguity between gravity and UA, is deliberate. 

I do not know who the overseers of this simulation are.  I do not know the bounds or rules.  But everywhere I look I see evidence of its reality.

I'm posting this in S&AS because it is not strictly a flat-earth hypothesis. 

There you go.  My confession.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 09:59:39 PM by Tintagel »

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2014, 04:33:44 PM »
This isn't the first time I'v eheard the suggestion that we are part of a simulation.  Some scientists see evidence that the universe may be a complex computer simulation based on the pixelated appearance of subatomic particles.
I don't even care to find out what you're doing wrong, but I'm sure you're doing something wrong.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5065
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2014, 04:35:25 PM »
If the many worlds hypotheses are true, there is actually quite a high probability that the simulation hypothesis is correct.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2014, 11:02:40 PM »
But can it be hacked?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6603
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2014, 05:12:10 AM »
But can it be hacked?

I can open the command line interface for the universe, but all it returns is "this user does not have root access privileges."

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2014, 05:47:08 AM »
I will delete the Universe's system 32.
I don't even care to find out what you're doing wrong, but I'm sure you're doing something wrong.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6603
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2014, 05:52:38 AM »
The Universe doesn't run on Windows, I know this because everyone doesn't receive a UAC pop-up when they wake up in the morning.

Offline Socker

  • *
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2014, 06:15:15 AM »
Interesting idea, but do you think there's any way to gain concrete evidence of such a simulation, or would the creators likely be too smart for us to prove it for sure?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6603
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2014, 08:03:03 AM »
That would really just depend on your idea of concrete evidence. Some argue that arbitrary physical constraints, such as Planck lengths, are evidence of a simulation. That being said, the issue of whether the universe is a simulation is philosophical, not scientific, and therefore evidence probably doesn't exist in any true sense of the word. Simulation theories are not scientific and therefore should be regarded more as a religious preference, not one based in a scientific endeavor or based on pseudo-scientific evidence. Such philosophies deal with the "whys" of the universe and not the "hows" which is what science attempts to explain. We may know how an electron is negative, but a scientist wouldn't ask why is it negative, because in all actuality it isn't a relevant thing to ask when dealing in a scientific pursuit of knowledge.

Thork

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2014, 01:00:04 PM »
But can it be hacked?
That would make the programmer God and you a virus. Do you really want attract God's attention in that way? Just run your script and stop trying to corrupt the database. >o<

*

Offline spoon

  • *
  • Posts: 1132
  • Foxy wins
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2014, 05:31:55 PM »
Didn't John Davis start a religion where he said he was god? In that case, JD is the one running the simulation.... Oh god we're fucked... As soon as something gets fucked up in this world, he'll transfer us to a new universe without backing up the database!! We'll all disappear!!
inb4 Blanko spoons a literally pizza

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2014, 07:04:23 PM »
That would really just depend on your idea of concrete evidence. Some argue that arbitrary physical constraints, such as Planck lengths, are evidence of a simulation. That being said, the issue of whether the universe is a simulation is philosophical, not scientific, and therefore evidence probably doesn't exist in any true sense of the word. Simulation theories are not scientific and therefore should be regarded more as a religious preference, not one based in a scientific endeavor or based on pseudo-scientific evidence. Such philosophies deal with the "whys" of the universe and not the "hows" which is what science attempts to explain. We may know how an electron is negative, but a scientist wouldn't ask why is it negative, because in all actuality it isn't a relevant thing to ask when dealing in a scientific pursuit of knowledge.

I seem to recall a group of scientists developing an experiment that they hoped would "breach" the simulation... and perhaps we already have.  Bizarre experimental results like those from the "two-slit" experiment make perfect sense if viewed from the perspective of "let's see how this software works"

Of course, we use terms like 'software' and 'computers' as if they would apply to the architects of earth.  Everything we know of reality could be a mere shadow of the truth.  Concepts like four-dimensional spacetime (or even the ten dimensional space of M theory) and general relativity could well be laughably silly notions outside of our ethereal universe. 

We are someone else's flatland.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 09:56:53 PM by Tintagel »

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2014, 07:13:40 PM »
And to be clear - my hypothesis is not that we are an electronic or computer simulation.  The earth seems physical, I seem physical, and everything around me seems physical, so when I break my version of the simulation hypothesis down to constituent parts, I have to include the apparent physical reality of things.  I use the term "simulation" because it's similar to the more popular simulation hypothesis that made some headlines a couple of years ago, and because of its similarity to the Descartes "brain in a vat" thing, but I don't think I am a brain in a vat, because I cannot see it.

I cannot deny the physical nature of reality because I can experience it.   Perhaps "engineered" is a better term than "simulation" in this regard. 

We live on a planar petri dish.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 09:56:32 PM by Tintagel »

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2014, 07:30:22 PM »
One more question, for my fellow members.  I've always been agnostic, and more recently a resigned atheist, but this line of thinking troubles me because of how closely it skirts the edges of religion.

I don't think the architect ever interferes. I think that we're a closed system.  I just think there has to be something outside it.

Is this a sort of 'theism' on my part?  I'm having some trouble with that question. 

Sorry for triple-posting.

Thork

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2014, 07:38:43 PM »
One more question, for my fellow members.  I've always been agnostic, and more recently a resigned atheist, but this line of thinking troubles me because of how closely it skirts the edges of religion.

I don't think the architect ever interferes. I think that we're a closed system.  I just think there has to be something outside it.

Is this a sort of 'theism' on my part?  I'm having some trouble with that question. 

Sorry for triple-posting.
That's Deism. There are a surprising number of Deists on this site. Its kind of a magnet for them here. Deists believe in a God or creator that set the wheels in motion and lets the universe play itself out. Its know as the 'clockwork universe'.

Now think to core flat earth theories like celestial gears and you can see why its such a natural choice for an FEr. It seems, My Dear, as though Deism found you.


Besides, Deism suits you better. Atheists are wretched individuals. They are a faith based religion like any other but refuse to allow their beliefs to be grouped in with all other religions. It does sit in the same little group on the census though ;-) They think their religion is the superior one and better than all others. They are usually very militant about it and spend more time thinking about religion than anyone else.
Theirs is the destructive religion. One that takes strength from the sick, comfort from the bereaved, hope from the downtrodden.
Its also the one that is hypocritical. They want to get married in churches, have funerals for their deceased and tell everyone how great their religious choice is (they are unbearably preachy).
And they always think they are super smart because science. Arrogant, self-absorbed and destructive. I hate atheists.
Deists on the other hand have a sense of spirituality. They don't feel worthless, insignificant, a fluke. And that means they don't have the same chip on their shoulder as atheists. To admit to being an atheist is to declare your own life absolutely meaningless. Wretched beings are atheists. Deism was an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Atheism was a consumer movement of the 1960s to get you to have less children, work longer hours, lust for plastic crap from corporations and pay more tax.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 07:51:28 PM by Thork »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5065
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2014, 07:42:36 PM »
Considering how much of our perception is a neural process, ultimately determining what is truly physical in a simulation would be very difficult.

I would say that putting blind faith in a proposition such as this is a form of Deism, since there is no empirical evidence to support it, but seeing as it is also fairly value free, compared to Abrahimic religions, it is fairly innocuous. Go to I say!
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2014, 08:29:35 PM »
What makes a simulation different from reality?

We simulate air flow across vehicles by actually blowing air.  We use nature to simulate nature, in essence.

If that's the case then if God created the Universe, what's to say that's not a simulation?  God's reality isn't our reality according to Religion.  So by creating an entire universe with it's own set of rules, isn't that the same as saying God made a simulation of a physical universe?

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2014, 08:54:17 PM »
One more question, for my fellow members.  I've always been agnostic, and more recently a resigned atheist, but this line of thinking troubles me because of how closely it skirts the edges of religion.

I don't think the architect ever interferes. I think that we're a closed system.  I just think there has to be something outside it.

Is this a sort of 'theism' on my part?  I'm having some trouble with that question. 

Sorry for triple-posting.
That's Deism. There are a surprising number of Deists on this site. Its kind of a magnet for them here. Deists believe in a God or creator that set the wheels in motion and lets the universe play itself out. Its know as the 'clockwork universe'.

Now think to core flat earth theories like celestial gears and you can see why its such a natural choice for an FEr. It seems, My Dear, as though Deism found you.


Besides, Deism suits you better. Atheists are wretched individuals. They are a faith based religion like any other but refuse to allow their beliefs to be grouped in with all other religions. It does sit in the same little group on the census though ;-) They think their religion is the superior one and better than all others. They are usually very militant about it and spend more time thinking about religion than anyone else.
Theirs is the destructive religion. One that takes strength from the sick, comfort from the bereaved, hope from the downtrodden.
Its also the one that is hypocritical. They want to get married in churches, have funerals for their deceased and tell everyone how great their religious choice is (they are unbearably preachy).
And they always think they are super smart because science. Arrogant, self-absorbed and destructive. I hate atheists.
Deists on the other hand have a sense of spirituality. They don't feel worthless, insignificant, a fluke. And that means they don't have the same chip on their shoulder as atheists. To admit to being an atheist is to declare your own life absolutely meaningless. Wretched beings are atheists. Deism was an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Atheism was a consumer movement of the 1960s to get you to have less children, work longer hours, lust for plastic crap from corporations and pay more tax.

Huh.  I've been aware of Deism as a thing that exists (or at least existed), but I guess I never really knew what it was.  That could well be where I land.

For what it's worth, I've made a true effort to not be militant in my atheism and have an intense dislike those who are as you claim.  Evangelical atheism is as dangerous as any other evangelism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Thanks for the reply, I'll keep reading.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
    • View Profile
Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2014, 09:29:20 PM »
One more question, for my fellow members.  I've always been agnostic, and more recently a resigned atheist, but this line of thinking troubles me because of how closely it skirts the edges of religion.

I don't think the architect ever interferes. I think that we're a closed system.  I just think there has to be something outside it.

Is this a sort of 'theism' on my part?  I'm having some trouble with that question. 

Sorry for triple-posting.
That's Deism. There are a surprising number of Deists on this site. Its kind of a magnet for them here. Deists believe in a God or creator that set the wheels in motion and lets the universe play itself out. Its know as the 'clockwork universe'.

Now think to core flat earth theories like celestial gears and you can see why its such a natural choice for an FEr. It seems, My Dear, as though Deism found you.


Besides, Deism suits you better. Atheists are wretched individuals. They are a faith based religion like any other but refuse to allow their beliefs to be grouped in with all other religions. It does sit in the same little group on the census though ;-) They think their religion is the superior one and better than all others. They are usually very militant about it and spend more time thinking about religion than anyone else.
Theirs is the destructive religion. One that takes strength from the sick, comfort from the bereaved, hope from the downtrodden.
Its also the one that is hypocritical. They want to get married in churches, have funerals for their deceased and tell everyone how great their religious choice is (they are unbearably preachy).
And they always think they are super smart because science. Arrogant, self-absorbed and destructive. I hate atheists.
Deists on the other hand have a sense of spirituality. They don't feel worthless, insignificant, a fluke. And that means they don't have the same chip on their shoulder as atheists. To admit to being an atheist is to declare your own life absolutely meaningless. Wretched beings are atheists. Deism was an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. Atheism was a consumer movement of the 1960s to get you to have less children, work longer hours, lust for plastic crap from corporations and pay more tax.

Atheism is not a movement.

Thork

Re: My Simulation Hypothesis
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2014, 09:35:28 PM »
Atheism is not a movement.
Of course it is.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism
New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."
The internet is crawling with these arses.