Are we just a computer simulation?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
I would say that a closed loop simulation is the most feasible explanation of existence.

A simulation that eventually engineers itself.

That's nonsense.

Originally posted by googlefudge
How do you know that there is no such thing as nothing?

I am afraid that is just a tautological truth because for something to 'exist' it must either consist of something or at least have a definable space-time location or area of existence or have some other definable physical properties else it doesn't exist by the meaning of 'exist'.
So 'nothing' or true 'nothingness' doesn’t exist by definition.

If something exists, that something cannot also be nothing for you cannot have something that is both something and nothing.

( note the extremely common error of people confusing empty space with being 'nothing'; empty space or vacuum of space is not nothing! empty space exists therefore it is not nothing! )

Originally posted by humy
I am afraid that is just a tautological truth because for something to 'exist' it must either consist of something or at least have a definable space-time location or area of existence or have some other definable physical properties else it doesn't exist by the meaning of 'exist'.
So 'nothing' or true 'nothingness' doesn’t exist by definition.

If somethin ...[text shortened]... or vacuum of space is not nothing! empty space exists therefore it is not nothing! )

So its impossible to perceive "nothing", but "nothing" certainly "exists" in the absence of perception.

Originally posted by googlefudge
How do you know that there is no such thing as nothing?

Because instead of nothing there is a universe.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That's nonsense.

I hypothesise that a simulation could become complex enough to recreate it's initial conditions.
Furthermore I postulate that this is the simplest explanation for existence.

Originally posted by joe shmo
So its impossible to perceive "nothing", but "nothing" certainly "exists" in the absence of perception.

Not sure what you mean -I wouldn't say or think perception has something to do with it.
When I talk about something "existing", unless I am talking about something mental ( such as perception or feeling or thought etc ) , I would say whether somebody perceives it is irrelevant because it can "exist" whether you look at it or not ( I do not accept the all-to-common and I believe erroneous interpretation of quantum mechanics that implies the contrary ) .

In what sense would "nothing" "exists" in the absence of perception?
I cannot think how an absence of perception would imply that "nothing" "exists" if that is what you are saying?
If "nothing" "exists" in the absence of perception, would it also exist in the presence of perception? If so, then how would perception be relevant?

Originally posted by humy
Not sure what you mean -I wouldn't say or think perception has something to do with it.
When I talk about something "existing", unless I am talking about something mental ( such as perception or feeling or thought etc ) , I would say whether somebody perceives it is irrelevant because it can "exist" whether you look at it or not ( I do not accept the all-to-c ...[text shortened]... st in the presence of perception? If so, then how would perception be relevant?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant.

As I sit here and ponder, it is quickly becoming apparent to me that I cannot perceive 'nothing' in the physical sense. That is to say; if I were to believe this universe exists, and I try to get beyond it, to what it may exist in, I can't find 'nothing'. What I continually find in my thoughts are different levels of something. Which implies an infinite chain of somethings, existing within or as a part of other somethings. This type of paradoxical thought most likely arises as a result of our programming(which is our consciousness/perception in this analogy).

The only way to perceive nothing is to die, which is essentially removing the program, or our perception.

Why should the perspective given by Death, be any less valid than the perspective given by Life...one perspective says "something" and the other says "nothing". on or off, 1 or 0?

Originally posted by joe shmo
Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant.

As I sit here and ponder, it is quickly becoming apparent to me that I cannot perceive 'nothing' in the physical sense. That is to say; if I were to believe this universe exists, and I try to get beyond it, to what it may exist in, I can't find 'nothing'. What I continually find in my thoughts are different levels ...[text shortened]... e...one perspective says "something" and the other says "nothing". on or off, 1 or 0?

This is not the Void but confusion.

Thus I have heard: by knowing the things that exist, you can know the things that do not exist. This is the Void.*

*Go Rin No Sho/ The Book of the Void, Shinmen Musashi no Kami Fujiwara no Genshin

😵

Originally posted by black beetle
This is not the Void but confusion.

Thus I have heard: by knowing the things that exist, you can know the things that do not exist. This is the Void.*

*Go Rin No Sho/ The Book of the Void, Shinmen Musashi no Kami Fujiwara no Genshin

😵

Are you saying I'm confused, on the right track, or something else entirely?

Originally posted by joe shmo
Are you saying I'm confused, on the right track, or something else entirely?

I am saying that the way to perceive "nothing" is not to to die, which is furthermore understood by you as equal to "essentially removing the program, or our perception". This is confusion.

I am saying that the void can be perceived when one does not attribute anymore inherent existence to something that lacks of inherent existence😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I am saying that the way to perceive "nothing" is not to to die, which is furthermore understood by you as equal to "essentially removing the program, or our perception". This is confusion.

I am saying that the void can be perceived when one does not attribute anymore inherent existence to something that lacks of inherent existence😵

When you say "This is confusion", what do you mean? What am I confusing?

Know that I understand now that you disagree with me, or my perception. However, I am having trouble understanding your perception, and therefore cannot formulate an opinion to its validity in the context of the argument.

Specifically, that last sentence is somewhat cryptic and fuzzy to me.

Originally posted by joe shmo
When you say "This is confusion", what do you mean? What am I confusing?

Know that I understand now that you disagree with me, or my perception. However, I am having trouble understanding your perception, and therefore cannot formulate an opinion to its validity in the context of the argument.

Specifically, that last sentence is somewhat cryptic and fuzzy to me.

I will sort it out:

“If I were to believe this universe exists” –the observer universe is existent;

“and I try to get beyond it, to what it may exist in” –it is my knowledge that the observer universe the very way you perceive it, is existent that way solely because your awareness herenow collapses the wafefunction so that you end up with that way;

“I can't find 'nothing'.” –nobody knows herenow whether or not the observer universe is a part of another observer. However, this lack of knowledge is not the void;

“What I continually find in my thoughts are different levels of something.” –methinks whatever you continually find in your thoughts are all parts of the cause-effect nexus all the way back to the manifestation of the observer universe;

“Which implies an infinite chain of somethings, existing within or as a part of other somethings.” –sure thing;

“This type of paradoxical thought” –this thought of yours, is not a paradox;

“most likely arises as a result of our programming (which is our consciousness/ perception in this analogy).” –the cause-effect chain dissolves into the singularity. The variations stop there;

“The only way to perceive nothing is to die, which is essentially removing the program, or our perception.” –you are confusing the things that are existent with the things that are not existent. The void is not related to the lack of awareness. The void is the realm of no existence and as such it is not included in one's knowledge. Death is death, the void is the void, death is not the void, life is not the void, life and death are both included in the cause-effect chain, you can point towards the void when your awareness suffers not from confusion;

“Why should the perspective given by Death, be any less valid than the perspective given by Life...one perspective says "something" and the other says "nothing". on or off, 1 or 0?” –this is confusion. Methinks Life cannot be separated from Death, therefore the scheme is “LifeDeath” and “No LifeDeath”. Thus, to collapse the wavefunction (in other words, to live and eventually to die) is the bit “0”, whilst to not collapse the wavefunction and hence to never live and die, is the bit “1”.
You see, LifeDeath is to Live (to emerge out of the pool of probabilities) And to Die (whenever you emerge out of the pool of probabilities, at a given spacetime you will dissolve into quantum uncertainty). The void is not the superposition 0/1 but beyond
😵

Originally posted by black beetle... LifeDeath...

What difference does it make?

Originally posted by apathist
What difference does it make?

Ant on a leaf, leaf on a stream that goes 18,5 miles per second. Evaluate ant’s reality😵

Apparently we get to invent math terms that have no basis in reality.