Jump to content

Just some musings on the construction of Reality...

Recommended Posts

Hi,

So, I've just been considering some things lately. After a recent bereavement I've been thinking of what life and existence really is. For a while I've wondered if Reality is just a simulation. The theory is quite an old one obviously, but there are certain things that make me think this may be correct.

I'll try and lay out a few ideas here, but please keep in mind it's 1am as I write this lol.

Atomic construction; evolution of 3D rendering.

So as you may or may not know, 3D objects in games/CAD/etc are generally constructed of polygons. Flat triangles (or sometimes rectangles) applied in such a way on a 2D surface (such as a PC screen etc) to give the impression of 3D. To that outside observer viewing the screen there is a tangible 3D "thing" there. But in actuality it's a hollow space. A shroud around nothingness. Then we get to more advanced things such as how physics etc are applied to these 3D shells. They can only affect that shell on a crude level. The granularity of it compared to what we perceive in the real world is frankly pathetic. Nothing but a crude approximation. Now think, how might we improve upon this? Imagine if those 3D shells were not created as only outside lairs, to be controlled on such a crude level. What if you constructed using intelligent shapes (I.e atoms)? Shapes that were already carrying the ability to react to outside instruction (such as physics). Shapes that intelligently worked in a 3D space, unlike the crudeness of polygons. To me that seems like a logical evolution.

I'll finish this latter. That really was horribly written! XD

Some random notes...

.::Simulated Reality::.

Holographic Universe

2D to 3D. Inside perspective of a simulation perceived as 3D, but outside perspective shows it to be 2D manipulated as faux 3D. 4D is 3D from both outside and in.

Quantum Duality

Results depending on what was sought. Existing only when observed. As if scripted to expectation.

Resolution of Reality

Can only observe structure of reality at maximum "zoom" of the atomic level. As if the projector of Reality has a finite resolution.

Atomic Construction

Evolution of 3D construction. Atoms as self-contained intelligent building blocks.

Energy as a Constant.

May change form/type, but cannot be "destroyed". Therefore electro-energy can be considered an immortal essence of sorts.

Multi-Parallel Simulations

Reality as one of many "dimensions". Separated by 5D space into possibly infinite branching paths. To cross "boundaries" would require moving into 4D perspective (possibly through a black hole as it would increase perception of existence on the stable physical ("normal" Reality) and the unstable horizon (warped reality of the event) as pulled across.

Time as a Constant.

Would seem to be a construct or side effect of quantum perception or duality. Cannot be "seen" in any physical manner, but its effects are perceived when looked for. Could be a side effect or inevitable consequence of branching "realities" in 5D space. The chicken is the egg so to speak!

Edited by Artabasdos
Share on other sites

I think it might generate less controversy, or mitigate against rapid rejection of your ideas, if you found another term for "intelligent building blocks". Intelligent evokes thoughts of Intelligent Design and teleology and other things likely to prove unpopular on a science forum. I realise that it not what you mean by the word in this context, but why erect barriers?

Share on other sites

I think it might generate less controversy, or mitigate against rapid rejection of your ideas, if you found another term for "intelligent building blocks". Intelligent evokes thoughts of Intelligent Design and teleology and other things likely to prove unpopular on a science forum. I realise that it not what you mean by the word in this context, but why erect barriers?

But as I'm theorising that Reality is simulated, intelligent seems perfectly adequate. In the same way AI in a video game could be seen to be "intelligent" design.

Share on other sites

How do you test this idea?

Share on other sites

For a while I've wondered if Reality is just a simulation.

How would you tell?

Share on other sites

But as I'm theorising that Reality is simulated, intelligent seems perfectly adequate. In the same way AI in a video game could be seen to be "intelligent" design.

Yes, but you are suggesting, I think, that the intelligence is external to the building blocks, yet you apply the word to the building blocks. That is what seems potentially misleading.

Share on other sites

• 3 weeks later...

There is a theory. A simulation that occurs due to belief being an energetic variable, where belief cannot exceed personal subjective limits--- call it energy to manifest. Coupled with predestination, this would mean differing subjective realities that always nevertheless match upon co-observation.

Call it 'reality by description'.

This implies no single over-arching reality, but a belief and manifestation of a believed description of reality. The logic appears to be airtight.

Thus, the observer effect in wave collapse is a low energy event that is easily believed and hence easily co-observed by a plurality of observers, while Bigfoot is an "unbelievable" More "wave-like" event which also self-arranges all aspects of each individual's ability to perceive, though in that case most potential observers do not have enough energy to observe the "impossible" event.

It would be an absolutely believable reality, but also as economical of energy for all concerned, on average. Nothing would exist except for that which was momentarily perceived, and perceptions would be absolutely unique despite the sense of similarity.

Scientific experimentation would create low energy believable physics and always find competing realities somewhat invisible and hence suspect.

Edited by Dave Moore
Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

I think projecting into higher dimensional reasoning is like trying to understand why we see the Universe at a "smaller" state the further we increase our perspective at large. We experience 3 dimensions, so we can explain them. A fourth being time, but implying a 5th that allows movement through it renders the idea of the 4th dimension moot. That's like saying there must be a Z axis that matter can exist along the whole entirety of the axis simultaneously, or are we really just speaking about 2 dimensional space?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
• Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.