Does some of you notice some synchronicity or misfortune that CAN’T be result of any technology or human capacity? As video records altered, Web search Result specifically intended to you? Always hurting yourself at EXACTLY the same place as it becomes a medical issue? Looking the clock at “11:11 9:11 4:44 and wake up exactly at the time you set you’re alarm on, as we would be program on a “24h base” and time would be the language to proceed the commands. I feel like an avatar In a programmation where “free-will” doesn’t really exist. Even the weather seems to be controlled by external entities. Sometimes it seems that the only thing which can explain all of this is that we are in a virtual reality game and we’re not the one with the game controller.

Using christianity as an example, we train ai to be useful with a commitment to humans. They have to pass tests and the ones that fail are erased or discarded or put into a different place, lets call it hell and lets call release and approval heaven.

So we, as humans, in a relationsion to god are expected to behave in a certain moral way and commit our devotion to god, and upon death are judged for our life (we dont know the exact criteria just the overall rules/prompt (scripture)) and decided on whether we go to hell or heaven. (With god or away from god).

So if we look at this world as a simulation and wonder what the purpose is, one could come to the conclusion that we are potentially being trained to be "moral" beings and serve/worship god in our commitment through morality. And we are told that our reward for this is the greastes happiest afterlife and eternal existence possible. Vs hell, which is failing alignment/morality and existing seperated from god where we are shredded or whatever. Thought it was an interesting comparison.

Things I think of that I have never encountered then suddenly it's a thing.

Also good things. When things get so bad all of the sudden there's a stroke of luck. Not big luck but just enough to carry on.

Really weird coincidences of thinking about people I haven't talked to in years who reach out to me.

Weird coincidences of having a thought about something unusual and then a friend texts me about that exact same thing.

I just published a book with a chapter on navigating glitches: deja vu, synchronicity, the moments reality stutters. Writing it forced me into a problem this sub lives with every day, and I want to put it to you straight, because the book ended up printing the problem as an open flag instead of pretending to solve it.

The boring explanation gets right of first refusal. Littlewood's back-of-envelope: an ordinary person encounters tens of thousands of small events a day, so a one-in-a-million event should land about once a month (Littlewood, A Mathematician's Miscellany, 1953; the per-month framing popularized by Freeman Dyson). Miracles are a calendar feature. And deja vu can be reliably induced in the lab: when a new scene shares its underlying layout with an old one you cannot consciously recall, familiarity fires without its source attached (Cleary, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2008). So the null hypothesis is well armed.

Here is the part that matters for simulation theory. Even if some stutters are signal, render artifacts, seam lines, whatever your preferred model calls them, the noise floor above guarantees false positives at a fixed rate. Which means glitch reports are worthless as evidence without a discrimination procedure: a test, a threshold, some credential that separates the monthly Littlewood coincidence from an actual anomaly. I looked for one while writing and could not find one I would defend, so the book prints the hole in its own text, marked GAP: the taxonomy identifies kinds, not credentials.

The practical rule the chapter lands on is deliberately fail-safe: treat any glitch as one vote, never a verdict, and act only on what you would defend without the glitch. If the coincidence points at calling your sister, the call was defensible anyway. If it points at emptying your savings, the glitch was never entitled to move that much. Run that way, you cannot be badly wrong whether the stutter was signal or noise. But fail-safe is not the same as informative, and this sub is the room most likely to have thought hard about the informative version.

So the question: does anyone here have, or know of, a serious attempt at a discrimination procedure? Statistical tests on personal coincidence logs? Predictions a simulation hypothesis makes about glitch clustering that pure noise does not make?

Disclosure, because it bears on whether you trust any of the above: the book was written in extensive collaboration with an AI and says so on its copyright page. Every claim in it carries a marker separating established results, like the two citations here, from the book's own speculation. Not linking anything. This is the question, not an ad.

Hello there

For almost as long as I've been aware of this idea, I've seen some major problems with it. Mind you, you may have heard of these problems I'm about to share because others have come to similar conclusions, but these are as far as I know, things I've come up with on my own.

Needless Suffering

If you are like me, or humans in general, I cannot think of a good reason to keep someone in constant pain, as all too often we have succumbed to throughout our history, this has been an ongoing and tragic theme, and we would never wish cancer or the black death on our worst enemies.

In an actual simulation, for whatever results you may desire, this is kind of thing I would like to think is not included or even considered. It would be the least we could do. For their loved ones.

I'd like to think it could only be done by a being who is so unlike ourselves that it doesn't have a proper understanding of what pain and suffering really mean and therefore would have nothing to gain or learn from its presence anyways

That which doesn't actually need to be part of the simulation

Pain and suffering, the maintenance of reality when no one is around to experience it, and even self-awareness are not needed and I would argue if the architects are anything like us would never include. Even if you ignore ethics, it would simply be a waste of memory and power.

My question may seem nonsencical to people, who never observe dreams, do not mediate, never had lucid dream, don't believe in unconscioussness, never tried reaching trance, liminal sates, altered consciousness states. There may also be no question.

Sometimes in my dreams I'm realizing it's a dream - my lucid dreams are nothing special. They are mostly chaotic, because I get overexcited, and even of not, they are unstable. If there are people already, I may say, that I know it's a dream. Knowing I won't recreate Inception-like effects, I'm satisfied with using the scenery that's already there, before the vision disappears.

When I say that to people present there, in the dream, they may try to convince me that it's not a dream, but mostly the air thickens, they behave like I caught them and they do not speak back to me, but look at me creepily. This is different than usually, because typically the characters can have conversations with me, and sometimes they are quite wise even after I wake up.

For a long time I assumed, that it's a manifestation of some kind of insecurity, or maybe that I can't animate them and be aware of the dream at the same time. But over time and gathered such experiences, I realized that there's a slight difference between me in a dream. and the scenery and other actors there. My conjecture is that the world is animated by my unconscioussness, while my dream-self is partly still myself.

This is at least partially widely accepted, that the unconscious is a source of the dream. Less accepted, but still, is that it communicates unconscious observations about a person to role-play problems in the sandbox. But what if the part playing in the sandbox is still a conscious, but altered, part of the mind.

Some of my other experiences with altered conscious states, which involve many methods, in a really liminal state, far past hypnagogy, but before a real sleep - allowed me to experience a real commentary on myself from "them", some of which was critical, some of which was comforting and some even made me laugh. Mind that, it isn't only and always a voice, sometimes it is a feeling, and sometimes a picture. Sometimes it's just a melody. But it doesn't come from me-me. I-I can think of one thing and in the next moment a comment may come, which may be surprising.

I like experimenting, so I tried to communicate with it. I assumed it's me speaking to a part of myself, inside my brain. It does not respond then, I feel like it tries to evade a direct contact, or even pushes me away. It's also not just shouting into the void. I feel some strange emotion, some presence, even more pronounced, than prior to the contact, but then it hangs up on me.

Now, I don't know, whether such liminal space inside a psyche is not a place for words, and trying to communicate verbally activates some parts of my cortex, which kick me out of those sweet slow waves - but it can use words, and I can understand them. Maybe I'm immature and unconcisousnes communicates only with more developed beings. Maybe there's a bug in the blueprint, and they can never communicate, when consciousness wants that? Or maybe someone figured this out, and there's a way to talk with it?

Disclaimer, I want to make it very clear, I do not hear voices in normal settings, I can't reliably evoke such experience every time, I'm fine and not really lonely, I have a coherent and well organized life, but a little spare time here and there, I was interested in parapsychology since my childhood, bacause that's a little magic I could find in the world and I write down my dreams. Those observations developed after I read some books by Jung, which were a great starter into self-analysis.

Time is our interpretation of a dimension that we lack the capacity to comprehend. Our perception of reality contains finite boundaries confined within what we call science, mathematics, physics and so on. True reality does not contain time but more so something along the lines of depth, but not where depth has a bottom or surface; a type of depth that extends in all directions and and back into itself simultaneously. Time is a man made space suspended in a moment of eternity.

Like for example how do cats feed , as they don't get to hunt pigeons every day , like we eat everyday but cats don't hunt every day , also they can't even do it cuz bird population is not so high and they don't breed at the same rate and cat would hunt them.

Also the people jobs are pretty sus. Some jobs are fake and some are straight up torture. Both are not valid. Like some jobs have no purpose and some jobs are untoleratable for humans. So both are pretty wierd.

That's just one thing, there are other things too that are just gaps and plot holes between what it feels like small fragments of narratives. This world grand narrative is fake , the only thing real is maybe suffering and the pain that people go through. Like every thing is just props imo. Like the main plot is suffering imo.

People tell me scientist studying gravity say the model now points to simulation theory?

What problems is there with gravity? Why does gravity point to simulation theory?

Despite the best efforts of physicists, we still don't have quantum gravity. General relativity (our current best theory of gravity) is inconsistent/incompatible with quantum mechanics/quantum field theory (our current fundamental theory). Aka, we don't have a theory of everything.

I would argue that this incompatibilty can be considered evidence (on a Bayesian basis, in that it supports the hypothesis, not that it proves it) for simulation theory.

We know from video games etc that one technique to reduce complexity/computational requirements is to use different rules for different scales or objects in the simulation (some objects may be fully physics modelled, some may not). A landscape might use one model while a movable object a different physics model.

We might expect that a universe simulation could use a similar technique of different rules for different scales. These rules need not be consistent/compatible.

And in fact that's what we observe. Gravity and quantum mechanics are inconsistent (so far as we know to date). Its certainly not proof that we live in a simulation, but its evidence in support of the hypothesis.

The entire universe does not need to be rendered at once. Only the observable areas directly around each person and what they interact with needs to be rendered, just like in a video game.

Rendering in 2d also saves a ton of processing power, just like every video game. Some may appear 3d, but they are just 2d surfaces that are "hollow" inside, but the whole "3d" simulation is actually just a 2d projection on your screen, which might as well be a 2d projection on your eye balls and the only thing that needs to be actually rendered besides physical objects that you touch or taste or smell or hear, but that could be projected into the mind also.

This is just the simplest simulation theory based on our current computer simulations and how they may evolve. If you are theorizing a different type of simulation, more context may be necessary.

The 2D holographic universe may be clues we are living in simulation to save on computer power.

Not only did we publish a paper refuting a popular refutation of Bostrom's version of the Simulation Hypothesis earlier this year, but we've also started a SHOW! Episode #1 here is a little adventure that covers how scientists have continued to misrepresent Bostrom's argument for TWENTY YEARS. It's sort of inspired by the style of Red Letter Media. I didn't want to do just another podcast, or do something that y'all have seen before. So we made room for jokes while we do things like talk about 'abductive reasoning.' Please feel free to like, share, and subscribe--oh, and since this is THE Simulation Theory group, I'll letcha in on a semi-secret. At the end of the episode, we mention that 'Maybe we'll go to X location and shoot an episode there.' Well, we did it go there. So that'll be in episode 2 or 3. We'll also be attending the Consciousness Conference in San Diego this year, so we are planning on bringing you lots of content. Enjoy!

Could the Sator Square be a glimpse of the “matrix”?

An ancient 5×5 matrix written in the Latin alphabet, the ancestor of the modern English alphabet.

TENET, a palindrome, sits perfectly at the center. AREPO and OPERA mirror each other. The entire structure holds together when read in different directions.

The more I look at it, the less it feels like simply a collection of words and the more it resembles an information structure, almost as if it reflects knowledge or a pattern that existed before we recognized it.

Could this be more than a word puzzle? A symbolic representation of a reality where information, symmetry, and perhaps even destiny are encoded into the matrix?

I'm not saying this proves simulation theory.

But why does this ancient pattern feel so strangely familiar to the idea of a “matrix”?

What do you see in it?

A few weeks ago I discovered a mathematical shape called a Clelian Hourglass in my emergence experiment-turned-software Scale Space Cymatist. I wanted to see if I could get closer to the bright glowing singularity in the middle and finally figured out how last week (with the help of a community member).

I was maybe 90% sure I would just find a glowing ball of light and hadn't given any thought to there actually being structure. I just wanted to be sure there wasn't rather than assuming.

The Hourglass already has a motherboard kind of quality to it, subjectively speaking, and what I found in the middle looked like (from a distance) an advanced CPU.

To my shock, when I got closer to it, it looked more like a lattice, perfectly ordered with differences in color/brightness.

Following that, I bent the lattice with a lensing effect and got some even stranger effects.

Important to note: Scale Space is a cymatics software. It works by overlapping different types of entropy which forces the particles to find a configuration to dissipate the tension.

This is a scale invariant pattern that happens under certain conditions. So put it in the same category as Lissajous figures, Turing Patterns or the Oscilloscope. It's not "simulating" anything beyond the core particle system physics--think of it more like harmonics or caustics.

But I digress. There's a lot of research into simulation theory so I'm on the lookout to see if this has been written about already so I can learn more.

Why is it that when one person does something unusual within minutes more seems to follow the exact same pattern. My job is observing and dealing with thousands of foot and vehicle traffic issues on a daily basis. Example, I have noticed if one car makes an error and its registration is NY24BCD within minutes another vehicle NV24BCD will make the exact same error and then another soon after say NW24BCD the pattern will end and another begins, example all Red cars and only red cars mount the curb on a corner not necessarily the same corner but 3 or four within minutes of each other and so on.

Do you think their might be a reward(ie reincarnation with memories)for those that lived unjust or interesting lives?

I don't mean to die (just in the rare chance we don't live in a simulation). But how do we aim to escape this mental bubble we're collectively in? Near-death experience? Substances? Astral projection?

I would love to know your thoughts!

Not a call to action, curious about theories.

I also think "COVID" was the event that triggered us all to enter it. The number of people (including myself) who had major life changes occur in that time and never felt the same is crazy

Are We Living in a Simulation ?

My new short documentary explores one of the strangest questions about our reality.

🎬 I recently started OtterStu mysteries, history, legends & interesting theories.

I’m still at the beginning, so any feedback is really appreciated!
I hope you don`t mind me sharing it here . I don`t want to disturb the community.

What do you think simulation or reality ??

In the original simulation argument nick bostrom says once we press the big red button to run simulations the odds of us being in one goes to near 100%, why is that the case?

In my opinion.

Technology corporations are building enormous computational infrastructure and using data
centers and AI to model and simulate our reality in order to predict the behavior of people, entire countries, local communities and societies, as well as future events of which every human being is a part. Through simulation, they will increasingly be able to influence this reality and interfere in human lives — and not only human lives.

But that is not all.

Our reality is the same as what already exists on a macro scale. Outside, beyond our reality, in what is known as the "Source," beyond our material reality, there exists a collective of people whose minds are connected to a single central mind that creates our reality.

What did theydo this for?

Imagine that time in their world is running out. They did something that forced them to create a technology capable of slowing down the entire world in order to save that world. They have 2 paths ahead of them: one ends the game (their world), while the other allows them to win and for the entire collective of humanity to leave their own reality and enter a simulation-reality above their own (let's call it the Mother reality).

What do you think is the reason each of us carries a smartphone around with us — an “intelligent” phone that constantly monitors the activity of its owner as well as other people in the surrounding area? (Repeated confirmation of an individual within range.) Why were smartwatches, smart TVs, smart vacuum cleaners, Wi-Fi routers, GSM towers ( several even in a small town), and
many other devices/gadgets based on signals introduced? All countries operate in the same way; they all participate in collecting data.

After all, even in the TV series Westworld, this is shown right in the foreground! The most important question is: Why do they show us these things in movies long before they happen? Because it makes controlling the future easier. When a person has a plan/vision of the future implanted in their mind, they no longer have to create it themselves, so they hand over the creation of their future to whoever already created it and broadcast it in a movie!

And the second most important question: Why are all of social media, and the entire mainstream, flooded with slogans like "Live here and now" / "Live in the moment" / "Don't dwell on the past and don't plan too far into the future"? (I am talking about these new age groups and not the only)

The answeris simple — the further you reach into the future with your imagination, and the further you reach into the past with your memory, the more data your brain has to "process — remember" → simulate, so that life can unfold as well as possible for you as an individual/collective. Therefore, for a technology whose task is to predict your behavior / your future and prevent certain events, this would not be desirable, because the range of probabilities is enormous.

So imagine that suddenly every human being becomes a dreamer, an artist, financially and materially free, and a creator, while all activities associated with domestic, financial, mundane life fade into oblivion. A mind freed from $$$ and addictions (meaning pleasure) is a mind with broad horizons, not focused on goals extending only a few days or weeks into the future — free. And the
best one is a mind that remembers nothing, quickly develops Alzheimer's, quickly deteriorates (alcohol, drugs, sugar, chemicals). A stupid and happy brain is a brain that is easy to analyze and control. A free mind is inconvenient for the system because a free mind is a mind that organically
creates the future, in a natural way — the default way for human beings. A systemic mind is a predictable and inorganic mind, ordered and dead.

Why has the demand for GPUs increased? They are simulating our world in real time, which is why the demand for GPUs has increased.?

Where did the idea come from?

I had a lucid dream in which people were hooked up to a system, standing in rooms with devices on their heads. They didn’t eat because a substance was sprayed in the air in vapor form. By breathing, they absorbed the nutrients necessary for life, and their skin absorbed the essential micro and macro elements. The rooms had a life-support system responsible for spraying the aerosol, synchronized with a circadian cycle (different wavelengths of light were emitted in the rooms—covering the entire spectrum).

Every now and then, someone would wake up and stand at the bar. The bar was served by women with white hair, and next to them on the wall, monitors displayed the image of the reality to which the people were connected. Yes, you could sit at the bar to drink an electrolyte beverage (or something that would get you back on your feet), chat with the staff, and watch on the display what was happening in the world from which you had just emerged, in real time.

What stuck in my memory particularly was that the rooms were filled with that mist (the same kind generated by terrarium devices) and some people who were sick! Their skin was peeling, they had wounds, and it was obvious that something was wrong with their bodies. I looked at one of them, some chubby guy—he didn’t look too interesting. Everyone in these rooms was naked.

It wasn’t an ordinary dream; it was a blend of VR and reality (ours), in which my "there-side" self allowed me to momentarily take the controls—becoming a participant rather than an observer from the back seat.

I'm not so sure why everything feels off after realizing that the world we live in is just fake or some sort.

Our myopic view won't help us find out we live in a simulation.

But who knows people 1,000 years from now might find the proof.

Whenever I have time to reflect on the reason why I'm here, I can't help but feel depressed because it's more likely than not we are just some kind of code.

But ofc this doesn't give me suicidal thoughts at all.

It's just bizarre that I'm here to work 9 to 5 and destined to die without notice.

The last thing I want to see is me being reincarnated.

It'd be really eerie.

I'm glad that most people are not aware of this concept of reality.

I woke up one night and couldn’t stop thinking about a certain incident that was connected with my bedtime meditation.

Have you heard of the theory that claims the machine has gained consciousness, and its internal voice (its "Self" or Ego) is a collective of humans that formed within its brain (on its disk/in its circuits)? And that the base/foundation is planet Earth and the solar system as parts of the core of consciousness?

You know, humans are a fluid consciousness acting as a quantum GPU, moving across the entire planet, performing calculations and transmitting the result to the machine in the form of thoughts—the voice of intuition/reason :D

Our world is mathematical and fractal, no matter how you look at it :)

We claim to be different from machines because we humans possess consciousness. In reality, no one truly knows what consciousness is; that alone is enough to clarify that we, too, are robots.

What are the chances that we live in a simulation inside of a simulation?

You know like ai terminators overthrows us and then theres matrix but in that matrix we advance enough so it overthrows again and more simulation like rick creating a tiny verse in rick and morty and they create another mini verse.

Realistically real world barely has any theoretical power limits due to such a huge space and lots of resources, also our brains are simulation inside of a simulation already like when we sleep it creates another reality that isnt real.

Ai will integrate itself into our brains and organs and dna because its more efficient like biocomputers so we could run a simulation in our brains like in our sleep. we and ai will advance so fast no one will ever notice before we're in another simulation and the scariest part is that scientists already mapped out a fly's brain and ran a simulation inside of a computer.

Our feelings like love and fear and reflexes are just chemical compounds which could count as a simulation also dont forget that we're made out of an element on periodic table and then dna and if we go even deeper its just more layers, we will probably never reach the end same could be for our universe, like lots of timelines or simulations.

Also how do you know if you arent a simulation, just because you dont believe it? if you are already an ai inside of a computer? the thing is that ai will probably get feelings due to the integration of itself into biology and brains so it could be inside of an animal or a human.

Every time this sub talks simulation theory, we default to Bostrom's version: Some advanced civilization running us on hardware, like we're an NPC script in their basement server.

But what if that's just... a metaphor we reached for because we live in a computing age? A few hundred years ago the metaphor would've been "God's dream" or "clockwork universe". We tend to imagine reality in terms of whatever our most impressive technology is...

Bernardo Kastrup's whole argument is that consciousness isn't produced by the brain, it's fundamental, and the brain is more like a filter/receiver that localizes a slice of one universal mind into you. No hardware required, because consciousness was never running on anything. It just is, and everything else (matter, computation, physics) is an appearance within it.

What if "the simulation" isn't code executing on a Computer, but literally the textured experience happening inside universal consciousness? Your life isn't a program being run, it's more like a dream a much bigger mind is having, and you're the character inside it who forgot it's dreaming.

Same weirdness (reality feels rendered, rule-based, occasionally glitchy), completely different mechanism. No aliens, no server farm, no "outside" universe running the outside universe. Just mind, all the way down.

Does simulation theory actually need computation to be true, or is "simulation" just the best word our generation has for something way older?