Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: the future.jpg (118KB, 1920x1080px) Image search:
[Google]
118KB, 1920x1080px
Okay /x/, let's settle this once and for all. We live in a simulated universe as evidenced by the fine-tuned constants and the delayed double split experiment. Furthermore, the body you inhabit is simply your avatar whose psyche is the only connection to the *real* you. We don't know what the reality frame outside of this one is like, but we know something about consciousness and that is, that it is split into conscious and unconscious elements. Your awareness is simply your avatar's active goals and affects. Intention and meaning lies in the unconscious which is further split into personal and collective. Now, the personal unconscious of your avatar is the direct link to the *real* you, outside of this simulated environment. It's what the *real* you is thinking about and intends to do in this virtual reality through the avatar. The collective unconscious on the other hand, is simply the exchanges and conversations all the *real* beings are having outside of this reality frame. That means, that my *real* wife and the *real* I are talking outside of here, but what we talk about actually has an effect in aggregate. This is where the idea comes from, that all tribes have underlying shared symbols that are smiliar. No other theory makes use of physics and psychology as well as this one. It's the only one that bridges phenomena and noumena.
>>
The universe is not a simulation
>>
How do I...
>enter character customization?
>enter money cheat?
>>
>>18687410
Don't try to understand it.
>>
>>18687458
What? My name isn't Tom.
>>18687428
I don't think that's possible once your avatar is born. However, you might be able to influence this reality through rituals, as they seem to have phenomenological power.
>>
>>18687410
The delayed double slit experiment does not imply that the universe is a simulation. What you're attempting to extrapolate is tantamount to saying a tree falling in the forest doesn't make a sound if no one is around.
>>
>>18687476
>does not imply that the universe is a simulation
But it clearly does. The recent research suggests that reality at the very fundamental is just information of probabilities. Nothing is set in stone which means something has to actualize that potential. The only reason for it to be that way is to conserve energy. Observers like you and I are conscious and thus the only reason why reality exists, because without us, there wouldn't be anything to return feedback to.
>>
>>18687515
Mumbo jumbo. The slit experiment proves that light waves are composed of photons and photons operate quantum mechanically in terms of the wave particle duality.
The end. Universe is not a simulation.
>>
>>18687410
Thats one way to put it. In reality, were in a simulated universe created by the demiurge
>>
>>18687529
t. pseud
You clearly haven't read the science, have you?
http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdness
>>
>>18687563
Lmao they mean "when you energize this particle as it strikes the detector it galvanized as a wave/particle!"
Fun fact: the uncertainty principle explains this. I guess you're an idiot.
>>
Eu control el universo.
>>
>>18687469
It isn't the ritual but the belief in the ritual. I agree with your OP though and have come to almost entirely the exact same conclusion
>>
Your close, but the simulation is true reality. By that i ean the universe is real, your bodily sensory systems pick up information and create a 'simulation' that is the reality you perceive.
The universe is a system of EMR emitters and all other forces are due to the difference in EMR of differing systems.
>>
>>18687598
Huh, that's an interesting proposition. It could well be true instead, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'm not making an absolutist statement as to whether true reality is outside of this one or is somehow embedded within the illusion we perceive. I used it to simply make an example to illustrate the idea. To me, this simply opens up a whole new frontier and way of looking at data, which could prove useful to test hypothesis like yours. I just wish scientists were a bit more open-minded ...
>>
>>18687615
Scientists should not be open-minded. The duty of science is impartial rigours examination and experimental replication.
The real problem is that people believe in science without understanding why.
>>
If sentient beings in this reality did not have sight and hearing, would anything exist at all?
Did we evolve sight and hearing because we need it to see and hear reality, or did reality happened because we have sight and hearing?
>>
>>18687633
The problem it's that science makes asumptions without understanding why.
A paper only has to be a few pages long to be published.
>>
>>18687634
I've asked myself the same questions dude.. and yet, it's 2017 and no fucking neuroscientist hast explored this by experimenting with deaf, mute and blind people. Like come on, that's a nobel prize in the making.
>>
>>18687644
Well yah it's annoying but then again people who go into sciences usually are crazy so it works out I guess.
I mean, imagine how much of an egoitistical narcissist you have to be to imagine
>I'm going to reveal more natural laws!
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1