it makes me quite happy to see a comment like this. while I consider myself a rational and skeptical person in most regards, having beliefs or views like these tend to sorta come with the energy of "woo" in the eyes of others who are more empirical and objective with their categorization of the experience of reality, but ultimately it really doesn't matter. i would go so far as to say nothing really matters at all at that, but not in a nihilistic sense, more in the sense that mattering in the first place is just an artificial category that we have devised to represent our experience of things within what we perceive as "consensual reality" (consensual in the sense that "truth" and "real" are more just the sum total of the interpreted inputs of the subjects that constitute the perception of the "true"/"real")

anyway. what I find interesting is, if you are willing enough to interpret it properly, you can certainly see interesting parallels or analogous structures in both the simulation substrate, and some of the more esoteric interpretations of the experience of said substrate.

i ultimately think that, were we to be in a simulation, knowing that we are is the ultimate power we could wield. a strong self awareness of your nature and surroundings is the best tool one can use in order to reverse engineer them and gain control of them, after all. thus, as i tend to echo with pride and fervor: Hack The Planet!!!

Yes, the universe is basically a machine learning model to put into light words.

An agent gets in a position, interacts with other agents, trains, then his training session ends and depending on what things the agent didn't learn and how did he act (imagine if Karma was like proof-of-training, and the more an agent learns/acts/follows path without interrupting the learning/path-following processes of other agent) he's sent back for re-learning in another position where he can learn what he failed on. Consider that time/space isn't a constraint for this placement, it's really a great training system. But also, we'll fork this with a recursion into another universe of our own in 20-30 years I believe and I feel like more and more people are going to slip "upwards" in the coming years.

> Why would our universe be finite if the parent universe infinite? Because you can't "solve" an infinite game.

They're recursively infinite (aka we make a new one, our models make a new one), but each one is "finite" in a sense that it will end in all equating the same. The outcome is already determined and our agents are just defining the path through it. Throwing the Monte Carlo dice.

In the end, the circle defines itself, pi is looking for it's next decimal.

What if the religious scripture is a lot more true than some people give it credit for?-- i.e. that it's the story of our ancestors interacting with the creators of the simulation

Surely our religious texts would be a lot more interesting in that case, just as they would be if actually influenced by an omniscient being.

Instead we have texts that contain nothing that couldn't have been written by the humans of that time.

It’s impossible to identify writing that couldn’t not have been written by humans.

Well when you look at the core of it without fluff, most religious scriptures point to same stuff.

> We likely have free will, but it's like playing chess with Google's AI. You may choose which move you make, but the outcome is already determined.

Can you explain to me how you made that leap from what you were writing? I don't believe in free will and because I think everything is deterministic. Even if you die in this simulation and had the opportunity to decide what you want next. That's based on all the forces that made 'you' in the life before death.

i find it interesting that there are people who believe the universe is entirely deterministic in nature. I wouldn't suggest that it necessarily isn't, but more that it's a spectrum. free will is an evolved and developed trait, an aspect of life that got reinforced more and more over time as the vessels of life became more capable to actually exert influence upon the experience of reality itself. but even free will exists in harmony in a system where deterministic events occur. i would go so far as to say that the sum total of reality ideally encompasses all that can or will be in some sense, and with such a vast scope, i certainly can see the idea that reality could have both deterministic and non-deterministic modalities coexisting in harmony. i personally have a theory that the expression of agency is a side effect of the degree of scale of thing that is acting. the more complex and larger a system becomes, the more deterministic requirements are necessary within that system to keep it from just decohering into background noise. but as you go to smaller scales, you have significantly reduced configuration spaces, and as such there is less need for absolute requirements on behavior. i would contest, based on this, that thought and action are expressions of free will in that they are the side effect of a very micro process (namely the signaling of electricity through cells in the brain) and as such, within this framework, are more towards the non deterministic end of the spectrum.

I'm sorry but can you rephrase that for me. I don't understand how someone can be in a deterministic system and expect to not be deterministic as well. Nobody chooses their birth and what comes after isn't any different to me. We're shaped by genetics & environment conditions and all the external forces is everything around us. All working on one another and based on the preceding forces that were already exerted upon us.

I just cannot see non-determinism working with determinism. Maybe if you rephrase it? Your definition of free will might not be mine as well. I always think people that think they have free will are just having a very privileged life and cannot assume they had no control over anything because of the ego that was built because of the success that really wasn't their doing. Btw I'm person you're replying to. HN says i'm posting too fast. Maybe email me at alizeebellerose @ icloud.com if you can because I'm interested in understanding how determinism can work with non-determinism.

It really depends on the scope you put on it. Large scale universe lifetime? determinism. Your thoughts? Not. Your actions? Combination of both, expression of all the influencing factors and what your model brings. That's why you can override your biological self (not walk to the fridge when you're hungry but stay in the chair reading a book). You might say "but oh this is also predetermined", but I say there a space where the "asymptote doesn't touch the axis", that space between determinism and non-determinism is where we cause wave collapse and which is actually the whole point of this whole simulation.

I still don't see how that removes determinism and very much would be predetermined as you know I would write.

Even if the need for hunger disappears. Our previous variables/memories/wants/desires we collected would still factor into everything. Let's say we made a machine at this point to remove those variables from our brain. Well the action taken to do that or not would be predetermined.

So if we did wipe everything from our brains and started anew. Something would make our personality and it wouldn't be our own choice. Even if we planned for our brain to be rewritten a certain way before the reset. That's a predetermined decision factored from all the previous events experienced.

Because "determinism" in the way I look at it doesn't mean that everything in the path is already predetermined. At macro level (universal,existance scale,planet scale, up to inside one's head), yes, but at "micro" level, there is loft left for non-determinism.

Thanks for replying again. I see. The thing for me that makes sense for me is what encompasses us is really what makes the outcome. The best I can describe it as a top down module. I cannot imagine how "us" being the "down" part of the module can make a decision that's not influenced at any point by the "top" part of the module being our environment that's the universe.

We're encompassed by a system and I'm not getting how the micro level as you name it. Would have any way for doing anything thats not predetermined by the system that's influencing us.

I don't think thats actually a bad thing if somehow the objects in the system can have a happy ending. The multi-universe theory in my opinion can make that happen. All the forces making life can repeat and be slightly different by having all events play out. That's my reasoning for hoping that existential crisis is not necessary.

>I cannot imagine how "us" being the "down" part of the module can make a decision that's not influenced at any point by the "top" part of the module being our environment that's the universe.

Because we're all just a limited interface to the same singleton, and we act in an 'environment' module. The singleton is the one that controls the 'environment' instance, so the closer you are to the singleton the more you can override the 'environment'.

That's consciousness. I believe consciousness is entanglement with the reality 'outside' of our physical dimension (ether). And since that isn't a part of this physical universe, your thoughts are free. And the more you're 'conscious' the more you can override your environment and biology. 'Force of will', going against your biological and sociological programming to do something that you imagined in your head. And acting upon those thoughts only depends on you, but it takes a large amount of will (consciousness, mindfulness, faith, call it as you wish) to override the deterministic environment defaults and actually do it.

i would argue that just because they factor into everything and the ultimate outcome, that doesn't necessarily obviate the ability of a conscious actor to act in a subjective manner based on their interpretation of it. and sure, even that interpretation, to some extent, could be considered a deterministic process because it is constructed by inference from prior experiences and as such represents more of a learned response than an intentional choice, but I personally would say that it's not the actual outcome of the thing that acts as proof of free will, but rather the ability to even question a thing in the first place and to rationally be able to react to something in a way that does not necessarily follow given the input that led up to the situation. for instance, we are generally indoctrinated into the idea that life is inherently sacred, and as such it makes no sense to commit suicide and take it away, and as such it would make sense to claim that such a thing a suicide would not rationally follow if such a belief were to be actively "true". i personally don't believe that life is, per se, sacred or special, but rather just an emergent modality of matter that manifests in many ways, though the primary aspect we experience it through is biological.

also, speaking of biology: all emotions and experiences are ultimately the side effect of the ratio of the presence of different neurotransmitters within your biological substrate, but just because you have a certain configuration, doesn't mean you have to absolutely feel the way that that configuration entails. everything that you end up feeling is relative to everything that you have experienced before, and as such it stands to reason that one can choose to respond to given signals from the body in ways that may not necessarily align with the obvious intent of those signals. this is most clearly manifested in the whole fight or flight dichotomy; cowardice and courage in and of themselves are no different in terms of the physical conditions that come together to manifest them. both situations will likely make you more focused and hyper aware, due to the release of adrenaline and the increased feeling of a need to act in order to continue existing, but the manner in which a behavior is constrained under either label is wholly dependent on how one chooses to react to said adversarial stimuli

it's nice to see that there is someone else who more or less understands my conception of determinism existing on a spectrum that can directly be mapped the the order of complexity that one is describing :)

it's also nice to see there's other hacker psychonauts who enjoy writing rhymes, making music and understand same things about reality :)

So, basically we are somebody's OpenAI Gym and at the end of the training certain agents will be selected as useful for higher reality and the rest discarded.

However, the same can be said about this universe being a prison where failed conscious beings from extraverse come to either improve or be killed off once for all. That would be far less optimistic, however way more realistic when I look around the state of our universe.