[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Let’s consider two similar scenarios:
1:This is a computer simulation, and the laws of physics and all of the material universe is defined by an infinitely complex binary system.
Or
2:This is some kind of mega-dream, and everything is the mental creation of something we might not even be able to comprehend. You might just be a mental projection, or maybe I am? Maybe it’s a mutual dream and we are both “real”, stuck in a perpetual dream state.

With these two considerations in mind, let’s put forth a third:
3: It’s neither, and we are in “base reality”, the true universe, the origin of everything. It is not a computer construct, neither a vast mental one.

If it’s neither, what is it? What is base reality “comprised” of? If a computer sim is of binary code and a dream-state is a mental construct, what is base reality then? Why is it here? Where did it come from? Both previous hypotheticals answer these questions at least to some extent, but I feel we haven’t even remotely answered these questions yet with hard science and I want to hear some non-shitposting thoughts on this.

I’d extremely appreciate some books/articles on this line of thought if anyone has em to share. I’ll obnoxiously self-pump this thread for days if needed.
>>
>>10374133
Base reality is comprised entirely of chance itself. The grand purpose of existence itself is the forging of beauty in whatever way possible.
>>
>>
>>10374142
Our reality is based on chance. Chance driven by probability of everything
>>
>>
>>10374133
>I’ll obnoxiously self-pump this thread for days if needed.
Please don't. /sci/ is bad, but it doesn't need to be shat up further by philosophy threads.
>>
>>10374562
There’s literally a thread with more replies than this one about how to correctly use a toilet seat, I’ll bump a few more time if that bullshit can get anywhere.
>>
>>10374133
>I’ll obnoxiously self-pump this thread for days if needed.
cringe. sage.
>>
>>10375478
no u
>>
>>10374133
Our duty as possibly the first advanced sentients of the real universe is to create the multiverse, OP.
>>
If there's a higher reality, from which our universe is dreamed or run as a simulation, it's possible that it wouldn't follow our laws of physics but would it follow our logic/math?
>>
>>10374133
All posibilities are equally likely, for what thats worth.
If this is a simulation, you'll only be able to realize it if the creators/machine allows you to. Pretty much the same if its a dream.
Either way, so what? What would you do if we could somehow prove we live in a simulation? If you were part of a dream, then what? What could you possibly do with this information?

Of all the questions in the universe, this is probably the most useless one. This information does not matter for literally anything at all. You wouldnt be able to advance physics or math faster. It wouldnt make society better. It would be as big as telling peasants that the earth orbits the sun. "Cool, so?".

Not only is it impossible to even begin to 'study' outside of /x/-tier broscience, its not even worth studying in the first place.
>>
>>10374133
>and all of the material universe is defined by an infinitely complex binary system.
what makes you think the computer running the simulation would be constrained by our physics or out mathematics (e.g binary number systems)?
>>
>>10376255
Just a way of postulating the thought. The simulation could be of a totally different nature beyond our imagination, it just simulates our laws and maths the way they are.
>>10376243
>hurrdurr this fundamental question is useless because I can’t imagine ways to utilize it yet
Like telling a 15th century peasant about gravity, they may not have immediate use of it but to pioneer it eventually will define the rest of human history later on. You simultaneously made no progress on this issue we don’t understand while oxymoronically maintaining the issue has no use, which you can’t know yet, because we don’t understand it to begin with. You’re basking in a hole of ignorance and digging even deeper.
>>
>>10376243
Further, if it’s a dream scenerio, realization of such a truth may lead to lucid dream level manipulation of reality. Have some imagination for once in your life ffs.
>>
>>10376348
>have some imagination
>on the science board
Are you lost? Did you meant go go back to >>>/x/
>>
>>10376351
>this clearly scientific and philosophical rooted thought experiment is paranormal
Infinity dense pseudo-intellectualism.
>>
>>10374133
I really like your question OP.
I don't have any particular books to recommend that directly address your points.
But based on my personal experience I will say that the single biggest obstacle to answering such questions is to focus on the visible, objectively describable world (as science successfully does). All of your perceptions of "reality" are literally figments of your mind (whether or not such figments are faithful representations of an "external" world is irrelevant).
So the first step is to understand one's own mind and thought patterns, the motivations for one's feelings and behaviours, so as to uncover the illusions whose reality one takes for granted. None of us believe in Santa Claus any more, but try telling a wishful 5 year old that the red man in the suit he saw in the kitchen last night wasn't real.
The most powerful experience of truth results not from learning new facts and theories, but from clearing the mind of the irrational baggage that is already there.

Here are some random sources which are neither here nor there
>Plato
allegory of the cave is pretty good
>The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
written by a (let's say) genius who may have been wrong about his central theory, but whose insights on the illusory nature of conscious experience are breathtaking
>Wittgenstein
you probably need a rudimentary understanding of mathematical logic to truly appreciate him, but both the Tractatus and Philosophical Investigations are chockfull of insightful gems
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/04/is-information-fundamental/

i'm interested in this thread, hope you keep it going
>>
בראשית ברא אלוהים את השמים ואת הארץ
>>
>>10374133
Sometimes thought alone can’t even get us out of thought experiments like this. If you think about “If there is a god” logically you will always come to an agnostic line of reasoning, so obviously thought has some limits. Unfortunately I don’t know of any books on the subject but I recommend you looking into philosophies meant to try to recognize data and patterns just so you can do the same with reality.
>>
>>10374133
Jesus Christ man just read philosophy
>>
>>10376456
Thanks anon, responses like yours are why I made this thread. I think it’s a fascinating route of thought, one worth spending a life career on specifically, even if outside academia in a personal persuit if needed.
>>
>>
>>10376358
>>clearly scientific
>unmeasurable, unfalsifiable, completely unobservable non-thing
>scientific
You dont know what that word means.
>>
>>10378455
>not a fundamental question that will be one day testable or at least more graspable
This board is almost as bad as /pol/, >>10376456# response alone makes your response look stupid and shallow. Here’s a more appropriate thread for a brainlet like you: >>10375000
>>
>>10374133
It's Patrick
>>
>What if our universe is not some fringe theory but is actually just REAL? That seems so weird....
>>
>>10378648
What is real then genius?
>>
File: 1534261889818.jpg (63 KB, 750x726)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>10378626
So what you really wanted was a pseudo-philosophical answer, not a scientific one. Too bad you're too self conscious (or too arrogant, whichever), to go to the actual spiritualism / new age / paranormal board.
Im serious, /x/ is used as a joke here but you're looking for a philosophical, unprovable, brosciency answer to a question science literally cannot answer. I know you dont want to hear it, but thats what /x/ for. Its a legitimate board with actually pretty good threads on interesting topics, and you'll have a lot more luck there than here with this particular question.
Because again, this is not science. Science concerns the measureable and empirically provable. Your question on whether or not life is a dream is not science.
You can measure the most optimal way to sit on a toilet, you cant calculate the meaning of life. You're looking for philosophy.
>>
>>10379050

>>10376456 NOVA link literally makes you look like a retard. Information theory is a key route of inquiry on this topic, which gets into entanglement, black holes and holographic theory.There is obvious theoretical science behind this question. Science and philosophy are directly related and further each other and always have, and this isn’t paranormal a paranormal question to begin with. /x/ is complete and utter garbage but you’re not showing me /sci/ is any better. You’re just typing useless shit out on your keyboard instead of actually putting forth interesting information or ideas like >>10376456 did. If there was a philosophy board I’d go there, but this is the best there is on this shitty website, so fucking deal with it. You expection some kind of quantitative scientific peer-reviewed breakthrough on some anime imageboard is the most autistic thing ever. It’s supposed to be a fun theoretical philosophical discussion but you’re sucking the fun out by being such a faggot.
>>
>>10374133
>we are in “base reality”, the true universe, the origin of everything
Even Einstein didn't believe our universe is self-consistent. There probably are "object" that can't be perceived with the senses or detected with any kind of sensor. It doesn't make them supernatural, just inscrutable. Either way this question doesn't change anything for a human. All a human is programmed to do is survive, and all these questions we ask are just a means to that end, whether it is immediately apparent or not. What we should be asking is "can we survive?" I'm increasingly optimistic about this question. There seems to be no end in sight to what we can discover. And each new thing we learn makes our survival a little bit more likely.
>>
>>10374133
>What is base reality “comprised” of?

Resons.
>>
>>10374133
What do you think you know about reality? Now, what do you actually know about it? What u r are asking only scratches the surface of what we think reality is versus what we actually know about it.
>>
>>10379458
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/04/is-information-fundamental/
What's wrong with it. Max Tegmark put forward a theory just like this.
>>
>>10378648
Elaborate.
>>
>>10374142
Stop spreading your religion on this board.
>>
>>10374133
why does there have to be a base?
>>
>>10374562
You're cancer.
>>
>>10379050
Wordplay meme. Shitty post. Fucking overanalytic pigeon focker brainlets like this.
>>
>>10375577
You're thinking about anime my brotato chip.
>>
>>10379554
Nothing, in fact I love it, I used in comparison it to make >>10379050 come off as the retard he is. He can’t even put foreword basic ideas or links like this nova one.
>>
>>10379568
Someone actually asked a good question. I'm actually partial to the view that there isn't/doesn't have to be a "base". I think this notion comes from some sort of human bias. Things start and end. Even universes. People are born and people die. But maybe what's behind what we perceive as "life" and "death" isn't as final as it first appears. These things are the result of change, probably the firmest constant of existence. There is no real finality with death, only transmutation into a different form. It's eternal inflation. It's a fractal flow.
>>
>>10379568
What else would it be? I feel this question poses another: where did reality come from?
>>
>>10379635
>Why is there something rather than nothing
This question actually has an easy answer. Because there can't be nothing.
>>
>>10379709
Well, if not nothing, it was something; what was that something?
>>
>>10379728
The something takes the form of the world we find ourselves in.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.