NationStates Jolt Archive

theory#1.
Ever play the Sims? If you did, then you know that it's about creating and controlling families. What if our reality is just a game that is similar to the Sims? What if we are just characters in a computer game? What if anomalities in space and time are just weird glitches? What if every war was just the result of a few commands given to this reality by our user(person playing the game we are in)? At any moment, we could simply be erased and life can start anew. Every war ceases to have happened. History never happened. People never born. Deaths never happening. Pain never having been suffered. Everything we hate and love would cease to be.

Any more theories that you can think of?

I like The Matrix triology too, but this is going alittle too far. :rolleyes:

theory#1.
Ever play the Sims? If you did, then you know that it's about creating and controlling families. What if our reality is just a game that is similar to the Sims? What if we are just characters in a computer game? What if anomalities in space and time are just weird glitches? What if every war was just the result of a few commands given to this reality by our user(person playing the game we are in)? At any moment, we could simply be erased and life can start anew. Every war ceases to have happened. History never happened. People never born. Deaths never happening. Pain never having been suffered. Everything we hate and love would cease to be.

Any more theories that you can think of?
We're all a holodeck situation run on the holodeck of the Enterprise-D, based off an old fiction novel about an alternate twenty-first century Earth.

My theory: if God does exist and created us, he did so when he was drunk out of his mind.

All of reality is shaped by the majority of people agreeing on it. The structure and properties of everything are only as they are because we expect them to be this way and we believe that they will continue to be this way.

If enough people's subconscious minds ignored their responsibility to shape the universe through expectation and belief all manner of things would happen. There would be no day and night, only eternal twilight. inanimate objects would warp and twist into other shapes. Sometimes they would behave like living things. People's bodies would be altered in subtle and sinister ways. We would become as a race of insane monsters inhabiting a twisted hell that is but a parody of the ordered universe around us.

How's that?

(inspired by/stolen from Thomas Ligotti's story The Mystics of Muhlenberg)

theory#1.
Ever play the Sims? If you did, then you know that it's about creating and controlling families. What if our reality is just a game that is similar to the Sims? What if we are just characters in a computer game? What if anomalities in space and time are just weird glitches? What if every war was just the result of a few commands given to this reality by our user(person playing the game we are in)? At any moment, we could simply be erased and life can start anew. Every war ceases to have happened. History never happened. People never born. Deaths never happening. Pain never having been suffered. Everything we hate and love would cease to be.

Any more theories that you can think of?Then someone's getting REALLY bored watching me waste time on the internet, and will likely sell the game away.

Hmm, here's a question. If we ignore the rules of "reality" and deny that it's real. Would we be able to have powers like Neo in The Matrix?

I just got done watching the entire Matrix Triology for those wondering.

I am God. That is to say, since reality is something that is entirely internal to me, I am omnipotent within it and anything attributable to God is in fact my subconscious playing around and experimenting a little bit.

Everything in the physical world is really just a shadow of something in the spiritual world.

The vastness of space is a reflection of the size of God.

Biological life is really just a shadow of the spiritual life of God.

And so on.

That's C. S. Lewis :p

That's C. S. Lewis :p
... who doesn't get a lot of credit on these boards. >_>

The Universe is a coconut within itself.
-or-
Reality is defined by our government

The Universe is a coconut within itself.
-or-
Reality is defined by our government

If that's true, then our reality is really messed up.

Hmm, here's a question. If we ignore the rules of "reality" and deny that it's real. Would we be able to have powers like Neo in The Matrix?

I just got done watching the entire Matrix Triology for those wondering.
You can do one better. You can construct your own reality and live in it where you can have any kinds of powers you want.

... who doesn't get a lot of credit on these boards. >_>


He would if you would read his works. Especially mere Christianity. He was a brilliant author, and he rarely leaves a statement without a supporting argument.

You can do one better. You can construct your own reality and live in it where you can have any kinds of powers you want.

Yea, but then people of the false reality would throw me into the false mental ward. But no worries, in my reality I am free! FREE!

We cannot give ourselves superpowers unless we are designed to be able to. Of couse, there's also the glitch thing. Only our user and/or programmer(s) can alter our reality. What if they, in turn, are just characters in yet another game. What if there is a chain of games. Of course, eachone would, in turn, create multiple games, creating a web. Thusly, we have a web.

We cannot give ourselves superpowers unless we are designed to be able to. Of couse, there's also the glitch thing. Only our user and/or programmer(s) can alter our reality. What if they, in turn, are just characters in yet another game. What if there is a chain of games. Of course, eachone would, in turn, create multiple games, creating a web. Thusly, we have a web.

Hmm, In the Matrix there is a character known as The Architect, who was the father of The Matrix program. What if theres a guy like him, who built our reality, and controls it.

I just wrote a paper on how free will wins out over determinism. I'll just take a line right out of my paper.

Agreeing with Descartes, “I think therefore I am.” If what I think is what I am then I, no matter what my physical condition is, is what I think myself to be.

He would if you would read his works. Especially mere Christianity. He was a brilliant author, and he rarely leaves a statement without a supporting argument.
I tried. I failed. It's not readable. Yes, the Screwtape Letters was an interesting and novel concept in its time (and still certainly worth a look at no matter what your inclination) but Mere Christianity makes some very pretentious claims with regards to morality and the role of Jesus. You can tell he used to be an atheist; his stubborn inflexibility and tendency towards gravity-defying leaps of logic pervades everything he writes. It's a dreary monologue that non-christians should stay clear of lest their stereotypes of christians as self-important and intrusive religious types be yet further backed up.

On the other hand, Scott Peck is a very insightful author, making use of ideas from the many schools of thought he has put to the test. Similarly, Tom Wright's works always come across as well reasoned and he never appears to jump to any conclusions that he hasn't strongly questioned himself. There are probably several other excellent writers in the field of Christianity. But Lewis isn't one of them.

*snip*

(inspired by/stolen from Thomas Ligotti's story The Mystics of Muhlenberg)

No joke, I arrived at exactly the same conclusion almost to the letter without ever hearing about that book.

This is my personal addendum...

All human beings are in the 'image' of God - children of the creator, if you like, with the capacity to invent, create and manipulate the universe to our will. Over time, we have created a 'Reality Consensus' where our limitless powers are directed into maintaining a rigid universe based on universally agreed rules and concepts. As children we are taught that the sun will rise the next day, then given physics as a manner of explaining it. Before physics was religion. Before that was the time of myth, when time itself was indeterminate (where do you think King Arthur went?) and those with sufficient belief (faith can move mountains) could adjust the very fabric of reality to their will.

With all people's energies committed to maintaining the Consensus it is all but impossible for reality dissidents to affect the world around them. Only when one removes oneself to a discrete space absent from such oppressive mentalities can one gain the POWER WHICH IS YOUR BIRTHRIGHT.

I'd like to cite Schroedinger as my evidence and a large amount of skunk as my inspiration. :D

Agreeing with Descartes, “I think therefore I am.” If what I think is what I am then I, no matter what my physical condition is, is what I think myself to be.
Is it really irrefutable to say that we are the thinkers? Surely all we can say for sure is that "Thinking is going on"?

Is it really irrefutable to say that we are the thinkers? Surely all we can say for sure is that "Thinking is going on"?

That sounds like fact. It's intiguing how we are only aware of our own life and thoughts though and that we believe others to exist similarly on that basis and/or because they say they think and are alive also.

Is it really irrefutable to say that we are the thinkers? Surely all we can say for sure is that "Thinking is going on"?

Can you say you are not thinking?

Can you say you are not thinking?

You can. I don't know, I thought we thought all the time, asleep or drunk or orgasming, always, irrespective of how clearly.

I favour a belief in "Next-Tuesdayism".

As a counter-argument to YECs believing that everything was created 6,000 years (and a bit) ago and made to 'look old' by God, it is quite reasonably asked "Why can't the world have been created last tuesday, and everything (including your memories) have been faked from before that.

So why not go further?

Implicit in either a YEC's 'serious' opinion that the universe is 6,000-and-a-bit years old of the hypothetical "Creation occured Last-Tuesday" position is that the Creator (of whatever flavour, be that Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky or Floating Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn) does things like "setting light in motion so that it arrives in our eyes, tonight, as if departed from a star thousands of light-years away those same many thousand light years ago". And caulculating realistic historic strata patterns/fossil depositions/ice-core gas-bubble concentrations/etc to embed within the 'fresh new' world to fake such things as the plate techtonics/evolutionary advancement/climatic and atmospheric oscilations that us (fooled by such cheap, if omnipotently-applied tricks of fabrication) take to provide proof of a history prior to the moment of Creation.

Still with me? Good.

So how does BGitS/FSM/IPU do all this? Well, even if it's the matter of an instant's thought, somewhere within that thought is a logically-derived advancement of universe from (purely imagined) Big-Bang-alike initiation towards the point where He/She/It says "Let It Now Be So." (And possibly, then, turning to His/Her/Its spouse/live-in-lover/college-roommate and saying "Now Pass Me The Telephone Directory, For I Dost Need To Find A Halfway Reputable Firm Of Builders To Make This Universe I've Just Designed... The Last Lot I Used Did A Rightsome Horse's Arse Of My Other One.")

Thus is born the germ of the idea of Next-Tuesdayism. We are but the constructs within the (all-powerful and near-isntantaneous) imaginings of the Supreme Being, merely some of the more detailed parts of His/Her/Its Infinitely-detailed plans for "How the Universe Will Be". At the appointed hour (sometime in the early hours of Next Tuesday) the imaginings will be made flesh (and rock and interstellar gas and photons and Higgs's Bosons and whatever else He/She/It can get wholesale from the builder's merchants on such short notice) and what we are now, what we have been, and what we will be up until the moment of Realisation (and I use that word in a very literal sense) will become our 'backhistory'.

And thus are defined the Principles of Next-Tuesdayism. And so as Next-Tuesday approaches we await, with expectation, the moment of true Creation, of Making-It-So, of finding ourselves being within a True universe that is imperceptibly different from the one laid down within the mental-blueprints and faux-history concocted within the Supreme Being's original imagination. And, you know, it doesn't matter that Tuesday passes and we do not find ourselves able to have discerned a change. Some might take solace in the fact that the lack of perceivable changeover from simulation to reality is the desired intention (and thank the Creator that they Chose A Builder that did not Skimp Upon The Insulation Applied Unto The Borders Of The Universe's Out Reaches nor Forget To Undercoat Each And Every Atomic Nuclei With The Standard Thickness Of Gluon Particles As Defined By ISO Standard Number SQRT(-1).Pi) but I'm of a mind to incline towards that altogether more elegant theory that no matter how many 'incidental' Tuesdays may have appeared to have passed with Reality setting in, Next-Tuesday is the next one along.

Any questions? No? Good... ;)

Although C. S. Lewis does introduce some controversial doctrine towards the end of Mere Christianity, the rest is sound. It is all a matter of specificity. Towards the beginning he is arguing for the existence of God. He does a great job of it, and it is not controversial because it is such a simple piece of doctrine that all Christians tend to accept it. It's only when Lewis gets towards the end of the book does he introduce specific doctrines that some Christians would disagree with. He also skips logical steps here, but mostly because it would take a long time to write virtually self-evident steps. Although I will concede that many of the things he states towards the end of "Mere Christianity" are certainly up for debate, I still say that it is a great read for non-Christians.

This is because of his outstanding arguments for the existance of a God, and do not forget that he tells certain people that they should skip certain chapters, since they [the chapters] would only confuse the reader.

But reality is that this is a fallen world :P

Reality has the word "real" in it...therefore, reality fundamentaly makes no sense and shall just fold in upon itself and disappear.

Man, that would really suck.

This is my favorite zen story on reality:

The Stone Mind

Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.

While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"

One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."

"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

Hmm, here's a question. If we ignore the rules of "reality" and deny that it's real. Would we be able to have powers like Neo in The Matrix?

I just got done watching the entire Matrix Triology for those wondering.

You can do that in dreams, but not while you're awake(at least not that I've done). If you realize you're dreaming you can do anything you want to. The other day I walked accross a lake underwater, flew, and grew a tree in a few seconds. You can get some real vivid dream imagery too.

The link below has some information on it.

http://www.dreamviews.com

"Reality" is the set of objects that are relevant to a given being. That is to say, if I am trying to figure out what is true in my reality (which is not necessarily exclusively my reality, and thus not necessarily subjective) then the test is relevance - the test is whether a given object can affect me in some manner. When I say "affect" I mean it very broadly; in this particular world the buildings of Tokyo "affect" me, because even though I have never been there, if I went I wouldn't be able to walk through them.

If a given object is irrelevant to my existence, then it doesn't exist. I can never fall off the edge of the earth. I can never even look down or reach down over the edge. Thus, because the flat earth is not relevant to me in my reality, it does not exist.

All the "brain in the vat" hypotheses miss the point. There is no secret, "greater" reality that is really "true," that we may or may not interact with. The very concept of truth, the very concept of existence, stems from relevance. To divorce it from this element is to make it into an undefined theoretical fantasy.

Agreeing with Descartes, “I think therefore I am.” If what I think is what I am then I, no matter what my physical condition is, is what I think myself to be.

"I think therefore I am" is one of the worst philosophical arguments ever proposed.

At best, Descartes may have been able to conclude that "thinking exists," but definitely no more than that. He assumes his impression of self, and thus begs the question.

Hyperbolic denial doesn't make any sense; it replaces common sense with the logic of argumentation, when the logic of argumentation is in fact based on common sense.

Reality is one moment, in which everything happens, and all these events are interpreted into a sequence by our human minds. This is life as we know it.
All though reality itself? Thats the general mish-mash made up of the hopes and dreams, and general being-ness of every mind ever, interpreted through the filters of our own minds. Thats why, when one is on psychedelics, one often sees things melting. The filters are trying to disslove into the Whole General Mish-Mash (WGMM). If this were to happen, one would go completely insane, because the amount of imput would overload the mind.

He would if you would read his works. Especially mere Christianity. He was a brilliant author, and he rarely leaves a statement without a supporting argument.

Replace "rarely" with "always" and your statement is somewhat more accurate. Lewis was a very sloppy reasoner.
I do agree he was a good author though.

You can do that in dreams, but not while you're awake(at least not that I've done). If you realize you're dreaming you can do anything you want to. The other day I walked accross a lake underwater, flew, and grew a tree in a few seconds. You can get some real vivid dream imagery too.On the subject of dream imagery, last night I wanted to make sure that I not only got up a a decent time (rather than lie in) but also remembered to do something ASAP after waking, so I set a timed/alarmed reminder on my mobile as well as the other three obligatory alarms (bedside, hallway and the one in the room a few feet away, all at slightly different times and with slightly different snooze/switch-off requirements) to force me to go through the actual process of thinking rather than mindlessly snoozing (or even completely deactivating) a single alarm (something I'm perfectly capable of doing in a not-really-awake state.

Strangely enough (or not, perhaps) I managed to incorporate a 'wake up and remind' sort of device within my dreams, and after each of the first three alarms (from memory, that was the mobile, the bedside and the other-room ones) had been dealt with (in a snooze fashion) I returned to bed in order to also re-enter my dream-state and ensure that the ficticious 'in-dream' device that I'd... well, drempt up... to ensure that that did not go off again "while I wasn't there to switch it off".

All perfectly logical at the time, in the (rather too broad) boundary between full wakefullness and full sleep where the two states merge together. Luckily, the final alarm and a phone call from a friend managed to bring me to full-enough senses to not sleep the whole day through (continually waking up to snooze/switch off alarms and going back to sleep to handle the equally valid world I found myself inhabiting this morning...)

Strangely enough, I get most of my best practical ideas before I get to sleep, late at night, followed by (if I manage to remember the details) most of my artistic insights that make it all work. But I have to find some way to make notes or I tend to lose those 'compound ideas' until reminded (as I am, right now, of the inspirations that came to me last night before unconsciousness finally kicked in...