Ask Lemmy

It is what it is.

The thing is you have no way of getting to a higher position in order to discern the truths that are directly in front of your face.

So the only sane response to the universe that we are presented with is to treat it as if it is what it is.

Of course, feel free to keep your skepticism and, you know, to play the game however you choose to play it. Just know that there is no exit that is not eternal at this time as far as anyone knows.

Quick question: who could devote a fortune to make a fake world just to see what you do? Are you really, seriously, incredibly interesting?

Let me guess you’re not, as we all know there are many people much more Truman-Showable that you or me or most of the people here. The logical conclusion is that no one would spending money to deceive you, because reality is free.

If you really are depressed, devote a weekend to help some local charity. Helping others always puts my problems in perspective.

You really think you're so important that the entire world revolves around you?

Like the concept of predeterminism (is the future already written?), the concept that this might all be a simulation has exactly the same "solution": Don't get too hung up on it. We might as well act like it isn't.

We have as much control over things whether this is all real or not.

Do what you can to get by with as little harm as possible to yourself and others until, well, you know: Game over.

If you have the strength and maybe resources, you might even be able to make this existence more pleasant for others, but if not, try not to worry about it.

As for brain chemistry, I've been in the same head space that brought about your question, and undoubtedly will be again at some point in the not too distant future.

It's probably only because I've taken a bath today and put on fresh clothes that I'm relatively chilled out and philosophical right now. Also the Sun is out, which is probably helping too.

So first off existence vs what is the reality of existence is sorta two different thing. Descartes pretty much sums it up there which is kind of funny as it did not really click when I was younger but I finally sorta got it. My reality starts with my thoughts. Having thoughts means I exist in terms of if existence is a thing. If my existence is false my concept of existence is false and therefore I have a false existence that I see as existence which is a type of existence. From there it gets a bit more difficult but follows sorta the same. With your thoughts you have perceptions. They could be true or they could be false but from your perspective your perceptions come at you relatively consistently with your actions so either way they functionally are a type of existence. When it comes to others they appear to have knowledge I do not and I learn things from them and the world. So there is some independent existence to them. There is a possibility of a false existence that is completely encompassed by you but if that is the case then you apparently hide knowledge from yourself till it fits the story. Once again regardless the nature of the existence you perceive and interact with works with the best consistency if you interact with people as if they are their own independent existent beings. So for all practical purposes they exist. As you can see it pretty much continues on with WYSIWYG. What you see (experience) is what you get.

The simulated universe hypothesis is not impossible, nor is Azathoth's dream (essentially the same scenario just in neurons rather than silicon or whatever). But even if the universe is purely material it doesn't make us more or less real.

We're tiny. If we vanished next century, the universe would thrum on not even noticing.

So there are no rules. You exist for whatever, or npt for whatever.

However, we assume every menace has agency (part of our survival programming) and we anthropomorphize concepts like death or time or nature. So you can assume we all have the agency of a rainstorm or a wildfire, and be fine.

I lost a lot this year, including my society. So I don't have any real answers. I continue on in a leap of faith that I'll see light again if I continue down the tunnel. Even if its an oncoming train.

You are the architect.

What if this is a test? What if this is a VR simulation and the societal collapse is just moral character test to see if I would be do anything about it?

Then the answer is no. So what? If god doesn't like it, he should have designed humans differently. And if it's aliens, then it literally doesn't matter.

That's enough internet for you today, Jaden Smith

An yes, main character syndrome. Are you a teen? Teens in particular have a warped perception of everyone else's attention.

We're actually all chatgpt. Thanks for beta testing for us.

I read a book by Jim Holt called “Why Does the World Exist?” It tried to probe the question of why is there something instead of nothing. It was rigorous, too, not just trivial. He made an examination of all the greatest minds throughout the history of philosophy who have tackled these essential questions. After like 400 pages of really hard work, it pretty much boils down to, “who the fuck knows?” I think we just gotta assume it’s all real and enjoy the ride while we’re here.

If you dig this train of thought go get into Gnosticism. You dont have to be a zealot or actually believe it. But it vibes so well with what's going on today.

Read the book Being Peace by Thich Nhat Hahn. It's about realizing it doesn't matter. Nothing matters and it's freeing.

I don't know if I'm real, but I know that I feel sad if I think about people I care about being harmed. I think this is what Descartes was getting at with his "I think, therefore I am". Because I can experience my own thoughts and feelings, I feel like I'm probably real, even if I don't know if other people are. If I'm real, that means my care for my loved ones is real, even if I don't know if they are real. Given that I can't know whether they're real or not, it doesn't really affect my actions.

If I'm not real, and I'm just a simulated consciousness in a virtual world, then that also doesn't affect things, because all I know is my own perspective. If the only reason why I care about my loved ones is that I've been programmed to, then I can't really do anything about it. If the prospect of not being real hurts me so much, then I could kill myself, to "exit the game", so to speak, but that would hurt my family. Caring about that is perhaps silly, given that this hypothetical would also involve them not being real, but I don't think that makes a difference. I just know that I feel sad when I think of them being sad, and that's one of the most real things I can comprehend.

I think of it sort of like how I think about a prospective afterlife. I'm agnostic, so I don't actively believe in somewhere like heaven. We can think of heaven as being "the real world" to this hypothetically virtual one. I haven't seen any compelling evidence to make me believe in heaven though, so whilst I'm open to the possibility that it exists, it seems that the most sensible thing is to focus on living as well as I can in this life. It's all I can do.

I find those ideas excessively unlikely.

For a program that tortures you, or anyone, there'd be much more efficient programs, smaller programs, lower effort programs, with lower effort to implement and run.

For a moral character test the test runs way too long. Such an unfocused waste of runtime. With so much going on, and so unfocused, can you even see the test result.

If we want to imagine a simulation, we have to imagine excessively farther than our current development. Seems far fetched. If you're feeling doom now, how would they have gotten past many more hurdles and advancements to then go back to simulate?

Existence is what it is. We can't define it from outside of itself, because it encompasses everything.

I was thinking about and writing down a symbolic equivalence, but I don't think they're bringing us closer to the concept.

You can kinda guess the world is real because of the CAP theorem. Hear me out.

1. The CAP theorem says a computing system cannot perfectly have all 3 of: Consistency, Availability, and Partition tolerance (division of some parts of a distributed system from another). We'll assume this is true and somewhat dubiously assume this applies to any simulated universe
2. Availability is a necessity. A simulated universe that suddenly starts lagging or buffering would mean the jig would be up pretty quickly. You'd probably want a distributed system that can spin up new computing instances instantly, but that brings up issues with partitioning....
3. But lack of partition tolerance would make it pretty obvious that the universe is fake, because some parts of it would be inaccessible. So can't sacrifice that.
4. Therefore, the only thing left is consistency. A simulated universe would need some kind of inconsistency. In a web site, this might mean content is available to users in some areas but not others. In a simulated universe, we'd expect people in some areas to have a different experience of objective reality than others. But there's no evidence of this ever happening, unless you wanna go down some Mandela effect rabbit hole.
5. That leaves us with the conclusion that the universe is not a computing system at all, but rather a thing in itself. It doesn't need to stay consistent because it is consistent fundamentally.
6. Also, let's just ignore relativistic speed limits and quantum mechanics entirely.

Read the New Testament. Your answers are there. Especially St Paul's epistle to the Romans.

You are the universe experiencing itself. I highly suggest reading some Albert Camus or listening to some Allan Watts lectures on YouTube.