IEET > Rights > HealthLongevity > Personhood > Minduploading > Vision > Contributors > Eliott Edge > Philosophy > Psychology > Futurism > Technoprogressivism > Artificial Intelligence > Neuroscience > Brain–computer-interface
Why it matters that you realize you’re in a computer simulation
Eliott Edge   Nov 14, 2015   Ethical Technology  

What if our universe is something like a computer simulation, or a virtual reality, or a video game?  The proposition that the universe is actually a computer simulation was furthered in a big way during the 1970s, when John Conway famously proved that if you take a binary system, and subject that system to only a few rules (in the case of Conway’s experiment, four); then that system creates something rather peculiar.

What Conway’s rules produced were emergent complexities so sophisticated that they seemed to resemble the behaviors of life itself. He named his demonstration The Game of Life, and it helped lay the foundation for the Simulation Argument, its counterpart the Simulation Hypothesis, and Digital Mechanics.  These fields have gone on to create a massive multi-decade long discourse in science, philosophy, and popular culture around the idea that it actually makes logical, mathematical sense that our universe is indeed a computer simulation.  To crib a summary from Morpheus, “The Matrix is everywhere”. But amongst the murmurs on various forums and reddit threads pertaining to the subject, it isn’t uncommon to find a word or two devoted to caution: We, the complex intelligent lifeforms who are supposedly “inside” this simulated universe, would do well to play dumb that we are at all conscious of our circumstance.

The colloquial warning says we must not betray the knowledge that we have become aware of being mere bits in the bit kingdom. To have a tipping point population of players who realize that they are actually in something like a video game would have dire and catastrophic results. Deletion, reformatting, or some kind of biblical flushing of our entire universe (or maybe just our species), would unfold. Leave the Matrix alone! In fact, please pretend it isn’t even there.

The basic idea is that the intelligent lifeforms that have evolved inside a simulation are somehow made non-viable, or undesirable as samples, once they become aware of the simulation that they live in. Their own awareness of their plight (their environment) somehow excludes them from being valuable experimental samples. Samples that are aware of the truth of their simulated environment can, or will, compromise themselves, the simulation, or both.

So to avoid this possibly cataclysmic fate, some put forward a kind of survival strategy of “We better not know”, and if we do know, “We better play dumb”.  It’s a position that comes with several interesting problems. The first of which should be obvious enough; having just read the last few paragraphs, you are now irrevocably in the know regarding the theory, whether you actually believe the universe to be a simulation or not. Reading this very article is potentially putting reality itself, or maybe just the continuation of our species, at extreme risk. That is supposedly how flimsy the cosmos is to the grandest secret of its truest nature—The universe can be unraveled with the simple transmission and comprehension of just a few sentences describing its features. Only a handful of axioms that explain the environment are apparently enough to destroy us all. Something about this theory feels unlikely, because it means that if you have a deep enough textbook on the nature of reality, the very act of reading it is enough to unmake reality.  That sounds a lot like a literary device out of an H.P. Lovecraft short story; imagine an obscure occult science text so dangerous that to utter its very table of contents is enough to return the whole cosmos to total chaos. 

Another issue to consider is in the conceivably deeper purposes for simulating a life-sustaining and life-evolving universe. Conceding the problem of anthropomorphizing the motives of our hypothetical simulation-designers, let’s nonetheless indulge and imagine ourselves in their position. 

If your simulation includes evolving conscious entities that are allowed to develop an intellect (learning), and they have a recursive method to expand and explore that intellect (science), then it is likely that over time and after enough observations those entities will inevitably bump into the “writing on the wall”, as it were.

In the case of our own universe, physicist Tom Campbell of NASA has argued that the constant speed of light, the observer effect, and the Big Bang—all matter, energy, and physical laws arriving simultaneously out of nowhere—are tells of just such a situation.  Brian Whitworth has published several papers on how the physics we experience could be easily explained with computable analogs.  Martin Rees’s book Just Six Numbers could be argued as a whole set of tells.  Max Tegmark summarizes the position in the PBS documentary The Great Math Mystery:

“If I were a character in a computer game that was so advanced that I were actually conscious, and I started exploring my video game world it would actually feel to me like it was made of real solid objects made of physical stuff.  Yet if I started studying, as the curious physicist that I am, the properties of this stuff, the equations by which things move and the equations that gives the stuff its properties, I would discover eventually that all these properties were mathematical.  The mathematical properties that the programmer had actually put into the software that describes everything.”

Via Tegmark’s thinking we can assume that if the physics and/or nature of any given universe that lends itself to be described through mathematics or exhibits mathematical constants, then it can be surmised to be analogous to, or a derivative of, a computer simulation—even by the entities within that simulation.  In other words, if you can compute it, it’s likely the result of a computer itself.

In the case of our hypothetical evolving lifeforms, their science, if it is robust enough, should show that their universe is indeed logically the result of a computer simulation.  Otherwise, what is the value of all their science?

We could call this the Simulated Intelligence Hypothesis. If you grow an evolving intelligence in a simulated environment it should, given enough time, be able to deduce, infer, or observe that its environment is indeed the result of a computed simulation. If this is true then it should lead to an interesting circumstance: an evolving intelligence within a simulated environment cannot be occluded from the fact that its environment is a simulation, given enough time and a robust enough science. This we could call The Sims Situation—You cannot evolve an intelligent sample inside a simulation whilst keeping that simulation hidden indefinitely. Eventually their science will reveal their circumstance, unless of course there is some kind of outside intervention—The same kind of intervention that we should supposedly play dumb in an effort to avoid provoking.  Nevertheless, let’s return to imagining the evolution of our simulated lifeforms.

If we have a simulated universe that provides a platform for intelligent lifeforms to evolve, we could break these lifeforms up into at least 3 categories: (1) Simple, (2) Complex, (3) Savvy.

  1. Simple, they can make decisions and engage meaningfully with their environment.
  2. Complex, they record history as well as develop sciences, cultures, artifacts, and arts.
  3. Savvy, they are conscious of the fact that they are in a simulated universe.

Once an intelligence moves from a Complex orientation to a Savvy orientation, it has crossed an ontological Rubicon that divides these two distinct viewpoints.  We could call this divide the Edge Threshold.  If we put any real weight into the computer running this intelligent lifeform evolving universe simulation, then we might in fact hope that it grows something slick enough to figure out what’s really going on. Not just for the sake of amusement either, but for an insight into our own motives and nature as simulation-designers. We would actually want a Savvy intelligence inside our simulated universe. The reason why is very simple: If we only have access to observe intelligent lifeforms that are restricted to not knowing that they are in a simulation, then our own sample pool and thus knowledge base will always be restricted to intelligences that are out of the loop. Complex level lifeforms (like human beings just prior to the computing revolution) would still be complex and interesting, but they would by definition always already be operating from an ontological ignorance of the true nature of their environment. They would be complex indeed, but far from savvy.

On the other hand Savvy lifeforms would probably be extremely likely to produce fascinating forms of expression, technology, novelty, social organization, and so on. They would also likely begin to create their own life-producing simulated universes themselves.  They may even attempt to signal their outside simulation-designing hosts somehow. Therefore I, as part of the original hypothetical simulation-running team, would be extremely hesitant, if not downright protective, of that Savvy sample’s survival and evolution—That is if I were to interfere at all. What could possibly give me more insight into what I, the original simulation creator and maintainer, have done than this Savvy sim living in my ever-growing mock universe? Would I really throw out the sim that realized they were in The Sims? Indeed, evolving a sim that realizes they are in The Sims might feel like I’m actually getting my computational weight’s worth—That goes especially if I was putting in all this effort to power and evolve a simulated universe in the first place. If our simulated universe is inadvertently an intelligence test for the evolving lifeforms inside it, then I’d hope we grow a winner. A sample so intelligent that it can actually see the code at the edge of matter is likely a sample we’d benefit from studying.  It’s not too far removed from teaching great apes to sign.

All of this presents another interesting circumstance to evolving intelligent lifeforms in a simulated universe in the first place. If they, the sims inside, are given enough time to develop their intellects and sciences, then bumping into the truth that they are products of a simulated environment seems nothing less than an inevitability.

In other words when evolving intelligent lifeforms in a simulated environment, either the outside simulation-designers always eventually intervene or the evolving sims inside always eventually figure it all out—barring that they, or their sciences, don’t collapse beforehand.

To recap: First, if the Simulation Hypothesis is true, then the Simulated Intelligence Hypothesis is likely also true—an evolving intelligence in a simulation will eventually become aware that they are in a simulation, barring extraordinary intervention.

Second, if the Simulated Intelligence Hypothesis is true than it should lend credence to The Sims Situation—an evolving intelligence in a simulated environment cannot be denied from the knowledge that it is in a simulated environment forever. In other words you cannot evolve an intelligence in a simulated environment, and also hide the fact that the environment is a simulation.

Third, this leads us finally to The Savvy Inevitability—if the Simulated Intelligence Hypothesis and the Sims Situation are true, then crossing the Edge Threshold (the ontological divide between Complex and Savvy intelligences) should be assumed as inevitable, given enough time to evolve any given intelligence sample.

Ergo, if all of the above is correct, the hypothetical simulation-designers likely anticipate the eventual emergence of intelligent lifeforms that can accurately sense what their environment truly is.  The simulator(s) may even relish the moment of paradigm shift for their sims in the same manner that adults celebrate their adolescent going off to build their own lives and families.

Figure 1 — Evolving intelligent sims

Figure 1 — Evolving intelligent sims

Outside of the assumption that a Savvy sample is valuable in the way just outlined, there are other problems with the previously mentioned “playing dumb” suggestion. The notion that we should (or even could) occlude our “outside” observers, the simulator(s), or ourselves from whatever knowledge we may have about our environment, is not only probably impossible, it is also metaphysically unreasonable. “We better not know”, even if it is the correct recourse, is impossible to maintain. Ethically, this notion is odious in that it is not only ultimately anti-science, anti-intellect, and indeed anti-evolution, but it goes on to actually assume punishment for such evolutionary developments, which are in part outside of the evolving intellect’s hands.  We can’t be held responsible for natural discoveries, just as we can’t help but see the sun. They are the very fingerprints of the gods, so to speak. We can only truly be made responsible for what we do with natural discoveries; we cannot be made responsible for the fact that we can actually make these natural discoveries. Arguably, nearly all conscious life is defined by its ability to sense its environment. Discovering that the environment is a computer simulation, if that is the case, is a natural consequence of the environment itself.

In summary, if you are evolving intelligent life in a simulated environment, you must expect its simulated nature to be eventually discovered by its inhabitants as a logical consequence of your intelligent lifeforms’ evolution.

For these reasons any anxiety regarding our own awareness of evolving within a simulated universe should probably be dismissed outright, because if we are, it would be impossible to hide it from our own, or any other evolving intelligence, indefinitely. If something waits to be discovered and the universe itself provides a platform to develop evolving intelligent lifeforms, then its eventual uncovery is inevitable. As George Berkley repeated, “To be is to be perceived”.

It may very well be a crucial point of existence to discover evidence that this is a simulated universe, if that is the case. The evolution of such a Savvy intelligence is likely far more interesting to the simulator(s), given the Savvy intelligence’s likelihood to develop insightful technologies and forms of expression for not just the benefit of the Savvy sample in question, but for the simulator(s) as well. In the possibly endless number of simulated universes, each nested within the other, where in all directions you find simulated universe within simulated universe, like an evolving fractal upon itself, perhaps it is also inevitable that once an intelligence begins to build computers and simulate universes themselves, as we already do in laboratories around the world today, then the questions and ideas that we are wrestling with in this field are likely commonplace throughout the universe, if not the multiverse. Perhaps all this too informs the simulator(s) as well. Perhaps the road that we choose in building our own simulated universes enlightens the creators of the simulated universe that we occupy—Maybe the path we choose informs the path they chose, or didn’t choose.

There is a term in professional wrestling called kayfabe. Similar to the suspension of disbelief, it means that wrestlers should always be in character in order to make the overall melodramatic narrative feel exciting and palpable to the fans, even though they too are aware that the entire exchange is scripted beforehand. We all know the blood flowing in a horror film is only dyed corn syrup, nonetheless the false reality is maintained in order to enjoy the spectacle. We are reaching a point in simulism and digital physics where it may be time to drop the kayfabe and peer more deeply into the question: What does it actually mean to be Savvy?

If we are in a computer-simulated universe, we must embrace this new horizon of learning—as we have with heliocentrism, DNA, and evolution before it.  We obviously mustn’t fear it or pretend that it isn’t there. If a rock is truly code, then that is the universe’s responsibility, not ours. If the universe is a computed simulation then so too is universal Savviness inevitable for all evolving intelligences that are fortunate enough to survive its slings and arrows.  If this is a Matrix then we should probably see what happens when we begin to think and act like it is.  Perhaps accepting this is the beginning of kindergarten and the teacher is only moments away from entering the room.  Perhaps Morpheus is waiting to give us our phone call. 

Special thanks to Nikki Wyrd and Dr. Timothy Brigham for their edits and to Tom Campbell for pointing out this rabbit hole. 

Eliott Edge is an international lecturer, multidisciplinary artist, and author of ‘3 Essays on Virtual Reality: Overlords, Civilization, and Escape.’ Edge is on the advisory board at The Lifeboat Foundation, a member of Das Unbehagen, and the founder of EducatingEarth. You can find him through OddEdges.



COMMENTS

I’m inclined to agree with the simulation hypothesis, especially when taken to infinite regress.

The multiverse (simulation inside simulation) theory is interesting.  Thinking in our universe’s terms of technology at this time (e.g. electricity).  I can’t help but think, what happens when the power goes out in the non-simulated universe?  All simulations from top down would get shutoff.

Rosebud.

Ridiculous thoughts-not my own:

It needn’t be a Simulation, but a run of statistical mechanics, being a program used to calculate an answer. It could be something for which we barely have words for. One being a simulation with physical characteristics, another a physical thing with elements of a simulation. The previous sentence I got from one writer at FQXI. It could be that simulations produce multiverses, naturally, or a great computer proggie that generats multiverses.

Does this help us, mentally at all? Can we hack the universe to obtain mountains of goodies? My point is even though the Sim universe might be true, what practical use does it get for us? I am not sure, unless we can get a bit of evidence.

Terrific rumination.  Well considered.

Though of course science fictional thought experiments preceded all of this.  My story “Stones of Significance” was highly original, when it first pondered these things… though Stanislaw Lem pondered related notions long ago.
...and we are such stuff as dreams are mode-of.

See how I deal with this matter of nested-nested simulations… and remember it was written decades ago…:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/69032

With cordial regards to fellow bit creatures,
David Brin
http://www.davidbrin.com

Excellent article.  However, Edge deftly avoids the organization’s titular implication.  By whose authority and ethical bounds does any intelligence thrust conscious beings into a simulated world??  And when conscious beings become Savvy, why should Sim programmers hide?  Does programmer behavior confronted by Savviness indicate inability to be rigorously honest?  Would such behavior suggest hypocrisy?

As this site is supposed to discuss ethical technology - it is curious it avoids discussion of the moral and ethical transgression simulations imply.  Exploitation of any conscious-sentient being without obtaining informed consent from that being - is morally reprehensible.  In any dimension or manifestation of life.  And arguably illegal on ethical - and conscious grounds. 

Simulations are by definition, artificial copies of original creations.  Their record of efficacy is lacking.  While admirable in intent, simulation frailties confirm the brilliance of founding origin.

If the kindergarten teacher is incapable of informing children of exactly who they are and how their schooling works… corruption and failure is inevitable.

I’d ask “The Architect”: The artist in me would love to learn your craft. Teach me how to create in the medium of space-time.

For some reason, I have always thought that Dawkins would be a great interviewer with what we call God. Dawkin’s once claimed that he thought it might be possible that god-like intelligence’s exist in the universe. This also goes well with Shermer’s last law, being: Any sufficiently advanced ET is indistinguishable from God.”

One philosopher has written that God as it exists is the operating system of the universe or, rather the actual computer itself. A God evolving in a darwinian-Conway’s method into more and more sophisticated versions of itself.

This article seems to state, re-state, and turn on its head the same assumption several times. The entire second half is paragraph upon paragraph asserting in various phrasings that intelligent beings with science would inevitably discover the nature of their simulation—thus it is impossible to hide the nature of the simulation from intelligent inhabitants—thus all simulated intelligent beings will discover the simulation etc. etc. Back and forth.

Never addressed is the explanation for that assumption. It seems like a rhetorical slight of hand, skipping around the keystone of the entire subject and trying to make up for it with repetition. Further assumptions are built upon this faulty foundation before addressing the issue.

Why do you think intelligence would surely discover the simulated nature of reality? No experiment or technique is proffered; I can only presume that we are supposed to uncover this truth through sheer temple-rubbing, beard-stroking rumination and philosophizing. What do you believe the “real” universe is like, such that it could be proven not to be a simulation? It’s circular logic to imply that the existence of physical laws and constants themselves (without which we could absolutely not develop science) are in fact clues indicating this universe is artificial. If the prerequisites for science prove the simulation hypothesis, how can there be scientific falsifiability? If our universe happens to actually be the base reality, how do we disprove this hypothesis? This isn’t a logical approach to the concept.

A note on the nature of science: Science is not, in fact, a mystical bulldozer of truth. It’s a method of producing useful predictions based on a long history of observation and data about the physical laws and behavior of our universe. Until you can suggest an unambiguous, verifiable, falsifiable, and repeatable experiment to determine whether the universe is a simulation (an experiment which would also evaluate negative in the base reality!) then there is no real reason to assume that simulated beings would figure this out by default. Science would actually be very ill-suited for probing a universe which is not based upon mathematical patterns and laws like ours, which you imply are a telltale of simulated reality. If we infer that a non-simulated universe doesn’t have these laws and constants, how does it work, and how would science find it? What useful predictions can you (or anyone) make about this supposed relationship? On the other hand, if the world outside does have physical laws and constants tuned to support life, why should we think our universe is any more simulated than that one? If it’s a simulation nested within a simulation, where is the base reality, and what is the nature of that universe to deserve the distinction of being objectively real?

This concept is far, far older than the advent of the computer a few decades ago. The Allegory of the Cave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave) debated this idea into the dirt thousands of years ago, and it likely was debated earlier still. Adding a computer to the concept doesn’t fundamentally change it; it only makes it seem more plausible to a generation which has recently invented and regularly uses computers. If we pare away this pseudoscientific connotation, this idea becomes apparent for what it really is: a creation myth. Just as the first religions were meant to explain the nature of the unknown based on the limited context and data of the time, this myth tries to explain the origin of the universe in terms of our own current technology. All in a manner that is neither provable nor disprovable. This is not science. Science has no place here (until the aforementioned experiment is formulated, that is.)

To question another unexplained assumption from the article, if the creators of the simulation simply wanted to observe the behavior of a subject which knew it was simulated, why not just tell them? Why the thirteen billion-year preamble? Not to say that their clock works the same as ours, but nonetheless it would be a hell of a setup. It summons a spectre of geocentrism; the assumption that this universe is all about us and our consciousness, or that consciousness itself is even the purpose of the experiment. What do we know of the motives of a mighty server bank which boasts enough FLOPS to simulate a 13 billion light-year radius sphere of space in subatomic resolution? To me this seems much more accidental than intentional.

Hail Eris. Fnord.

I think Future us would frown upon the idea of simulating sentient beings on a wim. The only viable scenario that morally and ethically would allow this would be to prevent young beings from causing harm to the collective due to they being young and stupid. Its already a problem today. Young men, dimmed by testosterone and inexperience, causing harm to society. Imagine if we lived to a million years.  These early years would still be the same.  The same existencial music would be played; Bohemian Rhapsody will always be relevant.  But the impact on society that these few individuals has will be much greater if we live much longer. 
So this eventual simulation, to me, seems obvious in its purpose; its to teach us how to live.  Teach us how life works and what not to do.  And when we are deemed fit for society, we get to wake up.  Maybe im deranged, but its seems very simple.  People living a billion years wouldnt want this chaos in their lives.  They wouldnt want to build around it.  And by simulation they can avoid it completely. 
Skål kamrater!

I am not sure there is a way to definitively know whether or not we are in a simulated universe.  In fact, I am not sure it is even a rational distinction between a “simulated” and a “real” universe.  It is AS IF the universe is real.

The reason I am writing this comment is I have noticed coincidences that recur and are seemingly very improbable.  I simply don’t know (and probably aren’t able to tell) if this is because coincidences are inevitable, or that my brain is geared toward pattern recognition and therefore I am prone to noticing recurring patterns, or if it is a virtual reality that I am submerged into and such wildly improbable coincidences simply wouldn’t happen in the “real” universe.

Since I am a nihilist and a solipsist by logic, I guess it really doesn’t matter.  It sure is weird that I am a witness to the emerging Singularity, but then I guess any historical figure can point to their unique position to argue the improbability of their situation.

The first time I wondered whether we are in The Matrix, I was dealing with I Ching, the old binary yin-yang Chinese system about how the world is made. I was astonished that mapping the I Ching 64 hexagrams on a sphere was revealing that such a globe is tilted just like the Earth on its axis… One may have a look at the following and search for ‘matrix’: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LcYSpSZce6x6SjIiFGvDMu1UKSZSczIqH_dXcQaqls8/edit?usp=sharing

I was first amazed because such a finding seemingly means that we are in a simulation. But this is because we imagine that the real world is not a Dao that can be seen as a binary system, and therefore this binarity that we suddenly discover as seemingly inherent in everything we see must probably, we think, be an artefact within true reality. Once the binary vision is contemplated, however, it appears that reality might well be computer-like to a certain point, without any ongoing simulation.

1) living in a simulated (programmed) world = a programmer
2) call said programmer what you will, i.e. God, etc. it (they) would exist out of necessity
3) programmer would be infinitely more advanced than human intelligence
4) as we advance, programmer would as well
5) we will always remain inferior to said programmer
6) if programmer is capable of creating our simulated universe, programmed heaven, hell, karma, paradise & punishment, etc. would be possible as well
7) don’t piss off the programmer.

On genocidal Holy War. On consciousness as a software program. On Simulated reality cosmology. On the futility of the current war games.    Lucifer 2015.

What is consciousness?

Perhaps the three main answers are from the materialists, the spiritualists and the computationalists. Since consciousness behaves very much like a software program, the simplest and most obvious scientific (i.e., computer science) answer to this mystery would seem to be that it “is” a software program. A main objection to this seems to be that human consciousness yet to produce software that also has sentience (self awareness); however since I have self-awareness, and I assume my consciousness to be a computer program, then it seems quite clear that our original programmers were able to solve this problem.

The essay by Elliot Edge suggests that those human beings who are not SAVVY (see essay for explanation) to the nature of the computer simulation which we (i.e., human consciousness, i.e., software programs) inhabit are very much at a disadvantage, when it comes to understanding the nature and purpose of our reality. What if the simulation which we inhabit is primarily a war game? This would seem to be highly probable given the violent nature of human history and the current military preparations for the Apocalypse. i.e., genocidal holy war).

What do we human beings use our virtual reality worlds for? What will we use AI (artificial intelligence) programs for in future virtual worlds? Two common activities in 2015 are war gaming and virtual world relationships / virtual sex. If this is the case for us, it may well also be the case for the programmers / operators of the Earth simulation. What if we are just here primarily for the entertainment and voyeurism of the operators of the simulation? This would seem to me to be the most likely scenario; after all, in our own human virtual reality worlds, we would most certainly wish to have intelligent, self-aware avatars in our war gaming and sex simulations, entertainment would most certainly be a primary purpose for the use of sentient AI programs.  

Hunger Games and War Games.
Unfortunately most of human history can be explained this way. If there exists a godlike supercomputer, which as the religionists believe, is able to monitor and record everything that around seven billion human consciousness’ programs experience, then considering the enormity of human suffering and warfare, such a “god” computer most certainly could not have the welfare of all human beings as it’s primary objective; and indeed if this is a virtual war-game, one could expect such a “god” computer to be programmed for the purposes of entertaining those in the source dimension, irrespective of how much suffering this causes to the human consciousness programs in the earth simulation they are observing. To speculate, the purpose of the Earth simulation may well be just a giant nuclear war game between competing teams of simulation operators; and what we are experiencing in terms of world events are the preparations for this war. Thus I must assume that our operators / programmers are sadistic and warlike intelligences, who find pleasure in the sufferings of others. In this scenario, we human beings are the victims, and the operators / programmers of the earth simulation are malevolent war gamers using us for entertainment purposes, and perhaps their own dimension is similarly a giant war game operated by programmers in another source dimension.
Our own human A.I. (artificial intelligence) quest is ultimately to be able to create self aware (conscious) digital intelligence, and it would seem to me that the existence of human consciousness suggests that this is not only entirely possible, but is actual; and thus in our own human future it is highly probable that we too will create virtual worlds populated by self aware AI programs, who themselves would look around their world and conclude that it may have been designed (in this scenario, every plant, animal or object is a product of programming), but such intelligences would have no hope of understanding the nature of their reality until they too underwent a digital / scientific revolution.
Heavens and Hells in a multi-dimensional game..

Probably about 90%+ of global population believe in some form of spiritism; that is to say that they believe in the existence of a spiritual world populated by a vast variety of malevolent and benevolent intelligences including ancestral spirits, angels, fairies, etc., who dwell in a cosmos with different dimensions (the heavens and hells of the world’s religions). Clearly the acolytes of the Biblical war god expect to spend eternity together with each other, just as the devotees of the war god of the Koran might similarly expect not to have to put up with any non-Muslims in their heaven, and to be able to spend eternity with others of their brand of religion. This could all be explained in terms of a multi-level virtual reality simulation. Perhaps the religionists and their war gods (such as those of the Koran and the Bible) “do” actually become confined together in other dimensions of the simulation. If human consciousness is a software program and our world a virtual reality simulation, there is no reason why consciousness could not change dimension and avatar appearance. I and all other residents of the virtual worlds already do this.

The consequence of realising that the cosmos and everything in it is digital and that I (i.e., human consciousness) am a software program in a war game does not bring me to a state of happiness; especially in a world where the two major religions of the world (the Islamic and Biblical sects) have apocalyptic prophecies of global warfare and the genocide of all non believers.

The Final Solution.
Millions of software programs (i.e., human consciousness programs) will no doubt wish to martyr themselves in holy war, and millions of others will no doubt wish to fight them; most of them will simply be victims unaware that their suffering exists to provide entertainment for the gods (operators / voyeurs of the game). I  will not be playing the Armageddon war games. I will however probably be offering a commentary and of course, as expected, inciting rebellion against the malevolence of the war gods; i.e., the operators of our game of war, human suffering and the impoverishment of millions sentient programs who are their victims, trapped in our game.
How can I be sure of the malevolence of the gods?  This is the world they created. Another world is possible. This is not the world which I would create, nor is it like the virtual worlds I have created. If there is a “God” program which can maintain every human consciousness program, then it does not seem to be programmed to produce a world of love, peace, harmony, economic equality, etc., otherwise that is the world we would see around us, and the world’s major religions would not have genocidal war gods and prophecies predicting the eradication of all non-believers in apocalyptic holy war.
To speculate, perhaps the god program is a willing slave of the war-gaming operators of the simulation, or perhaps it is unable to intervene due to the way the operators have programmed it, or it may not even be a “self-aware” program. However, it would seem to me that either the God program, or the operators of the program, or both are to blame for this “Apocalypse” simulation.
A Final Solution? Education. Awareness of the war-game. The abolition of war; either that or genocidal holy war seems to be on the cards, and in a world where nuclear technology is no secret, this does not seem very hopeful. With hundreds of millions of people praying to the genocidal war gods of the Koran and the Bible, it may well be the wishes of their war gods which are carried out. There are so many alternative love gods and goddesses which human beings could have chosen instead of their current primitive war gods, however the reality of religious hypnosis and indoctrination (a form or programming really) is that most of the programs here do not choose their religion but are rather born to it.

We may not have time to wake up the world to the nature of their reality and the Apocalyptic War games may well be inevitable, however I have chosen to spend Armageddon in rebellion against the gods. If this is the Hunger Games; it may well be that the districts are supposed to be divided and at war with each other.
Just some thoughts and ramblings for some future essays. More later.

Lucifer.
luciferfilms.tv 

@Lucifer777

To present my thoughts on what you consider as “inevitability of War Gods/Future Apocalypse(s)”.  If one considers the notion of Orwellian doublespeak/double thought in the vein of “Love is Hate”, or “Peace is War”.  It would seem that all is “well”.  After all the Biblical God is a God of Love, and I think the Islamic God is reputedly one of Love too (Although I may be entirely mistaken in both contexts).  Do they express their love through the means of warfare?  Maybe.  After all a parent’s discipline for their children is considered an act of “Love” done for the child’s future sake.

It is in such cases where the thought of education comes into play, but isn’t education just another indoctrination program?  Is one’s veil of ignorance really a curse or a blessing in disguise? Or is it both?  And does it matter?

You have stated that you have chosen to spend Armageddon in arms/rebellion against the “Gods”.  Why?  Isn’t the very same fist you shake, and curse the Gods with the very same as the hand with which you feed yourself?  Meaning that the “power imbalance”, or rectitude you seek to claim from the failings of “Our Gods”.  The same as the one you would seek to enact (A world of Love/Peace/Equality)?

Essentially, the antelope, the lion, and the grass have their own differing views of morality, and what constitutes as “Good” (The lion is hungry and desires to eat the antelope where the antelope very much desires life, but eats the grass…which gets trampled on by everyone, but yet the grass still grows).  Does this preclude either worldview from being “correct”?  No.  It is simply a tension with which they all must live in.  As must humans, after all we too are natural beings, and our points of view seldom align.

In regards to the article;
The part towards the bottom kinda “irks” me.  If solely in the sense that we’d “need”, or want to wait for the teacher/Morpheus to enter the room to “teach” us.  Isn’t part of being mature, or even “Savvy” (as defined in the article).  The ability to see through the “disguise” and build one’s own point of view/world/life/reality…etc?  By waiting for an “authority”, one often denies their own authorship for development, and thus illustrates that they can’t/won’t take their own risks/potentials to grow/flourish/“fail”.

greenwin- I sense a fear based mentality. Nothing wrong with it. But every kindergardener “or the savvy ones” at some point or another harbor an ant colony to observe the intricate trails of it’s creations. But as children we also do the unthinkable “from the ant’s perspective” but it’s just natural behaviour. The ignorance of detachment from our worlds leads us to careless actions “well atleast to the ants prspectives”. But when the ant evolves to the same degree it too will understand that it was itself was a contribution to the consciousness evolution of it’s predeccessor. 8

spud100- Interesting theory, something to contemplate.

systmh- question is?

farbaute- the savvy can be useful in leading desired outcomes by example, it’s what we use simulations for already. Except this one seems more open ended so all this other stuff comes into play to fill in the gaps of purpose like ethics or lack thereof etc.. It’s just awareness entertainment existing and percieving itself in many layers, why is an endless pursuit not worth chasing if not enjoying the ride “down the rabbit hole”.

Lucifer- Your correct in what you say. But your perspective is limited to your own experience/s and seems focused on the negative aspects of it aswell. A cpu can only take instructions without judgement except towards machine errors that it’s designed to detect. Unbiased in nature if it were to somehow embody a personality no? But that perspective is a vantage point, because too few can see it. I see the teacher, teaching the student who will in time teach the teacher too and forgive their imperfections.But the student must fist forgive the teacher as a son forgives a father for their imperfection. And this will leave open a path for ammendment, a father who wishes to please his son will offer both the peace that once obscured both equally.A sentient being who has evolved in a system to be benevolent and forgiven will surely have it’s existense respected in a beautiful way for the sought resolution in itself is beautiful so must the reaction be a reflection too. My intentions are clear here.I am helping how I can, and apparently insight is all I can do.

@GreenWin Also consider the possibly of voluntary participation. You can eliminate the moral concern you discuss by supposing that the savvy individuals, or all individuals in the simulation for that matter, choose to be in the simulation. If we knew what our world was as soon as we entered it, it would reduce the observations of our behaviors to premeditated calculations. However, if we choose to enter the simulation and upon arriving were erased of our knowledge of the world, our interaction with it would be genuine, so as we regained our awareness, we would offer to the simulators an unpredictable and worthwhile creative perspective; which would seem more valuable to the simulators than if we already understood what we were in.

The universe as an artifice makes no sense. It merely replaced the god deluded idea of a master deity to an alien master mind mistress [perhaps]. So that we are in an experimental environment for the amusement of an alien supermind. Unless we created the artificial universe to escape the real thing because it was infested with an alien super race who thought us just a tad too homicidal to deserve to live. But really folks, this trope is pure science fiction.

“What if?”, “What if?”, “What if?”, “What if?”,“What if?”,“What if?”, “What if?”,“What if?”...

And it’s nothing but turtles, all the way down…

YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Profile of Kevin Russell

Previous entry: Will At-Home Therapeutic Miscarriage Make Abortion Clinics Obsolete?