UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Reality is Not Reality!

My academic buddy, Bryan Sentes, provided this Atlantic (magazine) piece to his friends on Facebook:

Non-Reality link

11 Comments:

  • Rich, thanks for the link. I need to re-read a couple of times, because this opens up other questions that I have based on the issues that I deal with in my profession.

    Hope to comment more in the future as I've formulated primitive thoughts on something similar in the past...based on pure observation since that is my main tool of the trade so to speak.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, April 28, 2016  

  • It's fascinating, Tim....

    In that it bespeaks, a kind of rational insanity; that is, all the talk of a computer simulation existence. the coming singularity, quantum nonsense et cetera tells me that there is either a neurological/mental breakdown extant or we are a tipping point where consciousness is near a break-through about the real reality.

    Madness is afoot -- in scientific circles, just as it has been in ufological circles.

    Jung warned of the coming breakdown by humanity, as did Freud in his Civilization and Its Discontents.

    Wilhelm Reich's book on fascism also was a precursor to coming madness, as Foucault predicted also.

    Reality is under attack, and while I exploit that attack here, it is worrisome, especially for those us, like you, who are tethered to mental stability or illness.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 28, 2016  

  • Rich: "Reality is under attack, and while I exploit that attack here, it is worrisome, especially for those us, like you, who are tethered to mental stability or illness."

    This is basically the questions that has my interest. Since I deal in the area of abnormal reality/perceptions which are based on organic issues such as neurocognitive diseases and syndromes, this begs the question that if such issues are real or not, how are we to take simulation theory seriously?

    What differentiates mental wellness vs that of recognizable mental disorders? You and I know that from a sociological standpoint "normalcy" is dictated by the social norms at any given point in time (taking into consideration societal paradigm shifts). How does this societal "majority vote" fit into any simulation model? To a certain point it appears to be utter madness.

    I can go on and on, but then I may be rambling at the end...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, April 28, 2016  

  • In some regards "reality" is a thing that is "socially constructed". I am reminded of a quote from a Jewish Rebbe, Menachem Mendel of Kotzk who was known as "The Kotzker Rebbe":

    "If I am I because I am I,
    and you are you because you are you,
    then I am I and you are you.
    But if I am I because you are you and you are you because I am I,
    then I am not I and you are not you!"

    Where does the line between the knowable [the self] and the unknown ["reality"] begin or end? Where does the separation between what the self perceives itself to be and what it perceives "otherness" [reality, another person] to be?

    Maimonides, in "Guide for the Perplexed" gives a definition of "God" by a list of attributes of what It is not. Might "true reality" be defined in a similar manner?

    Of course given the definition in the article of what reality might be, it seems we are back to Plato's cave allegory. We see shadows on the wall and call them real but the truth is we will never actually know reality until we are freed from our "perceptual imprisonment". Where is the line between sane and insane drawn? What happens when someone perceives something as "true" other than what the "consensus" of others does?

    These are the things we choose to ignore when we opt for a "classical, clockwork" version of the universe and its reality but we do this because we *think* it is "safer" to draw strict limits on what is real... Is our version of reality an actual "survival" trait or the belly laugh of a madman?

    Sorry to be framing this as a string of questions but it is "I asking I what I am thinking."

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Thursday, April 28, 2016  

  • Further thoughts...

    I wonder how the genomes of all species (including extinct species) would play a part in any simulation model? Granted that some, if not all, simulation would be done on "ancestral" model by our futuristic "post-human" progeny...assuming that they are that bored.

    Let's speculate that it is by some others (fill in the blank). To formulate a model one would need some point of reference to build said model.

    Just for grins...Book of Genesis, and I paraphrase, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness..."

    I believe that could be a point of reference to build a model for a simulation?

    Again, just for grins...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, April 29, 2016  

  • Tim:

    You'e taking the idea, with your genome reference, outside the concoction we call reality.

    All the minute vicissitudes are algorithmic creations, unreal or simulated.

    There are no genomes, and no human beings, just code.

    (I know you're grinning or think you are however....)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 29, 2016  

  • Yes, I'm definitely grinning on this one...

    Yet my genome tome underscores the "insanity" of the numerous (unfathomable) lines of code needed to cover all aspects of any current simulation theory. Genomes, DNA, cellular biology, etc are real to me...and you...thus showing that any model/simulation would be almost impossible to pull off.

    Question: "If I play a game of Sim City or Age of Civilizations and its variants, and I delete the game in progress, did I commit genocide?"

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, April 29, 2016  

  • As Hawking tells us, Tim, information (code, for the discussion here) is never destroyed or lost, even when entering black holes.

    So, you can't commit genocide.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, April 29, 2016  

  • @Tim:
    Isaiah wrote putting words in the mouth of God [in Isaiah 55:8-9] "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts"

    Either the Operator of a "Universe Simulator" or an ET might be able to say "For my technology is not like your technology, and my code is not like your code."

    That marvelous idea of Isaiah's seems to be ignored by ETH'ers or Simulationists. If "they" can do what humans claim they can do, then how different is their technology from ours? How different the way they can think or even exist? [Think of the description of the 3d visitor to 2d Flatland]. If they can do what they do, are we actually equipped understand what they do?

    Bostrom has made remarks that the Simulators are running "ancestor simulations". Why would they make an ancestor simulation? If you had that much power would you simulate your n-generation forebearers?

    ETH'ers claim that ET has visited Earth. Why would they visit? Why would they want to visit us? Laughs?

    Given of what we currently know of the energy requirements to accomplish either thing [which border on being "god-like"] Why would they bother to "re-create their past" or "visit that planet of self-centered savages"? Neither of these things has any apparent value to a "god-like" being.

    As for destroying a game save: If the "many histories" interpretation of QM is true, you are aware of only deleting the game in this "History" in the other Histories the game was not deleted. Only when the histories are summed and the calculation of life, the universe and everything is complete will there be an answer.

    OF course using the many histories approach to QM might infer that the simulation [if there were one] is running on a quantum computer able to hold "all possible states" of history.

    OTOH one might engage in a bit of pilpul [The Talmudic Scholar's rhetorical process that is used to formulate their legal decisions]: One might determine that since it was "only a simulation" and "not really life" then 'no genocide took place". Of course were "The Simulator" do the same to us, any survivors might not agree, since they would claim to be self aware and that that which is self-aware has "person-hood" and that terminating large numbers of beings that are self-aware is Genocide. From this we can conclude that if the thing that is simulated is *actually* self-aware then deleting its simulation could be considered genocide.

    @ Rich:
    The current thinking is that Information is conserved by it NOT being able to enter a black hole and that eventually black holes "radiate away all information" held in their gravitic hold.

    Add "The Universes of Max Tegmark": http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/ to your reading list with such things as More on the multiverse: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html
    and More on Quantum Information, The physics of consciousness and more: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/technical.html

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Saturday, April 30, 2016  

  • Thanks for the quantum offerings Joel....however...

    I have a quantum blog and a book review site where I cover the latest books on quantum mechanics, so I'm pretty much up to date on the current state of quantum theorizing.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, April 30, 2016  

  • @Joel,

    We can look at correlational possibilities throughout the Bible, Torah, and most ancient texts that loosely support a simulation framework.

    The Great Flood as a means to institute a system reboot using digital entities such as Noah as a means to store some of the original software, but with a new algorithm.

    Jesus' arrival to proclaim the eventual shutdown of the system...don't know when, but it is inevitable.

    As far as ancestral simulations, this fits the theme of most time travel stories: entities from the future traveling back in time to fix something due to catastrophic events in the future. Rather than travel back in time (this scenario would show that such a concept is impossible), generation "n" runs a series of models to show the feasibility of corrective actions...or ancestral models would be the basis for a prediction model for further futuristic studies.

    I've been thinking along the lines of scenario driven models and then the linking of multiple scenario models culminating in the "Grand" model itself. Bear in mind that scenarios have a beginning and an end...no major difference than an anthology.

    Forgive the ramblings of a man with average intellect and an over acting imagination.

    Tim H.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Saturday, April 30, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home