Is Reality a Simulation?

[Eddy Fire]

The common DMT experience used to be seeing pixie like creatures, who seemed to be engineering reality, but has now turned into people seeing ones and zeros, suggesting that it's our perception projected onto the hallucinatory experience.

The pixies were operating devices appropriate to the machine age, whereas now the hallucinator is probably projecting the underlying code of their digital consumption onto the experience.

[The KMan]

One thing this discussion has left me with is that perhaps none of us really escape correspondence.

We may begin with direct experience, contemplation or intuition and I think those deserve to be taken seriously. But the moment we want to persuade someone else, we almost inevitably start pointing to observations, patterns or reasons that we believe favour our worldview over another.

That seems true whether we are arguing for simulation theory, idealism, materialism or God.

The interesting question for me is not whether we use correspondence, it is whether we notice and admit when we have shifted into it. That applies to my own thinking every bit as much as anyone else's.

It has also left me with a simple way of testing my own ideas before becoming too attached to them:

1. Does the picture hang together internally?
2. Does it correspond with what can actually be observed?
3. Does it make claims that could, in principle, be wrong? or, Does it commit to anything that could turn out wrong?
4. Does it continue to hold up as the record grows?
5. What biases or incentives, including my own, might be shaping my conclusions?

I am finding those five questions increasingly useful whichever cosmology I happen to be exploring.

[DNA]

Anybody read Castaneda? Carlos Castaneda? The man the legend the myth?
I usually say that in jest but after I said it I was like yeah he really was the man the legend the myth.
So I'm not trying to introduce something new only exalt a certain genius and spackle it to this subject..

The tonal and the Nagual.

The concept is very applicable here.
In the books Don Juan explained that human brings are forever building a catalogue of the world.
And the extent of that catalogue would be all things that can be called of this world.
The tonal is made up of things and descriptions from this world.
The tonal is what we think we are and what we think of the world everything it is, was and can be.
The tonal is the simulation in this instance.

The Nagual is not of this world, not of the simulation.

I found this killer reading of exactly what I'm talking about, very happy about this.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4ytiEKB0LTY

[Ernie Nemeth]

In the strictest terms, everything is of the simulation. It is not a conspiracy in the usual sense. It is not a ruse, a trick, a subterfuge. All reality is simulation.

Just as Don Juan said, the tonal is our invention, and it makes the world we perceive. That world is for all intents and purposes real. That is its intent and purpose because it gives us impetus, it compels us, it defines us.

The tonal is not an arbiter of truth or even a curator of facts. It merely compares and judges and files and names, selecting one thing and then another as its focus. It orders the chaos: it imposes order on the chaotic.

If the tonal is the island, the nagual is the ocean that surrounds it. It is the unknown, the unspoken, the unthought, and most often the over-looked. It could be said that the nagual is the spaces between words and the silence between thoughts.

By pairing the tonal with the nagual Don Juan summarizes totality.


In other words, one can say the tonal is "all there is" and the nagual is "all there is not" as far as the human experience can be extended.


But the tonal and the nagual are more than that.
This has been discussed before in other threads and is logically pertinent.

Consider starting to count, "one, two, three, four, ..." and so on to infinity.
There will be, by logical inference, a specific number counted when infinity is reached.
But that is untrue.
In fact the counter will never reach infinity because infinity cannot be defined by a finite number, no matter how large.

What would actually happen is the counter would be counting when suddenly an infinite space would be traversed in a instant where all the numbers possible to count were counted without end.
The last step from the finite to infinity is infinite.

This is another way of saying all finite points are equidistant from infinity.

That is the difference between the tonal and the nagual, intrinsically, although Don Juan never illustrates it thus.


Infinity cannot exist in the finite world.
Yet it does.

[lake]

Bounded Infinity.

Between any two concepts of whole numbers (such as between 3 and 4) there is an infinity of fractional numbers.

It is both finite and infinite at the same point.

This "realm" is just one, single concept of a bounded infinity.

Constant movement between bounded infinities is .... Normal!

[Eddy Fire]

I was surprised how quickly AI gave up Big Bang theory when challenged, Big Bang theory robbed us of Infinity and Eternity, imagine how infuriating these concepts are to the bankster cabal, how can you count, compartmentalise and own the infinite.

They have even restricted the infinitely small, by claiming that there is a granular limit to reality, despite electrical laboratories being able to produce tiny galaxy type structures, suggesting that the fractal nature of reality can be scaled down endlessly.

If some agency created reality, then doesn't that mean it is owned, and isn't that exactly what the Cabal would want us to believe.

In the infinite if consciousness is possible, doesn't that make it inevitable?.

No matter how small a part of the infinite we are, that still makes us infinite, but how could Identity based conflict be kindled when identity can be so easily transcended.