20% chance we're living in a simulation - Oxford prof

[Simulist]

I think you're onto something there about deductive logic, Saurian Tail.

What follows is difficult to put into words; nevertheless, intrepidly, here it is. For a while now, my intuition has suggested to me:

(1) That there may be various levels to "reality," including a level where thought itself creates the Matrix and a level beyond thought where the Matrix does not ultimately exist.

(2) That, in this domain of the Matrix, it is thought itself that keeps us in the Matrix — reinforced by our belief in our thoughts and supported by others who help us to keep believing in them.

(3) That as long as we want to be free from the Matrix, we remain in the Matrix. It is not possible to comprehend What There Is with the help of thought — and there is no other linear instrument.

(4) That even if we know the Matrix does not ultimately exist (and we believe that we are free of it) we are still deluding ourselves into the Matrix because, ultimately, there is nothing to be free from.

(5) That when we comprehend this through Insight (not deductive logic or linear thought of any kind), the thought about the Matrix (and freedom from it) is not there anymore — and What There Is we will never know nor experience via the instrument of thought. It is the end of the Matrix for "me" — and indeed the end of "me."

(6) And, at last, a vision of What There Is, which "eye has not seen, nor ear heard."

[Nordic]

I used to be fond of the idea that our "god" is a 5th grade kid in "god school" and that our universe is one of his science projects. And he's just a "C" student, and this particular project is not doing what it was supposed to do.

[Simulist]

Yeah, Nordic. I know what you mean.

One of my favorite cartoons is a Far Side by Gary Larson called "God as a Kid Tries to Make a Chicken in his Room."

It's wonderful.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

"Only those who risk going too far can ever know how far they can go."
— William Bell, Fringe

"You never know what is enough, unless you know what is more than enough."
— William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

[Spiro C. Thiery]

What follows is difficult to put into words; nevertheless, intrepidly, here it is. For a while now, my intuition has suggested to me:
(1) That there may be various levels to "reality," including a level where thought itself creates the Matrix and a level beyond thought where the Matrix does not ultimately exist.

(2) That, in this domain of the Matrix, it is thought itself that keeps us in the Matrix — reinforced by our belief in our thoughts and supported by others who help us to keep believing in them.

(3) That as long as we want to be free from the Matrix, we remain in the Matrix. It is not possible to comprehend What There Is with the help of thought — and there is no other linear instrument.

(4) That even if we know the Matrix does not ultimately exist (and we believe that we are free of it) we are still deluding ourselves into the Matrix because, ultimately, there is nothing to be free from.

(5) That when we comprehend this through Insight (not deductive logic or linear thought of any kind), the thought about the Matrix (and freedom from it) is not there anymore — and What There Is we will never know nor experience via the instrument of thought. It is the end of the Matrix for "me" — and indeed the end of "me."

(6) And, at last, a vision of What There Is, which "eye has not seen, nor ear heard."

Your rumination here on "thought itself as delusion" is very interesting to me:
I recently had a conversation with a friend about how the purity of thought gets lost when we touch the pen to paper or open our mouths; I further recounted a bicycle ride during which I had talked to myself - basically expressing purity of thought - and how I wished I had had a dictaphone around my neck at that time.

BUT, as I already know, were I aware of that recording device, it would have hampered the purity of thought.

Now, you introduce the next level, which we left out of our conversation: Beyond the purity of thought resides something even more pure, that can not only not be expressed in images or language, but cannot even be conceived of in thought.

[Mx32]

We are not real?

Try non-duality:

http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com

Makes sense to me - no levels, nothing to achieve, no on to achieve it.

(other philosophies fail for me because it's like "Yeah, but if there levels or rules where does that leave those of us too lazy/stupid to reach the next level)

From a Course In Miracles:

"Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God."

[justdrew]

use of the term "simulation" carries too much baggage, better to just say "software"

[Saurian Tail]

I think you're onto something there about deductive logic, Saurian Tail.

What follows is difficult to put into words; nevertheless, intrepidly, here it is. For a while now, my intuition has suggested to me:

(1) That there may be various levels to "reality," including a level where thought itself creates the Matrix and a level beyond thought where the Matrix does not ultimately exist.

(2) That, in this domain of the Matrix, it is thought itself that keeps us in the Matrix — reinforced by our belief in our thoughts and supported by others who help us to keep believing in them.

(3) That as long as we want to be free from the Matrix, we remain in the Matrix. It is not possible to comprehend What There Is with the help of thought — and there is no other linear instrument.

(4) That even if we know the Matrix does not ultimately exist (and we believe that we are free of it) we are still deluding ourselves into the Matrix because, ultimately, there is nothing to be free from.

(5) That when we comprehend this through Insight (not deductive logic or linear thought of any kind), the thought about the Matrix (and freedom from it) is not there anymore — and What There Is we will never know nor experience via the instrument of thought. It is the end of the Matrix for "me" — and indeed the end of "me."

(6) And, at last, a vision of What There Is, which "eye has not seen, nor ear heard."

I respect this. I really do. Thanks for putting your thoughts out for discussion. What I'm hearing you say is that there is something inherently inadequate with the normal human thinking process. My own view is that the Matrix is a human cognitive creation whereby some people have understood human cognition more clearly than others and have occulted clear thinking from general view. Simply put, we are fully capable but we are not supposed to know that information.

The simulation argument has been called a second matrix because it catches people who see through the first matrix of everyday culture, politics, religion, etc. The obvious outcome here is that instead of being free to know and act based on more accurate information about the world, people would simply declare the world unknowable and withdraw. How do you overcome that sort of argument?

[Laodicean]

Create something better.

[Gouda]

I think there's a 100% chance we're living in a Situation.

[Saurian Tail]

Create something better.

Yes. But what does this mean in a simulated world ... if this is all just multiple layers of reality? If this world is real and permanent, then I have a very compelling reason to care about creating something better. If it is a simulation ... not so much.

I think there's a 100% chance we're living in a Situation.

That's a Gouda observation!

[IanEye]

I think there's a 100% chance we're living in a Situation.

make your move, man - state your case
taste the waste, man - taste the waste

[Simulist]

I think you're onto something there about deductive logic, Saurian Tail.

What follows is difficult to put into words; nevertheless, intrepidly, here it is. For a while now, my intuition has suggested to me:

(1) That there may be various levels to "reality," including a level where thought itself creates the Matrix and a level beyond thought where the Matrix does not ultimately exist.

(2) That, in this domain of the Matrix, it is thought itself that keeps us in the Matrix — reinforced by our belief in our thoughts and supported by others who help us to keep believing in them.

(3) That as long as we want to be free from the Matrix, we remain in the Matrix. It is not possible to comprehend What There Is with the help of thought — and there is no other linear instrument.

(4) That even if we know the Matrix does not ultimately exist (and we believe that we are free of it) we are still deluding ourselves into the Matrix because, ultimately, there is nothing to be free from.

(5) That when we comprehend this through Insight (not deductive logic or linear thought of any kind), the thought about the Matrix (and freedom from it) is not there anymore — and What There Is we will never know nor experience via the instrument of thought. It is the end of the Matrix for "me" — and indeed the end of "me."

(6) And, at last, a vision of What There Is, which "eye has not seen, nor ear heard."

I respect this. I really do. Thanks for putting your thoughts out for discussion. What I'm hearing you say is that there is something inherently inadequate with the normal human thinking process. My own view is that the Matrix is a human cognitive creation whereby some people have understood human cognition more clearly than others and have occulted clear thinking from general view. Simply put, we are fully capable but we are not supposed to know that information.

The simulation argument has been called a second matrix because it catches people who see through the first matrix of everyday culture, politics, religion, etc. The obvious outcome here is that instead of being free to know and act based on more accurate information about the world, people would simply declare the world unknowable and withdraw. How do you overcome that sort of argument?

Hi, Saurian Tail.

Well, I think some people probably would "declare the world unknowable and withdraw"; you're almost certainly right about that. Some others though might have even more confidence to pursue objectives within what they now understand to be a simulation that, up until now, they've always perceived to be risky in so-called "reality." Having said that though, I still wouldn't determine what I believe to be true (or untrue) based upon any expected outcome. It's ether internally consistent and possibly true, or it isn't. So this wouldn't really be an influence on me in any way.

Truth be told though, I'm disinclined to try and become an evangelist for even philosophical points of view, like my Six Points of Simulation, that I consider to be probably true. If it turned out that my Six Points help some people to make sense of the inconsistencies and outright anomalies they've observed in the "standard view of reality," then that's wonderful. If not, then it's really no big woop.

Because in the final analysis, I consider linear thought itself (and that necessarily includes my own thinking) to be probably a delusion.

[whipstitch]

Because in the final analysis, I consider linear thought itself (and that necessarily includes my own thinking) to be probably a delusion.

The mind craves for formulations and definitions, always eager to squeeze reality into a verbal shape - Nisargadatta

[Spiro C. Thiery]

Y'all crazy. Dunno what I do without y's.