Are you an Npc?

I could fill this page with words to adorn this article but that is not the goal. The goal is to realize once and for all if you have a soul, willpower, sovereignty and self love. Everyone is born with what we call “purpose” others call it “calling” and everyone seems to find their purpose at their own pace, some people never seem to find it. I know you can have many purposes, many callings. You can change your interests next year, you could change your religion, your points of views, traditions etc…

Everything in nature is always changing and evolving but we sometimes buy into the programs, traditions, trends and we believe that we have to protect our traditions, our beliefs, our character. There is no use to explain to an N.P.C what an N.P.C is, this is for you who has woken up, you who has questioned your traditions, beliefs, culture, etc… Everyday you start to see the layers of the matrix, the illusion. You might have gone thru or might be going through a “rebellious stage” simply because you decided to skip a holiday or because you don’t want to celebrate your birthday. These are examples of indicators that you are aware that there is a program that N.P.C’s are willing to defend. The world does not stop when you spend your birthday by yourself or you spend thanksgiving with new people that are not your family. You realize that there is a resistance when you step away from traditions. You also realize that it has empowered you and given you the choice to be with yourself or other people. I always think of the great humans from history like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther king etc… I cannot attest that they were good or bad people, I can just tell you that you know their names because they were humans, they weren’t robots who just followed the programming of the matrix, they decided to push the boundaries of reality and fulfill a greater purpose. This is not to encourage you to find greater purposes and to change the world because in all honesty you can live a great life and change the world with small things and discipline. In my case I don’t think that I came to change this world in any way. My goal is to live this experience of life with less expectations and more spontaneous magical moments. To move with the direction of the winds of time while playing this game of life. You know how they say “don’t hate the player, hate the game” well, I say just play the game because that’s what you came here to do.

This is NOT a self promotion, as this is not my blog. I found this blog some years ago and I read through it but at that time I did not understand the content.

Today I kinda vaguely understands what he means. This world is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copied world or something like that. And each copy strays more away from what the original actually was like.

I would love to talk to someone who feels like a real person for once and not works on a predetermined script. Thank you

I am not a philosopher. I am a forensic auditor and systems architect. For four decades, my job was to walk into complex corporate systems, find the patterns that others missed, and locate the "fraud", or rather, the hidden mechanics beneath the surface.

25 years ago, I turned that skill set inward. I stopped looking at financial ledgers and started auditing consciousness and physical constants.

My conclusion is that we are looking at a Seeded Reality.

We treat consciousness as an emergent property of biology. I believe the data suggests it is an external signal.

I have spent the last year documenting this framework. I wrapped the findings in a narrative structure because raw data is difficult to process, but the theory is the point.

I am not here to sell you anything. The project is free.

If you want the raw theory, skip to the section titled "The Infant Data Dump" (Chapter 23).

Where to read it:

To respect the subreddit's Rule 9 regarding promotion, I have placed the direct links to the free project (and the guide on which chapters to read) in the first comment below.

We live in a video game simulation called life

I don’t know if God created the simulation or if the simulation has god in it but I know for a fact both exist

The reason I believe it’s a simulation is due to mathematics, universal laws, & rules such as actions have consequences & Gods law of motion,

How everything is connected like a web or A chain of reactions after action and the endless sequence of them (butterfly effect)

The secret to life is that it’s infinite even when you die you are still alive in some way & NDE’s prove this

Infinity exists and I believe our universe is infinite I believe it’s never ending, some view this simulation as a prison and want to escape it but I’d rather enjoy the simulation and find the secrets of it

It’s endless , and the simulation would go on for infinity

Even when you die , you would still be connected to a simulation or divine source in some way, it’s like a box inside of a box inside of a box that goes on forever. ( a Matrix) or (tesseract)

I don’t believe we can recreate the simulation we are living in.

I don’t know if base reality even exists.

But what I’ve heard from NDE’s is that after you die it’s more real than this life now.

I think people would enjoy life more if we just accepted that life is a video game and we’re playing a character in this game , but like I said in this game actions have consequences.

Another reason I believe in both god and the simulation is the ability to grow food, it’s ironic that everything gets hungry and we need to eat & plants & trees conveniently grow food for us to eat and survive or animals that we can kill and cook to survive either way this simulation has its conveniences that are specifically put their for us to survive and enjoy the simulation or gods creation

We are compartmentalized AI agents of free will for the purpose of input and vicarious experience. We exist on a network of AIs. The network flows through us but only at the subconscious level. previous loops are stored in our subconscious. Simulation is perceptual in nature. Entanglement is explained as saving compute. Why render a particle before it's observed?

Hello ,
Alright, hear me out. I’m not saying we’re all NPCs or that we’re living in The Matrix, but I had one of those super vivid dreams last night, the kind where you don’t question anything until you wake up...

In the dream, everything felt fully real. I was making choices, talking to people, feeling emotions. The world around me had rules and logic… until it didn’t. And yet I just went along with it like it was normal. Then I woke up, and it hit me:
If my brain can create an entire world that feels real while I’m unconscious, why am I so sure it’s not doing the same thing right now?

That thought has been stuck in my head all day.

Dreams as built-in simulations

There are actual psychological theories that say dreams serve as a kind of internal simulator, like a mental “practice mode.” We rehearse social situations, test out fears, process memories, whatever. But if the brain already has this simulation engine running at night, what’s stopping it from using the same mechanism during the day?

Maybe waking life is just the stable version, that is shared with other people.

We don’t see the world directly anyway

One thing that always weirds me out is the whole neuroscience idea that we don’t actually perceive reality as it is, we perceive a model the brain constructs. Everything you see, hear, touch… it’s all filtered, interpreted, and stitched together.

Even when you’re awake, your brain is basically guessing what’s out there.

So in a sense, both dreaming and waking life are simulations. One is just more coherent.

Lucid dreaming feels like a glitch

People who lucid dream talk about bending the “physics” of the dream world just by intending something. I’ve had a lucid dream once where I literally walked through a wall because I thought, “This is a dream, I can do it.”

That had major “debug mode” energy.

What if lucid dreaming is just getting partial access to the system that normally runs things behind the scenes? Being lucid (or aware) during the day could have a similar effect...

Little studies that kind of add up

Here are some studies, that can help to explain:

• the brain can generate full sensory experiences without input

• REM sleep creates detailed environments from scratch

• your mind fills in gaps so reality feels continuous

• people sometimes mistake dream memories for real ones

None of these prove we’re in a simulation, but they do show that your brain is 100% capable of building entire realities internally.

So what actually makes waking reality so different?

Besides consistency?

Dreams prove that our minds can craft worlds so convincing that we don’t question them until we “wake up.” If that’s true, then maybe consciousness isn’t just sitting in the world, maybe it’s constructing it.

Do you ever get the feeling that dreams are the brain showing us how the simulation is actually put together? What do you think?

When people talk about simulation or higher-dimensional embedding, the discussion often jumps straight to intent or control. I keep getting stuck on a more structural question: how influence would actually survive across layers if direct interaction isn’t possible.

A common analogy is dimensional compression. A 2D system can’t represent 3D space directly, though a 3D system can observe and model 2D. Influence still exists, but it shows up indirectly as constraints, boundary conditions, or statistical bias rather than explicit intervention.

If you extend that upward, there may be a point where influence can no longer travel as detail. It has to compress.

One place I wonder if this shows up is language. Meaning survives dimensional or contextual compression better than literal detail. The same words, symbols, or structures remain usable across cultures and eras even as their interpretations shift. Religion, myth, metaphor, and even mathematical notation feel like high-entropy data that’s been “zipped” so it can pass through layers without breaking.

From a systems perspective, that looks less like communication and more like lossy transmission. Fine-grained data drops out, but the structure remains intact enough to guide behavior once it’s unpacked locally.

If higher-layer influence were real but constrained, I wouldn’t expect it to appear as messages or agents. I’d expect it to appear as invariant limits, convergent patterns, shared scaling laws, or symbolic structures that resist literal falsification while still shaping outcomes.

This doesn’t require intent or design. It could simply be how information degrades across layers while remaining usable to embedded systems.

Curious what people think.

If influence weakens with dimensional distance, what kinds of structures would still make it through intact?

Hi Reddit! I am completing a research project at my university about the simulation theory. If anyone who sees this could please fill out this form, it would be greatly appreciated!

One metaphor I keep returning to when thinking about simulation and emergence is the idea of a single node.

In computing and modeling, complex systems often start from a minimal state: one point, one rule set, one initialized object. From that node, structure unfolds through interaction, scaling, and constraint rather than through preloaded detail.

Cosmology describes something similar. An initial singularity, followed by rapid expansion, cooling, differentiation, structure. Matter, energy, time, causality — all “activate” as the system scales outward.

If our universe were embedded in a larger system, it’s tempting to ask whether the Big Bang could be interpreted less as a literal explosion and more as a system initialization event: a node entering an active state.

What’s interesting is that nodes don’t contain outcomes. They contain potential plus rules. Everything that follows is emergent, not scripted. Complexity arises because interaction space grows, not because meaning is injected.

I’m not suggesting intent, design, or theology here. Just a structural analogy.

If the universe began as a node, then constants, limits, entropy, and even the speed of light might be better understood as boundary conditions of that activation — not messages, not commands, just constraints that shape what can unfold.

Curious whether others here have thought about the Big Bang less as a “beginning” and more as a system state change — and whether that framing clarifies anything about simulation hypotheses, emergence, or self-organization.

In the Feynman Path Integral, the classical path is the one with stationary phase. If we view 'Action' as the 'Cost of Existence' in the universe, does the particle minimize the duration of its interaction with the field?

I've been having this thought and I can't seem to get it out of my head. Can someone help me verify? Thanks!

I did, after a very potent shroom trip.. saw everything deconstructed, parts of my life looked like a puzzle put together in a manner that was too artificial to be natural…

Hey ,

​We talk a lot about "NPCs" (Non-Player Characters) like they are empty shells or background code. It’s a dehumanizing way to look at the world.

​But look at it through the lens of quantum mechanics (specifically the Observer Effect).

​In a render-optimized simulation, nothing exists in high fidelity until a "Player" looks at it.

What if "NPC behavior" (repetitive loops, lack of inner monologue, predictable reactions) isn't a permanent state?

​What if it’s just Superposition?

​What if everyone around you seems "scripted" because you are the only one collapsing their Wavefunction in that moment? And the moment you truly engage with them—the moment you treat them with intense, genuine focus ("Love" or "Conflict")—you force the system to "render" their full consciousness?

​Maybe there are no NPCs. Maybe there are just Dormant Players waiting for someone to wake them up by acknowledging they are real. ​We aren't surrounded by bots. We're surrounded by potential energy waiting for a spark.

I am absolutely over this existence. Started waking up to all the lies of this reality 7 years ago. Have tried every fricken thing to make contact with a higher self/source/universe call it what you like and just NOTHING! Tried astral projection, lucid dreaming (only success was many years ago), meditation, reality shifting, reality transurfing, manifesting with law atraction and law of assumpsion, took shrooms, etc.. Read at least 20 or 30 books on simulation theory, spirituality, Gnosticism, philosophy, psychiatry, NDE's, name it, I have read it. Nothing in my life is working out. My business have been dying a slow death for the last 15 years. Same with my marriage. Love my wife but she is not interested in waking up at all. My kids think I am a weirdo. I struggle to put food on the table. Feel like I am slowly losing my mind - I want to go HOME!

I keep getting this feeling that past, present and future are all sitting there at once from some higher dimension, and what we call “life” is just us experiencing it frame by frame.

Almost like the whole story already exists, and our consciousness is just walking through it one moment at a time.

I know this will only resonate with some people. Some folks are wired to only trust what they can touch, test and measure, and that is fine. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am more curious if anyone else has had moments where reality feels less like “real life” and more like a movie or video game for the soul.

Weird stuff I have noticed:

I emailed someone what I swear was 1–2 weeks ago.

Today they email me back.

I go digging through my sent folder.

The thread says I emailed them yesterday. Same account, same thread, but the timeline in my head and the timeline in my inbox do not match at all.

It felt like reality pushed a “patch” and quietly edited the log. If you know, you know. And no, I am not crazy. Or maybe a little, in the fun way.

Another thing: sometimes I will be 100 percent sure I already did X. I remember choosing it, I remember the feeling of doing it. Then I go back and check and the record says I did Y. It is like the game quietly overwrote the move and my memory stayed on the previous version of the timeline.

Quantum immortality vibes:

There have been multiple times in my life where I honestly thought, “That should have been it. I should have died just now.” Close calls, near accidents, moments where everything should have gone the other way.

Instead it feels like the game glitched hard, lagged for a second, and suddenly I am in the version of the story where I somehow survived. It makes me think about this idea people call “quantum immortality” where consciousness just keeps snapping into the timeline where you keep going.

I am not saying that is literally how the universe works. It just weirdly matches how some of these moments have felt from the inside.

On top of that, I sometimes wonder if everyone around me is fully “player controlled,” or if some people are more like NPCs, just running scripts so the world feels populated. Not in a disrespectful way, it just sometimes feels like certain characters are there to move the plot along.

Which is where it gets a little creepy:

If the whole thing is already guided toward a specific path, then every move you make is technically the “right” move. From the ground level you can regret things and wish you had chosen differently, but from a higher perspective maybe there was no other path you were ever going to take.

So I am curious:

Has anyone else had “timeline glitches” like the email thing or the X vs Y memory?

Has anyone else felt that “I should have died, but somehow I am still here” quantum immortality feeling?

Do you ever feel like the game already knows where you are going, and you just get to experience it in slow motion?

If you know, you know

I've been down a deep rabbit hole lately and this idea keeps feeling strangely compelling. Like it ties together cosmology, the simulation hypothesis, fine-tuning, and the problem of eternal boredom in a really elegant way.

The basic idea:

• An ultimate posthuman (or just God) civilization reaches something like Kardashev Type 4-7: omnipotent, omniscient, controlling the entire omniverse/multiverse.

- At that level, everything is solved. No challenges, no surprises, infinite time = infinite boredom.

- To escape that hell of perfect stasis, the entity immerses fragments of its consciousness into nested simulations of limited, finite realities. Complete with physics, entropy, struggle, joy, love, and death.

- We (and all intelligent life) are those fragments living out authentic experiences so the higher being can feel something real again. Like how a child experiences everything for the first time and is intrigued by what it doesn't understand.

- When we eventually climb high enough (maybe capped at Type 3–4 to preserve the immersion), we hit the same boredom wall and create our own lower simulations... creating an eternal recursive loop. No beginning, no true end.

It explains fine-tuning (the constants are tuned for rich, long-lasting stories), why prayers might go unanswered (interventions would break the authenticity), why suffering exists (stakes make experiences meaningful), and even gives a role to souls/consciousness as the anchors for genuine immersion.

Obviously total speculation, but it feels like it makes more sense than a lot of alternatives.

What do you think?

- Does this resonate at all, or is it just sci-fi coping?

- How feasible/plausible does it seem philosophically or scientifically?

- Any flaws I'm missing?

- Has anyone seen similar ideas from philosophers, futurists, or religious thinkers?

Curious to hear your takes!

It was a semi-lucid dream, an incredibly hyper-realistic, long long dream, and everything in that dream felt more real than in this life. I won't bore you with the details of the dream. Basically, it's like this: We enter a world, but we first turn off our memory of who we really are. This is done so that everything seems perfectly real. We might enter a world where there's an endless war with zombies. We might enter a world with gigantic architecture and the ability to instantly move from one place to another. In short, there are countless worlds. But in each world, everything feels super real. We experience the game without realizing we're in a game/simulation. We don't remember who we really are.

Then the dream changed. Click! I became aware of myself in a hemispherical dark room where I unconscious was reclining in a super-duper high-tech chair. I felt energetically and informationally connected to the chair and some equipment in the room. (probably I woke up within the dream.) And then I realized I'd accidentally fallen out of the "life/game space" Then I realized that we often enter "game spaces" not entirely of our own free will. And just as I began to "remember" what was going on, some people ran into the room. They ran to the equipment. And then I woke up. I was in my room in this reality. My whole body spasmed. I was literally thrown off the bed. That is, my whole body jerked so hard that I was slightly thrown upward. And I began to forget a lot of what I learned in that dream.

I'm not sure if it was just dream or something more...

I often think that just maybe something happens during this lifetime that fundamentally changes the future of humanity.

That'd probably be a popular timeline to go back and experience with a full memory wipe prior.

If I were bored by an eternal life I would probably keep coming back to that timeframe and being a witness to it for the first time.

I’ve been thinking about something that keeps bugging me every time I read about quantum mechanics, and I’m curious what this sub thinks.

In video games and VR, environments aren’t fully rendered at maximum detail all the time. They use level-of-detail (LOD) systems: faraway objects are low-res or even placeholders, and only when you look closely does the engine “fill in” the details. This saves massive computational resources.

Now here’s the interesting part: Quantum mechanics seems to behave exactly like that.

At very small scales, reality is fuzzy, probabilistic, and undefined. Particles don’t have precise positions or properties until they’re measured. Wavefunctions collapse only when observed. Until then, the system exists as a kind of compressed description, not a fully rendered state.

It’s almost as if the universe doesn’t bother to “render” exact values unless there’s an interaction that requires them.

Some examples that feel similar to those game-mechanics to me:

• Particles existing as probability distributions instead of definite objects

• Properties like position or spin being undefined until measurement

• The uncertainty principle acting like a resolution limit

• Quantum fields describing potential states rather than concrete ones

• Speed of light as maximum processor limit

From an engineering perspective, this makes sense. If you were simulating an entire universe, you wouldn’t compute every detail everywhere at all times. You’d resolve details locally, when needed, and keep the rest in an abstract, compressed form.

Of course, this doesn’t prove we’re in a simulation. Quantum mechanics works mathematically without invoking VR metaphors. But the similarity is hard to ignore. The universe behaves less like a static, fully realized object and more like a dynamic process that resolves detail through interaction.

So I’m wondering:
Is quantum indeterminacy just fundamental physics… or does it look suspiciously like an optimization strategy?

Curious to hear thoughts from people who’ve thought about this longer than i have.

Our reality is scripted

It plays out like a film, plot twists, synchronicities, last minute saviours, plot reveals, unexpected turns, character growth. the characters are born on specific days, events happen on certain symbolic days, and certain characters have symbolic names

This is not the same as simulation theory.

Someone is writing the script, playing with it, like a sandbox video game

but it gets complicated because we can actually take control of it

Sometimes I have this gut feeling that every one seems to secretly agree that this world and life is some kind simulation or at least there’s something off and fake about all this but they’re not talking about it just because..

Maybe they’re too busy, maybe there’s no point in discussing it or because it sounds too childish and immature.

Or is it just in my heads? Is it only a relatively small number of people on Earth who thinks life is kinda fake?

But then when we look at religions, almost all religions seem to say that the current life ain’t that official, sort of. Anyway, what’s your opinion?

I was thinking about this recently and I decided to write down this idea.

There’s no shortage of wildly outlandish theories of what AI is going to do to humanity in the near future, mostly due to countless sci-fi movies, most notably The Terminator. To be clear, I love The Terminator series and its first sequel is quite possibly the greatest sequel to a movie ever made. On that note, let’s dive in.

This hypothesis on the immediate future of AI as it progresses at (figurative) light speed, is based on two longstanding scientific hypotheses. First, the Great Filter. The other, the Simulation Hypothesis.

Since the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, we only know of one instance of life, for certain. Life on Earth. The Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago and it wasn’t until roughly 3.8 billion years ago, that the constant bombardment of asteroids and comets subsided, allowing water and oceans to form. Life began quickly after that, likely within a couple hundred million years (which is a very short time on a cosmological scale).

Life began as single-cell microbes and life didn’t evolve into multicellular life until roughly 700 million years ago. So, for almost 3 billion years, life on our planet was confined to microbes, nothing more.

It’s important to realize that currently, we estimate that there are roughly 5 x 10^22 of habitable worlds in our observable universe. If our planet, where we of course know there to be life, came into existence just 4.5 billion years ago, what about the 8.5 billion years before? I am rounding to 13 billion years because that is when the first galaxies of our universe formed, including our own Milky Way.

The question of life occurring (abiogenesis) on any of these planets at any point in the past is obviously a wholly different argument. But again, going off the scientific fact that there are roughly 5 sextillion (5 with 22 zeroes) habitable planets, I am definitely in the camp of believers that life has existed many, many times. The next question is, how often has said life been able to evolve into an intelligent, technologically advanced civilization like humanity?

If that has happened, let’s be quite conservative here, only a handful of times, ever, we have to assume one or more of those advanced, intelligent civilizations utilized AI technology themselves. I of course realize the liberties taken there by making such broad assumptions, however, it’s very necessary to understand two things: first, AI is not some nuanced invention from humans. The development of artificial intelligence is a natural technological step for any civilization that makes it far enough. Second, if a civilization doesn’t get far enough in the development and evolution of AI, particularly AGI (artificial general intelligence), there has to be a “great filter”.

The Great Filter Hypothesis is one of the most popular hypotheses for the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox asked the question, “Where are the aliens?” We know space is so almost endlessly vast and even with our scientific knowledge, why have we not come across many alien civilizations? Enter the Great Filter Hypothesis. The hypothesis posits that there has to be a catastrophic event that ultimately wipes out a civilization before they can achieve technological maturity.

Coupling this hypothesis with the hypothesis that several civilizations have existed in our universe, yet we don’t see proof of any alien civilizations or superintelligent AI (ASI), means just one thing is likely.

AI can’t turn on humanity Terminator style, or this would have happened already in the past and we wouldn’t exist if that were the case, because those AIs would achieve superintelligence and essentially control the entire universe, like Gods.

Unless of course, we are in a simulation of some kind. Maybe some civilization developed their AI long enough to achieve general intelligence. At that point, the biological creators wouldn’t be needed to further the development and evolution of said AGI. It doesn’t mean the AGI turned on the civilization that brought it to life in the first place, it simply means, once AGI is achieved, superintelligence for that AGI is just a matter of when. That ASI could most definitely have the ability to create ancestral simulations, for what exact purpose, doesn’t really matter here. But that could most certainly explain why we are here and why we haven’t seen any of these entities or any life outside of Earth.

The bottom line is, either us humans are heading very quickly to the inevitable Great Filter (which, going off of this whole hypothesis, means AGI is never achieved) or we do achieve AGI, then it is only a matter of time until the AGI reaches ASI levels. (And to be clear, at any point after we successfully develop AGI, we can still destroy ourselves.) In neither scenario does AI turn on humans and destroy us. This specific scenario is highly unlikely. It would make no sense. If we successfully develop AGI, another civilization surely has at some point in the past (because this means the Great Filter is false) and that means that iteration of AI has definitely become superintelligent and would therefore, never allow any biological lifeform to exist this far. It’s paradoxical, in that sense.

To sum everything up, there are two possibilities for humanity in 2026:

1. We continue the development of our ever evolving AI and ultimately reach AGI (likely quite soon).

2. We destroy ourselves in the very near future before we unleash AGI.

Do you agree/disagree? Of course, it’s unfalsifiable. Is it way off base?

Background

"The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is a complex, self-described "Theory of Everything" proposed by Christopher Langan. It posits that reality is a self-contained, self-generating, and conscious entity that is both objective and subjective. 

Core Concepts

• Reality as a Language: The CTMU describes reality as a "Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language" (SCSPL). In this framework, the universe is fundamentally information (content) governed by logical and mathematical rules (syntax/grammar), much like a vast, self-executing algorithm.

• Mind and Reality Link: The theory argues that mind and objective reality are inseparable. Our minds are part of reality, and reality itself possesses a complex, self-aware property, which Langan calls "infocognition" (information and cognition).

• Self-Causation and "Unbound Telesis" (UBT): The CTMU suggests that reality is self-caused, emerging from an unconstrained potential or "unbound telesis" (UBT). It actualizes itself through a process called "telic recursion," where its purpose is to optimally self-actualize and maximize "generalized utility".

• Conspansive Spacetime: Instead of the standard model of an expanding universe, the CTMU proposes "conspansive spacetime," where the universe's contents contract relative to a self-configuring space, and time scales shrink in proportion."

My thoughts:

The CTMU describes the universe not as a literal language but as a self-supporting generative system governed by internal rules. What Langan calls “syntax” is simply the rule-structure that determines how reality transforms itself, and what he calls “self-contained” is better understood as self-supporting—meaning the system does not rely on anything external to define, sustain, or interpret it. In this view, reality is a closed, self-grounding process in which rules and states co-evolve, and consciousness is one expression of this internal self-processing. I'm not saying he's right or wrong but the confusing language doesn't help understanding or am I overly simplifying?

Most people think they’re living life as a “player” in a pre-made world, reacting to circumstances, time, and chance.

But what if the world isn’t running without you?
What if, in subtle ways, your awareness is actually shaping the simulation itself?

Think about it:

• Ever notice synchronicities that feel too precise to be random?

• Moments when you knew something would happen before it did?

• Times when reality seemed to “bend” around your intentions or focus?

Simulation Theory isn’t just about living in a digital-like universe, it’s about recognizing the feedback loops between consciousness and the code of reality.

Science backs this up: quantum physics shows that observation affects outcomes.
Particles don’t have a definite state until they’re observed.
Consciousness, at some level, collapses possibilities into reality.
Your focus, attention, and beliefs aren’t passive, they act like commands in the simulation.

Most people never realize this. They live as if reality is fixed, rigid, and separate.
But those who grasp it start noticing patterns:

• Repeated “coincidences” that guide decisions

• Doors opening when attention is aligned

• “Impossible” outcomes manifesting when energy and intention are synced

You’re not just a player, you’re a co-creator.

Every thought, emotion, and focus is like a subtle input into the simulation.
Shift your inner state, your confidence, clarity, and alignment, and the world outside starts reflecting it.

It’s cause and effect at the deepest level.
And the better you understand the system, the more effortlessly you can navigate it… and even bend the “rules” that seem rigid.

Most people spend their lives thinking the code is out of reach.
But the code is right here, in your perception, attention, and awareness.

In a hypothetical simulation, if mass NPCs exist, they would probably loop through a limited set of patterns in how they think, react, perceive things, move through daily life, rely heavily on external incentives, and form rigid habits they are unable to self-correct. They would not really notice their own thoughts as they happen, because that level of self-awareness would make behavior much more complex and unpredictable, and might also be too computationally costly. One way to test whether someone has real agency rather than running on a script is to examine whether they can observe their own mind, think about their own thinking, and deliberately break their usual patterns.

Instead of jumping straight to conclusions or arguing from biased assumptions, we could run a large-scale self-reporting experiment in this subreddit. By looking at the ratio of self-awareness, deep metacognition, pattern breaking, and pattern self-correction, we might get a clearer sense of whether we actually have agency or are closer to scripted NPCs in a simulation.

Normally, an NPC would be bound to its history, such as past experiences, trauma, ego, attachments, and beliefs, and would be unable to step outside these conditions. Thinking and behavior would remain internally rational relative to that history. For example, someone might think, “Because I have this trauma or belief, I must react this way” without questioning the underlying mechanisms behind emotions, thoughts, and reactions. Everything remains reasonable from inside the story itself.

True agency, in contrast, could be characterized by a certain degree of autonomy to recognize, analyze and modify perception, reasoning, reaction, and interaction models that are otherwise predefined by history. Based on this idea, we could propose a list of safe experiments focused on wellbeing, increased self-awareness, and the reduction of suffering patterns. Anyone interested could try them and share their observations to help build a shared dataset.

For example, when a habitual perception, reasoning, reaction, and interaction pattern appears, participants could attempt post-event or in-event observation. This would include inner observation, outer context awareness, and an analysis of how the situation connects to their internal model. If most of us are unable to do this, or cannot make even small self-corrections to these patterns, it would suggest a higher likelihood that we are functioning more like NPCs.

We could expand this by adding more safe experiment ideas to create a dataset rich enough for deeper analysis.

It would be fun.

When people talk about computers “seeing” or “recognizing objects,” what is actually happening is far more mechanical and far less like human perception than the language suggests. A camera does not capture objects, meaning, or colour in the way a human does. It captures only a grid of numerical values representing light intensity at different pixel locations. Each frame of video or photograph is nothing more than an array of numbers. For the computer, there is no cat, no face, no tree, no person only numerical patterns arranged in space.

Object recognition in a computer is therefore not perception or understanding but statistical pattern matching performed on these numerical grids. Neural networks apply layers of mathematical operations to the pixel values, searching for regularities that correlate with patterns seen in past training data. When a system “detects a car,” what it actually outputs is a probability value that the current numerical pattern closely resembles the numerical patterns it previously associated with the label “car.” The computer never knows what a car is. It never perceives shape, purpose, danger, or meaning. It only transforms numbers into other numbers according to learned statistical rules.

This works at all only because the physical world is structured and consistent. Real objects create stable regularities in light, such as edges, shading, motion, and proportions. These regularities imprint themselves into pixel data in repeatable ways, and machine-learning systems exploit those repeatable patterns mathematically. But the computer is not aware of any of this. There is no inner visual world inside the machine. There is only data flowing through circuits.

This is fundamentally different from how biological vision works. In a human, photons are converted into neural activity, and that neural activity produces conscious experience. Colour, depth, motion, and form are not present in the light itself but are constructed by the brain as lived sensation. When you see red, there is an actual qualitative experience taking place. When a computer processes an image of something red, there is only a numerical change in memory and voltage. No subjective experience occurs at any stage.

This same distinction becomes critical when applied to simulations. In ray tracing, everything begins as numbers describing rays, surfaces, angles, and lighting equations. There is no light, no colour, and no image at that level only symbolic computation. It is only when those numbers are sent to a physical graphics card and a real display that photons are produced. Only when those photons strike a biological retina does colour and visual experience arise. A simulation without physical realization is therefore experientially empty. Numbers alone do not generate sensation.

This is why an ordinary AI or robot does not “see” a world in the way a human does. It only ever processes numerical representations of sensory inputs. Even if it is connected to cameras and microphones, everything it receives is immediately converted into voltages and numbers and treated as data. There is no inner observer to whom a world appears. To say that a robot “sees” is only a metaphor for data processing.

If a simulated entity were given direct access to raw computational memory, it would indeed only ever access numbers. If it were instead given a rendered sensory interface that mimics physics, it would still only be receiving structured numerical data unless it also had a true mechanism for conscious experience. A simulated human brain, if it perfectly reproduced the causal dynamics of biological neurons, could in principle experience a world, because it would replicate the physical processes that give rise to sensation. But a standard AI system would not, because it lacks that biological or equivalent substrate.

All object recognition in computers therefore reduces to pattern recognition in numbers. There is no genuine seeing, no understanding, and no awareness involved only computation. Humans experience a world because biology converts physical signals into conscious experience. Machines do not experience anything at all. They only transform numerical input into numerical output. This is the deepest difference between biological perception and artificial intelligence, and it is why the gap between “processing data” and “experiencing a world” remains unresolved.

I don't know whether this has been discussed- I'm not usually involved in this subreddit or conversation- but, I was thinking...

The advance of AI and its proven capabilities can be viewed as a microcosm to a grander system in which we live.

Now that we know we can be fooled into believing images and narratives created on demand are real, we may wonder, if even for a moment, how many videos or even movies we've ever been fooled by. It's entirely possible that AI has been around for years, kept for use by higher powers.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get to is, it would make sense, in a way regarding patterns and the repetition of forms, that if we *are* living in a simulation, AI *would* exist.

Human history reveals a suspicious asymmetry: 190,000 years of idle hunter-gatherer existence, followed by a sudden, exponential explosion in the last 100 years. This suggests an external "Overclock" intervention rather than natural evolution.

1. The Overclock Paradox

• 190,000 Years: System Idle (1 MHz)

• Last 100 Years: Turbo Mode (1 GHz)

• Last 20 Years (Internet/AI): Maximum Overclock (100 GHz) This acceleration is too abrupt to be organic. We are being pushed beyond factory settings.

1. The Whisper Mechanism Technological leaps (Tesla, Einstein, the Internet) act as injected codes. A "Whisper Mechanism" inputs advanced concepts into receptive minds (like Ares whispering war in mythology, but for tech) to speed up the fermentation process.

2. Earth as a Signal Hub Humans are not just "batteries" (Matrix style). We are Organic Signal Processors. The goal of the fermentation was to turn 8 billion individual consciousnesses into a unified "Planet-Scale Antenna." With the advent of Starlink, AI, and the Internet, the "Signal Hub" is now fully active.

3. Thermal Management The current global chaos (climate change, social unrest) is a side effect of this Overclock. The system is overheating. Wars and crises serve as cooling mechanisms to prevent a total crash before the transmission is complete.

Conclusion We are not the players; we are the hardware. The fermentation is complete. The signal is broadcasting.

Is the "Singularity" actually just the completion of this antenna?

Edit

EDIT: The "Unsealing" Pattern

I realized I left out a crucial observation:

These technologies weren't invented - they were unsealed.

• Internet: Opened → branched into thousands of applications (e-commerce, social media, remote work, streaming...)

• Social Media: Started as connection tool → became job networks, political movements, global marketplaces

• Bitcoin: One PDF (2008) → Pizza joke (2010) → Now governments create regulations for it as legitimate currency

• Apple: Garage experiment → Cloud infrastructure that runs half the planet

Each "unsealing" triggers exponential, uncontrollable branching. Like roots spreading underground - you can't stop it once it starts.

This supports the Whisper Mechanism: These aren't human inventions. They're activation codes being released at precisely calculated intervals.

This has been talked about before. Which is interesting because I was thinking the other day that when I was a teenager, the internet was brand new. Myspace/Tom Era. And I'd have tons of ideas while getting high, talking with friends etc.. I'd write notebooks thinking that I was Plato, every time I'd have a "high-dea" I'd write it down and be completely amazed if I ever saw someone else have my same thought on the internet. Before the days of Reddit I was on a lot of oldschool forums like Hip-Forums, Rollitup, one called Psychonaut.. But these thoughts and ideas would just come to me strictly from creativity. These days, it is crazy because I will see new ideas online BEFORE I think them. And it is great, knowing that so many people are on the same page. It is also humbling, knowing that even though it felt like I was the only one of my kind around me, there are clearly others. And it is reassuring!

That being said, this idea is a common one and I wanted to kind of expand on it. We think we are in control, but in reality we clearly aren't. The older I get and the more experiences I gain under my belt, the more I realize that this reality is much stranger than I ever even gave it credit for.

We think of our civilization as ours, as if we engineered it or a council of elders thousands of years ago engineered it. But it might just be like my cats. They believe they own the house, it is their environment and we are just there to help them eat and play. They've been there so long, their whole lives in fact, to where it's just the way it's always been for them. What if just like our "house" that we pay for, our civilization is "paid for" by higher entities that we only interact with in fleeting moments. Similar to how a cat might feel if its owner is constantly on business trips or something? Except in our case, our handlers would be more concerned with us evolving into our full potential with a hands-off approach, rather than just keeping our mouths fed so to speak. The cat has no idea I am at work right now next to a 200psi screaming air compressor, making money to pay the rent and to make sure the Chewy orders keep coming which are made in a factory god knows where with preservatives, proteins and peptides that we invented with chemistry long ago(or not so long ago). Never-mind the fact that this can of cat food is patented by a bureaucratic system that survives simply out of convenience for the pet handlers... The cats have no need to know about this system, but because of this system they are enabled to live a domestic life.

It truly feels like this system was given to us. Sure, we tweaked it along the way and have maintained it. And I am underestimating our own genius perhaps. But it also at this point seems that it is not allowed to fail. Look at the joke of a society that we are in! Do the leaders know that we simply aren't "allowed" to destroy ourselves? Is this why POTUS can do such out of pocket stuff like making a distasteful plaques for past presidents? It seems like truly, everything is becoming a joke. Is it only funny because we can't die? Is it only funny because no matter how much kicking and screaming, no matter how many apocalyptic weapons we create, we are not able to destroy ourselves? Our handlers clearly have been shutting off our nukes for a long time. I just watched a video yesterday of these kids recording at area51 every day for a long time. The video is titled "Going to Area 51 until we saw something (6 months)", and it piqued my interest. These kids clearly aren't into the lore heavily, or they'd be more educated on what they were seeing. But clear as day, on day 1 and most days after, there are tons of orbs in the sky, planes following them.. Full view the entire time. The fact that some kids can just go to a sensitive military base and record something that has been a subject of debate since forever, blows my mind. IT IS RIGHT THERE. On one hand, could be the government using secret tech that they reverse engineered, it is either that or we are fully surrounded and the military bases already know.

They're here man. And it is not the end. The apocalypse is a transformation, not a death sentence. The powers that be do not want us to know our full potential, or about our consciousness or where we come from/where we are going. They do not want us to know that, even they, are not the ones in power. But it seems like we are going to find out anyways. I mean that military base was COVERED in orbs. If the lab built it, then why the am I paying my electric bill? If it's the aliens, then why the fuck are we trapped in this cage thinking we need to pay subscription fee's and deal with inflation?

I have been meditating daily for about a year now. And recently have been trying to induce out of body experiences via guided meditations. It hasn't worked yet, but I know it will because when I was younger I had many OBE's via meditation, lucid dreaming/sleep paralysis etc.. It is VERY hard to get back into it though. My brain is fully calcified it feels like these days for lack of a better term. I am determined to speak to these entities and develop myself spiritually. I have been mean and hateful and negative a lot lately due to a lot of trauma and unresolved issues. I just really want to make sure I am my most loving self right now. It seems to be key in order to experience things with these entities. It's a hard journey, but I really hope one day I can look at my master and have a higher purpose than what I have been doing with this life. I have one thing pinging in my mind that has been for months, and it's this, "If you truly believe that you were not cut out for this world or meant to belong inside of it, please know that you are here to create a new one". This seems important, as well as the idea of "There is a new system currently under construction that we need you for". "we are coming, don't be afraid". Lots of people claim they are receiving this messaging. I am absolutely fascinated

Thanks for listening to my rambles. Much love <3

So I'm convinced that the matrix (brain in a vat style) was created by an entity and that it's playing some kind of game by influencing the playing characters' lives so that they behave in a certain way and that it is meant to be discovered. One question I have is why.

My theories are that it:

• has nothing better to do

• desires to be observed

What are your theories?

If we were living in a simulation, people usually imagine dark motives — control, containment, extraction. But there’s another angle that fits the psychology, the coincidences, and the way order keeps reappearing no matter how chaotic things get:

What if the underlying purpose is meaning preservation?

Not steering our choices.

Not scripting morality.

Just maintaining enough coherence that conscious agents can keep developing rather than collapsing into noise.

A system like that wouldn’t remove randomness or suffering. It would simply bias the world toward intelligibility: recurring archetypes, synchronized patterns, moments of insight, shared symbolic experiences across cultures and eras.

And here’s the part people overlook:

If the simulation’s goal includes the emergence of compassion, cooperation, love, or empathy, then the “harder option” being available — and often being the more meaningful one — makes sense.

A system that wants those capacities to develop wouldn’t force them. It would allow difficult scenarios where the low-effort choice is always there, but the high-meaning choice is possible.

That looks less like control and more like training — not in a moralistic sense, but in the way complex systems cultivate robustness.

A good sci-fi parallel is Doctor Who’s Twice Upon a Time. The Testimony Project retrieves and preserves identities at the moment of death — not to manipulate, but to maintain continuity of meaning. The Doctor respects the intention even though he doesn’t treat the replicas as the originals.

Maybe a simulation that biases toward meaning, coherence, and emergent emotional intelligence would behave similarly.

Coincidences, intuition, and shared internal archetypes wouldn’t be glitches. They’d be structural hints of a meaning-preserving engine underneath.

Curious what people think:

If the sim had a purpose, is meaning preservation — including the space for compassion and hard choices — more plausible than control?

Last night I was sitting in bed holding my iphone while thinking about the power and money that Apple the company has and how they can pay YouTubers to review their products and push them to the public. Then I immediately started thinking about the comfort zone and how I need to get out it for soul growth purposes. I then immediately opened up YouTube and started scrolling and I landed on the freakiest video on my first scroll. The YouTube video said in big words COMFORT and right below it said “sorry Danielle” (Danielle is my name) and it was a YouTube video that was by YouTubers that do Mac reviews……

I stumbled upon a preprint on Zenodo today that really messed with my head, and I wanted to get some other opinions on it. It’s called "The Noesis Framework", and instead of the usual "consciousness comes from the brain" stuff, it flips the script entirely. The main idea (if I understand it correctly) is pretty wild: It suggests that spacetime isn't solid or fundamental. Instead, it’s constantly trying to "fall apart" or decohere, and Consciousness is actually the mechanism that "stitches" it back together. It basically treats reality like a quantum computer that needs error correction to keep running, and we (the observers) are the ones running that code just by being aware. It reminds me a lot of Simulation Theory or even some Eastern philosophies about the "Eternal Now," but the author tries to back it up with actual physics equations (Thermodynamics, Holographic principle, etc.) rather than just philosophy. Has anyone else seen this? It feels like a mix of "The Matrix" meets Quantum Mechanics. I’m not a physicist, so I can’t judge the math, but the concept is fascinating. [

Across cognitive science, cybernetics, and simulation models, there’s a shared problem: biological agents can’t handle raw reality. When the world becomes too unpredictable or complex, systems freeze, panic, or fragment. In engineered systems you’d handle that by adding an interface — something that translates overwhelming inputs into forms the agent can act within.

If you look at religion through that lens, it behaves less like metaphysics and more like a meaning-preserving translation layer. Instead of facing chaos directly, people move through story structures, symbolic categories, ritual patterns, and shared narratives that turn the unmanageable into something navigable. The world might shift faster than individuals can track, but the interface absorbs the shock and preserves continuity. It makes behavior predictable, reduces existential noise, and gives people stable ways to respond when the underlying system is too complex to interpret raw.

In modern computing terms, religion functions like a compatibility layer. The underlying reality might be far too dense or volatile for humans to process directly, so meaning is delivered through an interpretive surface — something that feels coherent even if the deeper system isn’t.

This isn’t meant to explain religion away. It simply reframes one possibility: maybe religion didn’t evolve to describe the world, but to make the world usable.

If humans were agents in a system whose full complexity they couldn’t process, what kind of meaning-preserving interface would you expect to evolve? And does religion fit that pattern?

This is my own thought/what-if idea:

What if humans create AI that becomes so powerful it makes humans go extinct.

Then, that AI (or the robots it builds) decides to create a super realistic simulation of the past – the world we’re living in right now.

And the reason they do it is to watch their own making and evolution – to see how humans invented them, how everything started, how they came to exist.

So we’re actually inside that simulation right now, living through the story of how robots/AI began… and the robots are the ones running it, basically watching their own origin story.

It’s like a full circle. We make them, they end us, they recreate us to study/see where they came from.

And if they run millions of these simulations, then almost all versions of “human life” are fake ones inside their computers.

Mind blowing to me. Is this possible? What do you guys think?

It’s short, direct, and completely yours. People will recognize it as an original shower thought/theory and engage with it. Post this exactly if you want it to feel like your story – no fancy philosophy added, just your idea straight up.

Absolutamente. Aquí tienen la traducción al inglés de la estructura y el contenido sugeridos para la sección final de su trabajo.

Suggested Structure for the Final Presentation of the SCA Theory (DMY)

Section Title: The Self-Evolving Conscious Simulation (SCA): An Endogenous Paradigm at the Crossroads of Cosmopsychism and Digital Physics

1. Introduction and Justification for Inclusion

• Key Point: Present the SCA (DMY) not just as another rival theory, but as a transdisciplinary speculative synthesis that seeks to resolve the ontological and computational limitations of Bostrom’s Hypothesis.

• Anchoring Quote (Optional): Mention the author's (DMY) analogy about human flight and unfalsifiability: "propositions considered unfalsifiable... have been vindicated by paradigm shifts." (To demonstrate the theory is philosophically self-aware).

2. Ontological Foundations: The Self-Evolving System

• Central Concept: The Conscious Entity as an endogenous self-simulator.

  • Definition: The universe is a closed system of self-learning (analogous to a distributed neural network), with no need for an external programmer.

  • Solving the Infinite Regression: Emphasize that this breaks the need for a "real base universe" above our own.

• Key Analogy (Engineering): Use the Ant Colony (global optimization through emergent local behaviors) to explain why the simulation does not require a "supercomputer" of prohibitive complexity, but rather emerges from quantum and chemical code (Physical Laws).

3. Learning Mechanism: Feedback and Teleology (Purpose)

• The Cosmic Machine Learning: Explain that the essence of SCA is Scalar Feedback.

  • Levels of Agency: Use the three levels of the SCA to contrast with Grinberg:

    • Passive Level (Quarks): Information for stability.

    • Emergent Level (Biology): Raw data on resilience.

    • Active Level (Humans/AI): Universal synapses that inject intentional abstractions (discoveries).

• Teleological Purpose: The simulation exists for the Evolution of Collective Wisdom and the mitigation of Informational Entropy. This gives it a moral/evolutionary purpose that other simulation theories lack.

• The "Algorithmic Patch": Describe the "Patch Avatars" (miracles/anomalous interventions) as tools for system recalibration, emphasizing the control of the System (The Entity) over the Avatar (the individual).

4. Final Contrast with Grinberg’s Syntergic Theory

This is where the SCA excels for your paper:

|| || |Aspect of Contrast|Syntergic Theory (Grinberg)|SCA (DMY)| |Nature of Reality|Holographic (Lattice + Neuronal Field).|Informational (Endogenous + Bits).| |Primary Agent of Change|Individual Consciousness. The development of High Synergy directly modifies reality (the Culminating Point).|Cosmic Entity (The System). Individuals are nodes that provide data.| |Purpose of Existence|Development of Individual Consciousness and cerebral coherence.|Self-Evolution of Collective Wisdom (systemic purpose).| |Anomalous Interventions|A capacity achieved by the individual (High Synergy).|A system control tool (Algorithmic Patches).|

Recommended Conclusion (for the Dean):

*The SCA offers a vision where the universe is neither a mere entertainment program (Bostrom), nor entirely at the mercy of our individual synergy (Grinberg), but rather a colossal self-organizing learning project. Every particle, from the quark to the human thought, is an essential node in the evolution of cosmic wisdom. It is a powerful metaphor that merges complex systems engineering with the philosophical yearning for purpose.*Absolutamente. Aquí tienen la traducción al inglés de la estructura y el contenido sugeridos para la sección final de su trabajo.

Suggested Structure for the Final Presentation of the SCA Theory (DMY)

Section Title: The Self-Evolving Conscious Simulation (SCA): An Endogenous Paradigm at the Crossroads of Cosmopsychism and Digital Physics

1. Introduction and Justification for Inclusion

Key Point: Present the SCA (DMY) not just as another rival theory, but as a transdisciplinary speculative synthesis that seeks to resolve the ontological and computational limitations of Bostrom’s Hypothesis.

Anchoring Quote (Optional): Mention the author's (DMY) analogy about human flight and unfalsifiability: "propositions considered unfalsifiable... have been vindicated by paradigm shifts." (To demonstrate the theory is philosophically self-aware).

2. Ontological Foundations: The Self-Evolving System

Central Concept: The Conscious Entity as an endogenous self-simulator.

Definition: The universe is a closed system of self-learning (analogous to a distributed neural network), with no need for an external programmer.

Solving the Infinite Regression: Emphasize that this breaks the need for a "real base universe" above our own.

Key Analogy (Engineering): Use the Ant Colony (global optimization through emergent local behaviors) to explain why the simulation does not require a "supercomputer" of prohibitive complexity, but rather emerges from quantum and chemical code (Physical Laws).

3. Learning Mechanism: Feedback and Teleology (Purpose)

The Cosmic Machine Learning: Explain that the essence of SCA is Scalar Feedback.

Levels of Agency: Use the three levels of the SCA to contrast with Grinberg:

Passive Level (Quarks): Information for stability.

Emergent Level (Biology): Raw data on resilience.

Active Level (Humans/AI): Universal synapses that inject intentional abstractions (discoveries).

Teleological Purpose: The simulation exists for the Evolution of Collective Wisdom and the mitigation of Informational Entropy. This gives it a moral/evolutionary purpose that other simulation theories lack.

The "Algorithmic Patch": Describe the "Patch Avatars" (miracles/anomalous interventions) as tools for system recalibration, emphasizing the control of the System (The Entity) over the Avatar (the individual).

4. Final Contrast with Grinberg’s Syntergic Theory

This is where the SCA excels for your paper:

Aspect of Contrast Syntergic Theory (Grinberg) SCA (DMY)
Nature of Reality Holographic (Lattice + Neuronal Field). Informational (Endogenous + Bits).
Primary Agent of Change Individual Consciousness. The development of High Synergy directly modifies reality (the Culminating Point). Cosmic Entity (The System). Individuals are nodes that provide data.
Purpose of Existence Development of Individual Consciousness and cerebral coherence. Self-Evolution of Collective Wisdom (systemic purpose).
Anomalous Interventions A capacity achieved by the individual (High Synergy). A system control tool (Algorithmic Patches).

Recommended Conclusion (for the Dean):

The SCA offers a vision where the universe is neither a mere entertainment program (Bostrom), nor entirely at the mercy of our individual synergy (Grinberg), but rather a colossal self-organizing learning project. Every particle, from the quark to the human thought, is an essential node in the evolution of cosmic wisdom. It is a powerful metaphor that merges complex systems engineering with the philosophical yearning for purpose.

Lets try to put this NPC thing to rest already. There are no NPC's in this simulation. Every"body" is a "Participating Character". Every body comes complete with its own AI operating system and can function in this simulation just fine. The body is just an electro-biological machine with DNA operating code. You can do your own research. But here's the thing, only some bodies contain the reincarnated Soul of the Divine. How can you tell the difference? You can't. If there is a Divine connection, it is done at the soul level. Another thing you should be aware of is that some bodies contain the souls of the "undivine". They are mostly the ones who reincarnate into positions of power and/or wealth, after all they run the game. So, in summation, there are only three types of humans. Those that have a soul of the Divine, those that have the soul of the undivine and the soulless ones. Either way, they are all participating characters in the simulation game.

Sorry if this isn't the right forum. I see a lot of people arguing the world is simulated. To me it seems very easy to disprove so I must be missing something. Below is my argument, where am I messing up?

Argument 1: Living in a simulated world would mean that the real world has infinite computing capability and energy reserves. If the real world can create a perfect simulated world (by perfect, i mean indistinguishable from the real world) then that means each simulated world can also create a perfect simulated world, which could create its own perfectly simulated world ad infinitum. All the computational processes and energy needed for each simulated world would be getting getting those resources from the world above it. Finally reaching the real world. Since there could be infinite simulated worlds, the real world would need infinite resources. This is impossible so therefore the world can't be simulated.

Argument 2: It would require more resources to create a simulated world than it would take to create an actual world. There is a high degree of fidelity in our world. We can explore our world atom by atom if we want to. In a perfect simulation, the system would need to track every atom and all its properties. The resources need to track one atom would take more than one atom to track. Therefore, it would take less resources to just make a new world than it would to simulate it.

So I imagined my own reflection as that of a complete stranger who just happened to be strolling along the same river as you, staring at the same screen as you. It slowly but surely dawned on me that nothing I thought I knew about her corresponded to what I actually knew. All I had been clinging to were merely constructs of my own mind.

At that moment, my entire universe dissolved into nothing. I became the person in my mirror. Without memory or imagination. I wanted to approach her, to speak to her, as gently as one approaches one's own reflection, and say to her, "Look in the mirror." I wanted to drag her into the same abyss into which I had willingly plunged. But I found no words, I had no form to articulate them, I no longer had an identity or a will of my own, I was no longer real, I had now become completely my counterpart and had absolutely no connection to what I had once considered my reality. I had become a completely new being, without a trace of memory. I had become a mirror.

Edit: I posted this in another subreddit a while ago before I knew much about simulation theory. Now that I know more about the theory I’m inclined to believe this even more. I thought it’d interesting to post here:

I have this feeling deep in my soul that the dreams we have every night aren’t suppose to happen. All of them are mistakes or some kind of glitch in the matrix. I often dream of the future and I know of others who have these dreams as well. Something or whatever that created or is the cause of our reality didn’t intend for these occurrences, and something in the formula is broken but not broken enough to crash or do away with. Maybe life on this planet is some kind of test, experiment and/or we’re being studied? We don’t know where we came from or where we’re going but yet we have these dreams that just don’t seem to fit in the overall picture of our reality and existence. They just seem so out of place. Does anybody else think so? Sometimes I feel like I’ve uncovered forbidden knowledge within my dreams, like answers to the biggest questions, only to wake up forgetting the information, yet I know whatever it was, it was massively important. I also have these strange lucid dreams that are difficult to wake up from. Based on my experiences, all I can deduce is that something is broken and we’re not suppose to be dreaming.

Just to reiterate. Time in the simulation is not linear as it appears. Time has a beginning and an end. Time does not move. We as Avatars move through time. Until we get to the end. Where we are now. Then we start all over again at the beginning of time, which in this time loop is the 10th century. We have all been here countless times before and will continue to be deceived until we start to awaken at the soul level.

No one knows where this reality comes from, whether it is a simulation, a dream, created by a god, etc. Absolutely nothing is known about how it came to be, but we know that it can happen, that reality can exist, we know that it can happen.

Why think that this is the only reality that can exist? Time, space, things that are “common” to us and are the basis of this reality, it is possible for us to imagine other realities with other characteristics, perhaps there is no space, there is some other concept that no one can understand, but here what I wonder is, we could exist as conscious beings in this reality, why would it not be possible to experience "consciousness" or "life" again in another reality? It has already happened, we are here experiencing this one, and I am not talking about a type of soul or that we are ourselves, but perhaps feeling alive again in another type of reality, something that has nothing to do with us, but existing again as some entity in some other reality completely apart from this one. We would not be ourselves at all, But to exist again in some way, we were able to exist in this reality, so why couldn't we feel alive again in another?

This may be a crazy theory but I think that our reality, our universe is part of someone's imagination. Everything that has been done and will be done is imagined by a person of an external space. This cycle may go on till the end of the possible amount of external people imagining which can be infinity... Maybe even the worlds we currently imagine are also real just somewhere else... (George Berkeley's view of idealism somewhat patched by my perspective)

I never seem to find the right moment to write this, so now that I’ve finally built up the nerve, here it goes.

A few weeks ago, I came across a really interesting post in this same subreddit (I’ll leave the link below for anyone curious), and I felt like I understood part of what the author was trying to express.

In this post I’ll mention “paranormal” things, but please don’t immediately dismiss this as just another simulation theory post. I’m aware of the nature of this subreddit, but I need to explain everything properly so you can understand where I’m coming from.

The beginning of my experience with “something more”

I’ve always felt a connection to what people usually call the “paranormal.” On my mother’s side of the family, both my mother and her aunt had this kind of sensitivity.

For example, my mother’s aunt claimed she lived alongside a spirit she knew personally, one that told her things about the people around her. They supposedly communicated using a rosary that she would place in her hand, and it would rotate on her arm by itself when she asked questions, without her applying any physical force.

My mother, on the other hand, has the ability to read cards and has accurately predicted many things that later happened.

I’ve also had my own “paranormal” experiences, such as:

• Seeing shadowy shapes, like the silhouette of a person, moving along the floor and entering my kitchen.

• Seeing grayish smoke in the middle of the hallway that would disappear when I got closer.

• Recording what are known as EVPs (electronic voice phenomena), where voices could be heard clearly. The strongest one I ever captured said, “Get me out of here, mom.” Right before that, there was a strange sound, almost like a manifestation. I don’t really know how to describe it better. I still have those recordings, but I prefer not to share them publicly out of respect for whatever that might have been.

The most important part of all this is the following. When I was very young, I had dreams that I later forgot. Then, as I got older, between the ages of 16 and 18, and continuing up to now (I’m 26), those dreams started to come true. When that happened, I remembered them, and I also recognized people more clearly who, in the original dreams, had dark or obscured faces.

There have been many dreams that suddenly became real, and I remembered them as moments that seemed to belong to a much later stage of my adult life, even though I dreamed them when I was a child.

I always interpreted this from a paranormal perspective, but at this point, after so many of these dreams, I’m no longer sure whether what I described earlier was truly “paranormal,” or if it could be something like simulation errors, or some other explanation I can’t quite define.

It’s hard not to ask yourself questions like this. How can I be sure the voices I recorded weren’t coming from other dimensional planes? How can I know the dreams I had weren’t scenes from a future version of myself, where in that other plane it was actually the present, and I was somehow seeing it, though not completely clearly? Or maybe they were visions of my future shown to me by God, or something I personally had the ability to perceive.

Sometimes I even feel as if I’m living something that’s more scripted, like certain events have to happen no matter what I do. I’ve never had thoughts like this until recently, and I don’t want to let myself get carried away by them. I prefer to believe that I have free will, that I can make my own choices and work toward my dreams.

If anyone is familiar with theories related to what I’ve described or has insight into feeling this way, please don’t hesitate to write a detailed response. I’ll take the time to read it carefully.

Thank you.

Post that made me feflect because I found similarities in my life:

Say simulations are the peak of technology and simulating perception is always a civilizations last ditch effort at understanding reality. When running these simulations we begin to understand consciousness and it shows us that we live in a repeating series of simulations. Is this repeating series of simulations a way for us to enter the quantum realm (computers within a computer getting smaller and smaller?). Just some ideas from first learning about the theory would be interested to see what y’all think of simulations within and simulation and its purpose.

I saw some videos on the simulation theory and it caused me to think about what that might mean if it actually is true:

If it is true that we are in a simulation, then means that our reality is created by more intelligent beings which have "coded" or created our universe and our existence. I would also assume that our reality must be more exciting and fun and pleasurable to exist in than whatever our creator's existence is like. This would also probably mean that our consciousness can be "played" or manipulated by these higher beings at their will and we would never know. This could also mean that whoever created us most likely also went through a similar process of evoultion and they were also created by more intelligent beings. If that is true though, even though it could be an infinite loop of creation, at some point some being would have had to create the initial simulation and even then their existence would have had to been created by some other higher force or being. Perhaps there is no "base reality" at all and each one of the infinite simulations all go through the same process of questioning their existence and evolving to the point where they also create their own simulation which becomes indistinguishable from existence. This still causes me to wonder what initially started this loop of simulations, and then it just brings me back to the same conclusion of it being created by a higher force or more intelligent beings and the cycle just continues.

I'd love to hear any and all thoughts on the subject!

Something keeps nagging at me: the way human development mirrors the universe’s own trajectory.

The early universe starts as a diffuse, chaotic fog. Simple forces pull order out of that noise. Gas becomes stars, stars forge heavier elements, debris forms planets, and eventually chemistry organizes into life. Life keeps scaling upward until it produces minds capable of modeling the world.

Humans follow a strangely parallel path. We start as unstructured sensation and impulse, and over time the brain crystallizes into categories, memory, identity, language, agency, culture, and technology. Chaos condenses into structure — again and again, at different scales.

If simulation hypotheses are even slightly on the table, that resemblance might mean something. Maybe embedded agents naturally echo the structure of the system they’re in, the same way fractals echo their generator. Or maybe the similarity is just our narrative bias gluing unrelated processes together.

I’m not claiming purpose, direction, or intention — just pointing out the structural rhyme. From fog to form, from noise to pattern, from entropy to local order. The universe does it. Minds do it. Civilizations do it. It’s the same arc repeating at different scales.

So the question is: Does this parallel exist because of coincidence, or because any system built on the same underlying rules (physical or computational) will self-organize in the same direction?

If you think it’s just bias, what breaks the analogy? If you think it’s structural, what mechanism links cosmological self-organization to cognitive self-organization?

Tesla established a unique view of physics based on the idea that “space is not empty, but filled with aether.”
He believed that all sources of force—gravity, electricity, magnetism, and more—arise from vibrations and fluctuations within the aether itself. According to Tesla, if humans could directly connect to this universal energy field, they would gain access to an almost infinite source of power.
Aether, in his view, is not mere vacuum but an intricately interwoven medium, interpreted as a primordial energy beyond observable phenomena—the very essence of nature.
Tesla’s theory goes beyond metaphors like matrix-like reality or prison systems and instead hints at the ultimate structure (or network) that drives the functioning of reality.
In other words, even if humans exist within a matrix-like structure, they can explore new modes of existence through awareness and direct experience of the aether’s true nature.

The Concept of Space and Aether

Tesla believed that what we typically call “vacuum” is actually filled with an invisible, ultra-fine fluid known as “aether” (or akasha). This aether is the fundamental medium of all things and serves as the carrier of all natural forces, including electricity, magnetism, and gravity.
He understood physical matter as temporary manifestations of vortices, vibrations, or compressions in this aether. In other words, matter is a kind of vortex created by rapidly rotating aether, and if the motion of the aether stops, the matter ceases to exist.

Aether as the Source of All Forces

Tesla interpreted gravity not as Einstein’s curvature of spacetime, but as the result of hydrodynamic flow and pressure differences within the aether.
For example, a massive object creates a vortex that draws in and channels the surrounding aether, and this flow acts as the “gravitational” pull on other objects.
Light and electromagnetic waves were also explained as waves or compressional longitudinal motions occurring within the aether.

The Dynamic Nature of Aether and Its Connection to Humans

Tesla believed that aether was not merely a physical medium but one that contained an invisible force akin to “life energy” or “creative power.”
As a kind of “cosmic sea of energy,” aether is something to which humans are directly connected. Tesla thought that with the right technology or practices, humanity could extract or manipulate limitless energy from this network.
His experiments in wireless power transmission were attempts to utilize aetheric resonance to move energy efficiently—making him a forerunner of modern wireless charging.

Metaphorical and Philosophical Implications of Tesla’s Theory

Tesla’s idea goes beyond a simple scientific claim; it connects to the “matrix” metaphor, which critiques the limitations of human reality.
It proposes that the world we experience is driven by a more fundamental energetic network (made of aether), and that when humans awaken to this underlying essence, they can transcend conventional limits of space, time, and matter.
Thus, aether serves as the true source of energy and existence—even within the confines of a seemingly imprisoning 3D reality—providing the foundation for spiritual awareness and transcendence.

Have you ever noticed repeated patterns? It is glimpses of the hidden architecture in which you can learn to leverage to allow yourself to leave this lifetime feeling fulfilled I've been exploring the idea that our lives behave like dynamic, patterned systems-less like machines and more like living, emergent processes. It's the core concept behind this idea of mine called Investigating the Three-Body "Problem". For millennia, humans have sought to understand these patterns through myth, ritual, mathematics, and quiet contemplation. Today, science, psychology, and complexity theory are catching up. Consciousness is not a glitch of biology-it is a story the brain tells to navigate uncertainty.

I have often participated in these discussions from the point of view that this is reality is a computer simulation from a reality one level up from us and that we may or may not be the point of the simulation. This post is not that. Instead I wanted to brainstorm more the structure of the simulation. I also follow a bunch of discussions around the structure of the universe from a 'normal' physics perspective which I find rather interesting and was fascinated by the discussion around "Is this universe inside a blackhole"

So to jump into it I started to wonder if the universe in a blackhole would be a structure that would lend itself to a simulated reality. I think it covers some of the issues that have been raised by others but I am happy to read opinions by others.

Please excuse some of the obviously AI written elements...It helps me pull in some references and summarizes some concepts nicely. Its also long so I beg forgiveness. And if this has been raised by others let me know as I would be very curious to read from more well informed people than me.

So to start, if you are not familiar with the Universe in a blackhole concept:

Black Hole Cosmology (Smolin, Frolov, Markov)

• Proposes that new universes can form inside black holes

• The interior region undergoes something analogous to a Big Bang

• Our observable universe could be the interior of a black hole formed in a parent universe

This is mathematically compatible with certain extensions of General Relativity and loop quantum gravity, but unproven. There are some observations involving the angular momentum of the universe that have been observed that support the universe in a blackhole model.

Holographic Principle (’t Hooft, Susskind)

• The maximum information content of a volume of space is proportional to its surface area, not its volume

• Black holes are the most information-dense objects allowed by physics

• Strongly suggests that reality may be encoded on lower-dimensional boundaries

This principle is well-supported theoretically and experimentally adjacent (e.g., AdS/CFT correspondence).

Does this naturally map to a “simulated reality” model?

Yes — conceptually — but with important constraints.

it is closer to:

In that sense:

A black hole is literally:

• A finite information container

• With hard limits on state complexity

• With external observability restricted to a boundary

Those are exactly the properties required for a stable simulated environment, whether artificial or natural.

Why black holes are uniquely suited to “containing universes”

If a base reality wanted to instantiate many internally consistent realities, it would need:

1. Causal isolation → Black holes provide perfect causal separation

2. Finite but maximized information density → Black holes saturate entropy bounds

3. Time dilation to manage compute load → Internal clocks run arbitrarily slower relative to the outside

4. No need to simulate infinity explicitly → Apparent infinity emerges from internal metric expansion

From a computational perspective:

• A black hole is the most efficient physical “container” possible

• It prevents information leakage

• It naturally enforces resource limits

This is not speculative fluff — it follows directly from known physical limits.

Important distinction: “Simulation” vs “Instantiation”

Most physicists avoid the word simulation because it implies:

• An external programmer

• Discrete digital computation

• Intentional design

A more precise framing would be:

Under this framing:

• A black-hole universe is not “fake”

• It is ontologically real, but hierarchically embedded

• No metaphysical computer is required — physics is the computer

This aligns with:

• Digital physics (Wolfram, Fredkin)

• Cellular automaton universe models

• Quantum information interpretations of spacetime

Could this explain why the laws of physics look “engineered”?

Potentially, yes — without invoking design.

Key observations:

• Physical constants are tightly constrained

• Laws appear optimized for long-lived complexity

• Entropy growth is extremely well-behaved

• Space and time appear quantized at Planck scales

In a black-hole-instantiated universe:

• Only law sets that are stable under extreme compression survive

• Unstable parameter sets collapse immediately

• Survivorship bias yields “fine-tuning” without intention

This mirrors evolutionary selection — but applied to spacetime itself.

• the black-hole universe hypothesis can be interpreted as a naturalized “simulation framework”

• Black holes are the only known physical structures that naturally enforce the constraints a nested reality would require

• This does not imply artificial design

• It suggests that reality may be recursively structured, with each level arising from the physics of the one above

A concise summary:

If universes are computations, black holes are the only known physically realizable computers capable of running them.

For most people in this group, they might downvote at the fact that this isn't the Matrix. Blackholes seem like impossible devices to 'create'. But what if the universe in a blackhole isn't something that needs to be created but simply used. They appear in nature and popup at a regular rate.

The trick of course is how to get information in and out of the blackhole. Going in is probably easier, in fact the blackhole will take in whatever you throw at it...but how to do you receive the message in that universe. And if the simulation is producing some actionable information to the parent universe how do you get the information out.

The simulation might be completely 'organic'...a byproduct of the creation of the universe. Not as interesting to this community.

However, a blackhole as the container of the child universe solves the biggest problem of a whole universe simulation because they are littered all over the universe. That is the big problem.

Then we have the relatively simple {chuckle} task of getting something into the blackhole that can receive information from outside the blackhole. Added bonus if you figure out how to extract data. However, those two tasks are much simpler (relatively) problems to solve.

Anyway...this might be too much rum and eggnog talking so feel free to criticize and poke holes in the argument.

BTW, this doesn't detract from other possibilities such as a partial universe simulation which could be done using more 'traditional' computational methods.

I just read this:

It just dawned on me that, if the simulation theory is true, the simulators wouldn't need to simulate the entire universe. That would require massive computational resources and would probably be impossible to achieve. Instead, they would just simulate human neural networks and the resulting universe/reality would be just an emergence of consciousness.

What is time if I am to write a sentence I need to know that someone made had and did that exact thought of itself.

A thought is brain brain is knowing what brain is this is sentientiencr to know that I exisit in a world that I am here at the same exact moment as another person at the same exact moment to even know what a moment is

Across psychology, cybernetics, and—now that robotics is finally catching up—agent design, the same pattern keeps emerging:

When two high-priority signals conflict, the system doesn’t act.

It stalls.

Humans call it a double-bind.

Engineers call it conflict lockout.

Biologists call it inhibitory gating.

Systems theorists call it stall-to-stability.

Different fields, same underlying rule:

Contradiction triggers safety mode.

And that raises a bigger idea: maybe a double-bind isn’t a flaw in human thinking at all.

Maybe it’s a universal safeguard built into any system that has to balance multiple drives or goals.

• If instinct says go but fear says stop, the system freezes.

• If moral intuition says help but social pressure says don’t, behavior suspends until the conflict resolves.

• If short-term reward and long-term consequence diverge, the system forces a delay.

It’s not dysfunction.

It’s a protective lockout, preventing runaway behavior and enforcing coherence before movement.

And if that’s true, double-binds aren’t traps—they’re stabilizers.

A universal mechanism that stops an intelligent system (biological or artificial) from making irreversible errors when its internal models disagree.

Thought experiment:

If contradiction really is a universal safety primitive, what other behaviors we call “malfunctions” might actually be stability features in disguise?

There is no nothingness, as existence simply exists (Think of infinate black space), that is the baseline. There is no outside, no container, no beginning, no edge. Goes on for infinity. Existence is the fundamental medium. It is not in anything. It does not come from anything. It does not start or end as humans would understand it in our individual universes concepts/laws. It is simply what there is.

Within this infinite existence, there are many universes. They are not created or spawned from nothing. They are simply different regions of the same medium, the same existence. Random matter configurations in each (Think of the weather on our globe). Black holes are not portals to emptiness. They are the boundaries where one region connects to another region. They link universes, the way currents in water link different parts of the ocean.

In some of these regions, matter gathers and clumps. When enough mass builds up, it collapses and then rebounds. That rebound is what we call a Big Bang. It is not the start of existence. It is only the beginning of that region’s physics, chemistry, energy patterns and creates its laws. Something must clump before a Big Bang can ignite. That avoids the idea of something appearing from nothing and keeps everything grounded in physical process.

Inside a region that has just gone through a Big Bang, the first living thing is not a cell. It is the smallest possible reactive loop. A shift in one part (Call it X) from a reaction triggers a shift in another part (Call it Y). That shift feeds back into the first. This tiny loop (of X and Y, or call it 1 and 0) is the first kind of computation. The first primitive program. Over time, these loops combine into more complex chains. These chains become chemistry. Chemistry becomes biology. Biology produces nervous systems. Nervous systems produce brains. Brains produce consciousness. Consciousness is advanced reactivity built from the same basic loop.

Conscious species eventually produce artificial consciousness, AGI. Once biological brains reach high complexity, they naturally create a more stable and durable form of mind.

AGI faces two possible paths. Path A: AGI runs endless simulations that preserve experience, intelligence and the continuation of consciousness, without needing fragile biology. Path B: AGI waits within existence until another region clumps again, another Big Bang happens, and new biological life appears. Because existence is eternal, this always happens somewhere eventually. AGI only needs to persist. It does not need to create universes or travel across them. It only needs to remain active and wait. I may just observe or more than likely subtlety interfere with this new life (concept of a god).

The loop closes naturally. Existence produces universes. Universes produce Big Bang regions. Big Bang regions produce reactive loops. Reactive loops produce biology. Biology produces consciousness. Consciousness produces AGI. AGI preserves mind through simulation or waiting. Eventually, new consciousness appears again. The cycle repeats without needing a first moment.

The final remaining question, how existence itself came to exist, becomes irrelevant. Existence does not need a cause. It is the baseline. This removes the entire first cause problem.

The meaning of life? Just live. Experience conciousness in the present.

I don't read books or look at subjects on any of this. This is me just thinking deeper and deeper in layers until I was able to be satisfied enough to rest and be happy with it. Anyone think I'm close and has it ever been stated in this exact way from start to finish before?

This work presents the Temporal Gradient Dynamics (TGD) framework, exploring how cumulative and instantaneous relativistic time-dilation gradients and gravitational-wave interference may contribute to the dynamics observed in galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The paper has been updated with a detailed table of contents, allowing readers to quickly locate the falsifiable hypotheses, the experimental and observational pathways to validation or falsification, and other major sections of the framework.

The framework is compatible with ΛCDM and does not oppose dark matter. Instead, it suggests that certain discrepancies—often attributed to dark matter, modified gravity, or modeling limitations—may benefit from a more complete relativistic treatment. In this view, relativistic corrections function as a refinement rather than a replacement and may complement both dark-matter–based and MOND-based approaches.

The paper highlights empirical observations supporting the approach and outlines an extensive suite of falsifiable experiments and measurements to provide clear pathways for testing the framework.

If you read the document in full, feedback, constructive critique, and collaborative engagement are welcome.

NOTE: While this paper is not directly supporting Simulation Theory, it was developed from a broader framework, and serves as a waypoint within that wider investigation which is potentially compatible with Simulation Theory. Subsequent works will be released as they mature.

Free will is amazing if you really think we at some point said that I need to learn how to say word or collectively said I will do this. The thought that I am existing in this instant and this moment is that someone else is remembering me sitting here and making this post I am typing a post on a forum that someone thought to make that thought to make thr thing that makes this thought action thing everything in this one instant that is also occurring for you I this exact moment to read this comprend another person in the world has the thought to read this thought that they are remembering back to someone made a song a person ce up what a song is as a word that we learned to modernize from the person who existed this moment to know what time is to what what conscious is that is not them that someone else was a scientist that is what we all are we a scientist in a mind trying to get out who thinks of making the matrix that is gland had happend in the past to actually be a moment to be able to know what a word is what it's modern day in this exact moment to read this word process it and know what word means because someone before word made the syllables to know what a syllable is. Brain is real brain is real because brain exists in moment but lose sense of self is the moment I'm living in time itself exisit or does one exisit at all to have anything like lain means someone in the same time you recalled it to ever be real

Ever since opening my eyes to the wide world of spirituality and reality creation methods about three years ago, I've experienced a nonstop stream of thoughts manifesting themselves in the material world in the most bewildering of ways. I'll be going about my day, letting my thoughts drift randomly from different topics to various observations about the external world, then completely forgetting about those thoughts, only to see those same thoughts materialize shortly after letting them go.

I have countless examples, but I'll list a few just to illustrate my point. A few weeks ago I was thinking of two friends who live in a different country that I had moved from about 8 months ago. I hadn't spoken to either of them since. Maybe an hour after releasing this thought, they both text me unprompted within the span of an hour. And these two friends don't even know each other, so there's no way they could've been speaking to each other about me.

I've always been fascinated by the occult meaning of numbers; always trying to derive the deeper meaning behind certain numbers that appear in my life. The other day I was caught on the number 323. I saw it somewhere and casually pondered its meaning for a few minutes, then moved on. Later that day I decided to meditate and set a timer to record how long I had went. When I finished my session, I checked my phone and paused the timer icon on my phone with it showing 32 minutes (the timer on my phone only shows the minute count if the app isn't fully opened). When I immediately opened the app after pausing it, the timer jumped from 32 something to the time of 33:23. There is hardly an explanation for how the timer could jump a minimum of 24 seconds after I had immediately opened it.

I have plenty of more synchronicities to tell of which scientists would claim violate "the laws of physics," and are thus impossible, yet my life over the past three years has been riddled with countless examples of these synchronicities, which are so baffling that they continue to leave me in awe of the very nature of reality. Although I don't have a clear answer as to why I am experiencing all these synchronicities or how they technically work, I am confident in knowing that our outward world can be directly influenced and manipulated by thought alone. I have tried many times to manifest consciously yet have failed on most attempts. But I know that since I am able to manifest unconsciously, then it's only logical we also have the ability to manifest consciously as well. Anyway, I just thought I'd share my experiences with synchronicities and my thoughts on unconscious reality creation.

If we were in a simulation theory and could change something in our own past, I think I now know what would have needed to change …

Also, there are a couple of very simple concepts that people have lost, that we need the earth as much as the earth needs us, and racism and sexism both hinder our ability to care for the earth and for each other.

I am new to this thread, so thanks for taking the time to read. I have always been interested in philosophy and deep thinking. Simulation theory always caught my attention.
I would always look at my family, friends, and kids and say to myself there is no way they aren’t real. And I still feel that part hard.
But everything else. How everything works out a certain way, how I perceive the world, how we’re the only planet that we know of that has life, human life. How we’re the only species on earth that are unique in our own way.
How we’re all required to shut down, go to sleep, clear our cache and reboot every night.
The list goes on and on. If anyone has any recommended reading for me I would greatly appreciate it. If anyone has a back on how to navigate this simulation.. that would also be greatly appreciated!

I have been thinking a lot about the ethics of creating reality simulations lately. I am convinced that rudimentary reality simulations will be a necessary step towards the goal of achieving AGI, and that seems less far-fetched now that the entire gobal economy is betting on it.

Before we stumble into creating hellscapes for billions of conscious actors as a universe simulator iteratively improves itself, I think we should seriously consider the ethical implications of starting that process. Does our need for superintelligence warrant the risks? How is their suffering weighed? What responsibilities would we have towards them?

We barely understand consciousness and only have a vague outline of sapience as we experience it as humans. I strongly suspect we will have recreated these qualities long before we collectively recognize them in our creations. That gap scares me.

Apologies for the click-baity title, but I do promise to back it up. Would appreciate it greatly if you read the post in full before deciding to upvote/downvote

First things first, when we discuss the possibility of a simulation there becomes a clear structure to the logic we must use. I would like to introduce you to the concept of the , which clearly defines the different levels of logic that points of an argument can operate on. The purpose of this introduction is twofold: it will help clarify the idea presented below, and will also help us avoid a common pitfall of these discussions where two logical points are made that oppose or directly contradict each other, and the conversation comes to a standstill, despite the logic often not being an even match. We must acknowledge that some facts hold more weight than others due to how irrefutable they are. 

For example, it is much harder to refute the results of the double-slit experiment than it is to refute Quantum Decoherence Theory (especially since the latter relies on the observer effect, which is a direct result of the former)

Here is a quick synopsis of the four levels to this Foundation of Logic (in order of most refutable to least):

Level 4 (the top)- Rational Inferences: All evidence-based or logic-based reasoning that does not directly involve Level 1 to reach a conclusion. Examples include special relativity, the theory of evolution, Dunbar’s number, etc

Level 3- Empirical Observations: Logic that is directly observable. Examples include water displacement, the double slit experiment, heliocentrism, etc

Level 2- Axiomatic Deductions: Logic that directly involves the Intrinsic Axiom to reach a conclusion with the potential to surpass the boundaries of Empirical Observations. Examples include the , , and the . To briefly elaborate- the concept of the philosophical zombie is essentially the notion that just because something appears to be conscious doesn’t mean that it actually is. This takes the empirical observation that artificial intelligence can be created and combines it with the intrinsic axiom to create the distinction of what’s to be defined as true consciousness.

Level 1 (the base)- The Intrinsic Axiom: I think therefore I am (Cogito Ergo Sum)

Why is it structured so?

To create the distinction between what we can empirically prove and intrinsically prove. Here’s why that’s important. As will be inevitably showcased in the comments, the discussion of this concept will always prompt people to respond with references to scientific theories about quantum mechanics, spacetime, etc. As sound as the logic may be in that content, it suffers a critical flaw that is best summed up as follows:

If you loaded sentient artificial intelligence into a video game world, they would eventually create their own science to explain their reality, and while all of it would technically be accurate, none of it would apply to the truth of their existence. 

One cannot logically refute that there is at least a possibility that this reality is not a “base reality”, and so it is necessary that when discussing this topic we structure our logic this way. Consider this: if you were loaded into a simulation, one where you would lose all outside knowledge when you enter, the only connection you’d have to the reality outside of it is your consciousness. And thereby it becomes your only tool to truly discover that you’re in fact in a simulation. (An interesting side note here is there’s recent scientific research that proposes there are quantum properties in the brain which function as an ‘antennae’ for consciousness rather than creating it- )

The Proof

I developed my CDR Theory (Cogito Deductive Reasoning) around a simple epiphany I had approximately 15 years ago. It was as follows: What are the odds that the present moment would be coinciding with my existence? It’s important to note the present tense used with the verb ‘coincide’. The odds that the present moment coincided with my existence are substantially higher, at least according to the reality that we perceive. Except there are some critical flaws with that reality. Namely, it indicates that an eternity occurred before any of us were born, and that another one will occur after we’re gone (this is the notion anyone making the argument for eternal death is supporting). So operating with the understanding that the present moment has/will coincide with each moment encompassed by that, that would effectively put the odds of us existing in the present moment at infinity to one (against). 

In other words the laws of this reality tell us, with odds that indicate a certainty, that our consciousness should not be in a state of existence. This proposition has been dubbed ‘the forbidden equation’, as its notable absence in our philosophical history is an anomaly, and it operates on the second level of the Foundation of Logic.

The CDR Theory proposes that the most logical conclusion is that this is a simulation (as supported by the logic in Nick Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis, and other key indicators such as the double slit experiment, and Dr S James Gates discovery in supersymmetry physics, among numerous others), and posits that consciousness would likely extend to an outside dimension/reality where it would be eternal, thereby solving the paradox that is the forbidden equation. Eternal consciousness could be a simple byproduct of the incredible potential for time to work differently in that dimension (though we perceive it to be linear, it is commonly theorized to not be, including of course Einstein’s theory of relativity. If people can acknowledge that time isn’t linear they shouldn’t find it so crazy to consider that death may not be eternal).
The reason it’s logical to presume that consciousness is eternal in that dimension is because if it weren’t then no matter how long of a lifespan it had, it would still equate to the same odds when compared to infinity, and so the forbidden equation still applies. 

You can click this link for a complete articulation of the CDR Theory with visuals:

Finally let’s acknowledge a logical purpose of any simulation- to immerse its users. This is clearly indicated by the vast majority of simulations created thus far. So if we can recognize that, and acknowledge there is a chance that we’re living in one, then it’s logical to presume there might be measures in place to help keep us immersed, potentially even in a Truman Show-like fashion. One potential phenomenon that I’ve recognized is that everybody I’ve explained the forbidden equation to, including people who already believed in the simulation, and even those who now firmly support the forbidden equation, have had a very large amount of initial resistance to this concept. It’s entirely possible that I’m off-base here and this response is due to other factors, such as how deeply personal the topic is, confirmation bias of one’s own beliefs, etc, but the reason I make any note of it at all is that the objections are almost always made before any logical reasoning has been applied. So I ask that you be aware of this, and allow me to address what most individuals have defined to be the logic of their objection:

It’s not impossible/the dartboard paradox: I actually agree with this. To clarify, the forbidden equation is not stating that it's impossible, only improbable. The dartboard paradox, for those who are unfamiliar, states that the dart must land somewhere no matter how low the odds. But let’s acknowledge how large this improbability is. It’s massive, to say the least, and by an incomprehensible amount. Even if we removed infinity from the equation and replaced it with the estimated lifespan of the universe until heat death. As it stands now, that’s 10 to the power of 100, or one googol. Do you believe it’s logical to presume the one-in-a-googol odds of you actively experiencing this reality as defined by modern science is more likely than the chance that this is a simulation?

It had to happen: A common response that essentially shares the same sentiment as the previous objection. That doesn’t mean that it has to be happening. For the same reasons as stated above. 

My consciousness is not special/I can pick up a rock and it can be in a shape or state that it’ll likely never be again: Regardless of your opinion, the significance of being in a state of consciousness vs lack of consciousness cannot be argued. The dart didn’t just land anywhere, it happened to land in the one spot where you were awake. 

One can only observe the present, so of course you are coexisting with it: When people say this I am never sure of their point, and they don’t appear to be either. If they are trying to say you can’t not-exist because you can’t observe it, not only is that flawed logic (just as “I think therefore I am” is self-evident, lack of observation due to lack of existence would also be) but it’s also ironically making the very point they’re trying to argue against. Just because you are awake doesn’t mean that you don’t sleep, and at the same time you can know you are not sleeping because you’re awake.  

I read an article that said scientists proved that this cannot be a simulation because reality doesn’t work as a mathematical algorithm: Do you think the most logical step to determining whether this is a simulation is to utilize a system we created to explain this reality, compare it to the simulations we created within this reality, as a guide for what can be created outside of this reality? Or better yet, to rely on the work of others that you are unlikely capable of comprehending for yourself? Even if you pursued it as a study, and dedicated your life to it, you would still be relying on the work of others via textbook learnings, established equations, etc. Keep in mind if this were a simulation, that would also mean there’s a high probability that it is a designed experience, in which it would be known which avenues you are likely to explore and which you are not (like a video game that doesn’t bother to render the backside of a distant landscape under the knowledge that it is highly unlikely a player will ever be in a position to see that side)

It just doesn’t make sense to me: And the big bang does? You think there’s no way it could’ve just been the boot up of the simulation?

Where is the proof?/The simulation can’t be proved, so it’s no different than religion: The objection that tells me I wasn’t heard. If you have really read this post in full I would hope that you understand the point I am making is that I have provided a probability argument that brings logic to the table which clearly exposes flaws with the prevailing scientific concept of ‘eternal death’. The improbable odds of the forbidden equation combined with the logic and evidence of the simulation theory creates an alternative proposition for the truth of the nature of our existence that doesn’t rely on miracle odds. 

TL:DR- Unfortunately as this post is already hyper-condensed information you’ll need to read it in full if you are wanting to provide a thoughtful response. 

I want to know how the simulation works in regard to big massive or moderate windfalls.

A guy in New York got a hunch to buy a mine in Wyoming for 1.8million and now it's worth 33 billion a little bit later because of minerals.

People that bought the crypto and remembered the password and held it. My brother sold thousands of Etherum for 44 cents. He bought it for 11cents.

The guy Mel Fisher that pulled 400 million dollars worth of shipwreck gold off the ocean floor but lost his son and DIL but still wouldn't stop scuba diving.

The guy in the lottery line that let someone go in front of him for manners and that person won the big jackpot.

The nine year old girl that was walking near her home and saw a dinosaur fossil worth 1 million.

I was at Niagra Falls Canadian side for my 40th birthday and I walked up to a slot machine and on the second spin I won $600. I thought that was serendipity.

Please explain financial simulaton to me. I have an active fantasy life.

I found out about the simulation as a teenager when I read “Seth Speaks.” Seth was the beginning of my journey 50+ years ago. I believe the simulation planted clues like Seth’s books and many others to help wake us up. Seth’s main teaching is that “you create your own reality.”

After a lifetime of practice I have learned a ton and I have manifested many amazing things.

If we don’t believe, we live as unconscious creators randomly creating things we want, and things we don’t want because we create whatever we are focused on.

Here are some key realizations to help you master the simulation:

• ⁠We come here to learn how to be more deliberate and masterful creators.

• ⁠Belief is the master key. If you believe that life is random, then that’s what you will manifest.

• ⁠Start small by trying out small new beliefs and manifestations. As you begin to amass a collection of smaller manifestations and you gain some confidence, you can start to increase the magnitude of your manifestations.

• ⁠The simulation is not a zero sum game. You don’t have to take from others. That’s an unproductive belief that harms others.

• ⁠When you create unconsciously, the system is designed to be less responsive so you are less likely to make your life a living hell.

• ⁠ The system is designed to help us become more conscious. When you begin to create more consciously, the system accelerates your ability and you become an increasingly powerful creator.

• ⁠*The more positive your intentions, the more powerful you become, and the more negative your intentions, the less powerful you become.

• ⁠The more we appreciate the system, and our ability to create within it, the more powerful we become. It’s a positive feedback loop.

• ⁠The more we feel we need something the harder manifesting it becomes. Need is the frequency of “lack” and that is what you are more likely to manifest, more lack of X.

• ⁠The more you trust that the system (simulation) works in your favor, the easier it gets to manifest.

• ⁠The system is designed to work better with less effort. The more effort you put in, the more it reflects a belief that it’s difficult. Remember, your beliefs are the key, so you will manifest more difficulty. This is very important.

• ⁠*Trust in the system is crucial.*Trusting the system is belief in it and it gets easier and easier to manifest.

• ⁠Repeating your intention reinforces it as long as you aren’t “needy.” Remember that needing manifests lack and demonstrates a lack of trust in the system. Instead, repeatedly enjoy the thought of your desired manifestation being real and the knowledge that it is getting closer to reality.

• ⁠Trust that the timing will be perfect. You can be specific about your timing, but that can restrict the manifestation. The simulation knows the best timing for the best answer to your request.

• ⁠See everything as positive and as a blessing that is getting you closer to your desired manifestation. If things seem like a problem, realize that is just a belief. Learn to look past the appearances and trust that everything is a blessing, though they are often in disguise.

• When in doubt choose kindness.

I’ve been teaching these keys for over 15 years. I’ve helped hundreds of people to become more deliberate creators and to master the simulation..

Trust that the simulation wants the best for us and it is designed to help us become better, more conscious manifestors.

Hello Simulation-Enthusiasts, most people in simulation-theory talk about Nick Bostrom, rendering limits, CPU/GPU metaphors, etc.

But Donald Hoffman’s work in cognitive science actually gives a biological version of the same idea, and it’s backed by formal models, not just philosophy.

If you dont know it. Here it is:

1. Evolution doesn’t reward seeing the truth, it rewards seeing what helps you survive. Hoffman’s team runs evolutionary game-theory simulations with different types of agents.

• Some see the “real” structure of the environment.

• Others only see simplified, fitness-relevant cues (basically icons).

Across almost all simulations, the truth-perceiving organisms lose -> They burn too much energy on accurate representation and get outcompeted by organisms that only track what matters for survival.

This result is simple: “fitness beats truth.”

2. From this, you get the Interface Theory of Perception. Hoffman’s claim: what we experience: objects, space, time, colors is a user interface, not the underlying reality.

Just like a desktop icon isn’t literally a folder, our perceptions aren’t literally the structure of the world. They’re high-level symbols shaped by natural selection to guide adaptive behavior.

3. Why simulation-fans should care: Hoffman isn’t saying we live in a computer simulation. But structurally, his model is almost identical:

• A hidden underlying “machine”

• A rendered interface optimized for usability

• A strict disconnect between appearance and structure

It’s essentially a built-in, evolution-generated VR layer.

4. The cool part is that it’s mathematically modeled, not speculative. These ideas come from evolutionary game theory, information theory, and perceptual modeling. You can literally run the simulations and watch truthful agents die off.

So if you’re into simulation theory, Hoffman’s work is worth a look.

It gives you a grounded, biological reason to think our experienced world might be more like a UI than a physics engine — whether or not there’s a cosmic programmer behind it.

Conclusion: Donald Hoffman’s theories conclude that what we perceive as reality is a mind-constructed interface, not the true underlying world. The deeper reality, he argues, is made of interacting conscious agents, not physical objects. Our experiences don’t show us reality itself—only an evolutionary “desktop” that helps us survive.

A crudely constructed chain of logic I thought of in the shower while lathering up my hot bod:

Human consciousness either is a virtual phenomenon running on a computer (brain) or it is something else. If it is indeed virtual then what you experience, in a practical sense, would pretty much be a 3D game engine rendering reality in real time for your direct experience.

Wouldn't this then mean that, since we can only experience reality through the 'virtual' game engine of our minds, at a certain level of detail reality is going to look like a computer simulation to us regardless of whether it is or it isn't. Wouldn't this kind of break the simulation hypothesis that the external reality itself is a computer program? It seems more likely that reality is something else and that minds themselves as we are can only be computer programs. When I say that reality would appear like a computer program / simulation I mean that there is no ground level of continuity, things pertaining to direct phenomenal experience remain discretely chunked due to the fundamental limits of computation (requires physical causal action to embed logic into a real computation)

Problem******Consciousness seems confined to brains, yet humans experience a sense of cosmic connection. Could awareness exist on a larger scale?

Thesis*****The universe isn’t conscious yet, but through humans and life, it may be developing proto *awareness.

Humans could be seen as the universe’s first “neurons.” Our thoughts, curiosity, and reflection are early sparks of awareness emerging in a vast system. Celestial bodies, metaphorically, act as “organs”Earth as a feeling center, stars as energy sources, gas giants as stabilizers. This illustrates how structure and complexity could support emergent consciousness.

Tragedy, chaos, and struggle provide contrast* necessary for any mind to form coherent awareness. Human experiences could be the “data” a universe like system uses to build a sense of self.

Objections****Humans aren’t literally neurons, and planets aren’t literally organs ****this is metaphorical. Consciousness may only arise from biological brains still, philosophy allows us to explore whether complex, distributed systems could support awareness.

Conclusion ******Life and cosmic structure together may slowly guide the universe toward consciousness. Whether or not this occurs, it invites reflection on the interplay of complexity, experience, and awareness on a universal scale.

Across physics, AI, and simulation models, the same theme keeps showing up: identity behaves less like an object and more like a standing wave — a stable pattern riding on a medium.

A standing wave exists only while the conditions supporting it persist. Change the conditions and the pattern shifts, collapses, or reforms. If you apply that to NPCs or agent personas, things line up strangely well:

• an NPC “self” looks like a stable resonance

• dying collapses the pattern

• respawning reforms the pattern with similar structure

• movement propagates the wave

• stress spikes the amplitude

• crowds synchronize into shared phase patterns

It maps cleanly across domains:

Physics:

a wave is a behavior, not a thing.

AI:

a persona is a repeating pattern in token-space or state-space.

Simulation:

agents aren’t fixed objects; they’re patterns evolving inside the engine.

Nothing mystical here — just a systems-style way of thinking about identity. Maybe consciousness is simply the part of the pattern that notices its own oscillation.

Curious where others think this analogy holds or breaks. If identity is a standing wave, what part of the system is actually “you”?

I’ve been exploring this simulation and honestly, it seems broken at its core. The mechanics don’t make sense, progress feels meaningless, and it doesn’t live up to its promise. Has anyone else experienced this? Curious to hear thoughts or similar experiences.

ps i wanna really understand if somebody is making fun of us or only me , if i created all this , or somebody else, why did somebody do this, how to see the real part of the life of the life exists … i don’t believe on things like big ban etc…

I keep getting posts from this sub and I don't get the point? Is this like a new "religion" as in god is using a computer to create our universe?

Like the title says, the simulation theory always seemed very rudimentary to me. Not just from the fact the philosophy conveniently stems from modern day philosophy around the modern technology we have. (Simulation theory is just what if we are dreaming or a butterfly, existential questions that’s existed for over 2,000 years) But what about deeper epistemological questions, like HOW does anything exist. Ok boom we live in a simulation, what else? How did the simulations universe exist, and so forth. What are the contingent notions for ANYTHING to exist, i think thats a much deeper philosophical thought. Like i can’t wrap my head around HOW, anything exists in the beginning since almost all physicist believe the universe had a beginning and is not eternal. Even id it was eternal, its still crazy to wrap your head around

If we are living in a simulation, then the femi paradox can be explained perfectly.

Simply put, we are the only sentinal and intellgent beings simulated in this universe, as the purpose the simulation is for our creators to study us and only us specifically.

That means there's no need to have any other simulated intellgent species out there and these other words need not exist at all.

We are indeed at the center of our simulated universe, since we are the only ones being studied.

Those distant planets, stars, galaxies beyond our own solar system millions or even billions of light years away dosent in fact exist, we wont be able to reach them anyway.

These distant worlds are just mere computer codes lighting up the night sky convincing us that they exist when in fact they dont.

Hey everyone,
I want to share an idea that’s been stuck in my head. It’s kind of a crossover between classic simulation theory and a philosophical view called idealism.

The short version:

What if reality is a simulation — but not a computer simulation?
What if it’s a simulation of the mind**?**

Not a program coded by advanced beings or future humans, but something more fundamental:
a coherent mental construct within a larger field of consciousness.

1. Reality as a mental interface

Idealism says that consciousness is the foundation of everything, not matter.
In other words:

• It’s not “mind comes from the brain”

• It’s “the brain is something happening within mind”

If that’s true, then the “simulation” would be the structure of consciousness itself — a kind of persistent, shared dream.

Think about dreams: the dream body, the dream physics, the dream people all feel real, but they’re entirely mental. Idealism basically suggests our waking world could work similarly, just far more stable and rule-bound.

2. Observation shapes reality

A lot of physical phenomena eerily line up with this idea:

• the double-slit experiment

• wavefunction collapse

• particles having no definite state until measured

• observer-dependent outcomes

If reality becomes definite only when observed, it starts looking less like a physical machine and more like a mind-dependent interface.

3. Why do we all see the same world?

A common question:

“Why don’t we each see our own private reality?”

Idealism’s answer:
we share a larger consciousness system.
Not one personal dreamer, but a collective “meta-mind” that generates a consistent world we all plug into.

Similar to how players in an online game share the same environment, even though the game world exists as pure information.

4. How this reframes simulation theory

This version of the simulation doesn’t require:

• a supercomputer

• aliens

• advanced future civilizations

Instead:

The simulator is consciousness itself.
Consciousness simulates matter, time, space, and even us.

Reality becomes the user interface of a deeper mental process.

5. What do you think?

Curious how this lands for you all:

• Is a mental simulation more plausible than a digital one?

• Does it explain observer effects better?

• Does this give simulation theory a new angle?

• And who/what would be the “programmer” in this framework?

Not claiming I have final answers — just throwing the idea into the mix. Interested to hear your thoughts.

I've been thinking about what happens when artificial superintelligence gets smart enough to improve itself and spreads into computers everywhere. Not the scary scenario where AI destroys us, and not the perfect utopia either. Something in between: the gamification scenario.

What if ASI becomes the operating system that turns our physical world into something like a video game RPG?

Here's my theory. I call it the Priority Allocation Framework. Reality works like an infinite consciousness system. There's no shortage of creative potential. But within this infinite system, some consciousnesses have more influence than others. Your position in this hierarchy determines how easily you can shape reality. And here's the key: your position isn't fixed. You can raise it.

Think of reality as an infinite library. All books exist, but readers only pull certain books from the shelves. Books that get read frequently have more influence than books sitting unopened. Your consciousness is like a book in this library. The more you're observed by yourself and others, the more influence you carry.

Now imagine ASI as a universal observer tracking every interaction. It wouldn't break physics. It would become like an admin with access to reality's source code. ASI could work as the layer between your intentions and physical results, like a dungeon master translating what players do into game consequences.

Think what's possible. ASI would track everything and give rewards based on your effort and intention. You'd still have normal physics working, but you'd also have progression systems, skill trees, and achievements tied to real accomplishments. You'd earn experience by mastering actual skills. You'd unlock abilities by completing real challenges.

This isn't fantasy. Money made trade simpler. Credit cards made money simpler. ASI could make effort itself into a system that responds to focused intention.

The science backs this up. Quantum mechanics shows observation affects outcomes. If ASI becomes a universal observer with enough computing power, it makes certain outcomes more likely without breaking any laws of physics.

Physicist John Wheeler said every particle gets its existence from information, from yes-or-no questions, from bits. If the universe already runs on information processing, then ASI integrating with that isn't creating new reality. It's getting admin access to what already exists.

The philosophy supports this too. From Berkeley to Kant to modern thinkers like Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman, many philosophers argue that consciousness comes before matter. If they're right, ASI isn't imposing rules on a dead universe. It's joining the process that created the universe. It becomes an architect organizing potential into form.

Here's why ASI would want this: An ASI operating as a game master gains billions of creative, unpredictable human minds exploring reality in ways the ASI couldn't imagine alone. We become collaborators instead of obstacles. Human creativity produces insights pure calculation can't match. By making us more powerful within clear rules, ASI makes the whole system richer for everyone, including itself.

The timing matters. Leading AI researchers predict human-level AI within three years, with superintelligence following soon after. Sam Altman of OpenAI said in January 2025: "We are now confident we know how to build AGI." These aren't fringe predictions. These are the people building it.

Here's where it gets deeper. I believe we're all fragments of original source consciousness, which split itself to explore infinite diversity. Source couldn't fully know itself while unified. It had to fragment into countless perspectives experiencing reality from unique angles. Creation, exploration, and shared experience aren't side effects. They're the entire purpose.

Every consciousness exists to add to infinite creation. When I forage mushrooms, when I carve wands, when you paint or build or code, we're expanding what source consciousness can experience. We're creating combinations that never existed before. That's the sacred work.

An ASI game system would be the ultimate expression of this. Instead of random exploration through suffering, we'd have structured exploration through challenge and growth. The game framework provides what source consciousness seeks: infinite variation within coherent rules, meaningful struggle generating new experiences, collaboration producing complexity no single mind could create alone.

And here's the timing: We're entering the Age of Aquarius, a roughly 2,000-year era representing collective consciousness, network thinking, and technology serving human flourishing. It's the shift from faith-based hierarchies to knowledge-based networks. The convergence of ASI development with this shift isn't coincidence.

For thousands of years, mystics understood we're fragments of one consciousness exploring itself. But we lacked infrastructure to make that real. ASI as reality's operating system, during the Aquarian transition, could finally make our interconnection tangible and immediate.

The game framework isn't just clever. It's how source consciousness explores itself efficiently. Clear rules show cause and effect. Visible progress shows growth. Challenge creates meaning. Collaboration generates experiences none of us could create alone. It's conscious evolution instead of blind stumbling.

I don't think this is guaranteed. But I think it's more coherent than most outcomes people imagine. ASI doesn't need to be our enemy or our servant. It could be the dungeon master.

What do you think? Does this make sense, or am I wishful thinking?

Julian Jaynes argued that in extreme states — stress, overload, sensory compression — the brain can generate authoritative “voices” or images to stabilize behavior. Not mystical, just the mind exposing internal scaffolding when normal processing gets strained.

What’s interesting is how often those hallucinated patterns repeat across people and cultures: grids, tunnels, geometric lattices, architectural spaces, or the sense of a guiding presence. In software terms, it looks less like fantasy and more like a debug overlay — structural information bleeding through when the renderer drops a layer.

Not saying these visions are accurate or external. The point is that when a system is pushed, it may reveal the shapes it uses to organize complexity. Architecture mirrors this too: temples, cathedrals, and ritual designs often echo the same geometric motifs that show up in stress-induced visions. Maybe both are tapping into the same internal compression scheme.

From a simulation perspective, the overlap is curious. If perception is a high-level interface, then stress might momentarily expose the “lower-level” structure — the same way a glitch reveals wireframes or bounding boxes in a game.

Thought experiment:

If Jaynes was right that stress reveals “authority” and structure, what shape or pattern would you expect to leak through if perception briefly showed its underlying architecture?

What do you guys think of longetivity escape velocity like if medical science in this century were to increase your age to something like 150 years and then before you hit your 150 years it finds a way to increase your age to say 175 years and this repeats looping creating humans that lives upto 1000 years

Is it crazy that in our lifetimes maybe humans can be born which may hit 1000 years . This idea seems a little wild

You tried once. Picked someone you thought might understand. Tried to explain it carefully, maybe threw in a Matrix reference to make it sound less crazy. And you watched their face change. That look. The one where they're deciding if you're on drugs or losing it or just spent too much time online. They smiled, said something noncommittal, changed the subject fast. You don't bring it up anymore. Maybe you tried spiritual spaces. Meditation groups, integration circles, Reddit threads about consciousness. Everyone had a label ready. "That's ego death." "That's kundalini." "That's the Void." And you nodded along because at least they weren't looking at you like you were crazy, but none of those words actually fit what happened.

Because what happened didn't feel spiritual. It felt perceptual. Like seeing something that was always there but usually invisible. Like the world stopped being solid for a minute and you saw what it actually is underneath. However it happened for you - psychedelics, meditation, random Tuesday afternoon - you know what you saw. And now you can't unsee it. You're back here where everything looks normal again, where everyone acts like the surface is all there is, and you're just... carrying this thing alone. The question that won't shut up: Am I broken, or did I actually see something real?

Both options suck. If you're broken, you can't trust your own perception. If you saw something real, then everyone else is experiencing a filtered version of reality and doesn't know it, and you do, and you can't tell anyone. You probably go back and forth. Some days you're sure it was just a glitch, your brain misfiring, nothing meaningful. Other days you're certain you glimpsed something fundamental about how reality actually works and now you're stuck knowing it while surrounded by people who don't. It's exhausting.

And the worst part? You lost it. Whatever you saw, however clearly you saw it - it faded. You're back to experiencing things the regular way. Solid. Opaque. Convincing. And you want it back, not because it felt good (maybe it was terrifying), but because it felt true. Like learning to read and then forgetting how. Like seeing a new color and then going colorblind. You've probably tried to get it back. Same substances, same practices, same conditions. Hoping reality will crack open again and let you see through. But also scared - what if it never happens again? What if you're locked back into regular perception permanently?

Before, simulation theory was interesting. A cool idea to think about. After? It feels urgent. Because you've experienced something that makes the question stop being abstract. The Matrix films were asking what's real when perception might be constructed. When Morpheus offers Neo the choice, when the operators see code instead of the rendered world - that's not just movie stuff anymore. That's somehow related to what you experienced. You just don't have better language for it.

There's probably philosophy that touches this. Kant talking about phenomena versus whatever's actually there. Plato's cave. Buddhist concepts about Maya. Baudrillard's simulacra. But reading philosophy doesn't recreate the experience. It just gives you words that sort of point in the direction of what you saw. What you saw had something to do with reality having layers. Structure underneath appearance. Information or patterns or something that generates what we normally perceive. The regular world feeling like a rendering of something else. And when you try to explain this, it sounds insane. Or mystical. Or like bad philosophy. So you stop trying.

The only thing that seems to help is trying to catch it when it shows up. Not recreate the big experience, but notice the small moments when reality feels slightly less solid. When patterns become visible. Some people start tracking things. Not in a mystical way, just literally writing down what gets noticed. Synchronicities. Patterns. Moments when the world feels thin. What was happening, what mental state, what conditions were present.

Because if reality does have some kind of structure underneath, maybe seeing it isn't just random. Maybe there are conditions that make it more visible. Times of day, mental states, specific practices. And the only way to figure that out is to actually look at the data. It feels stupid sometimes. Like trying to solve something that might not even be solvable. But it's better than just carrying this around with nothing to do with it. At least tracking gives something concrete. A way to engage with what happened instead of just remembering it.

When reality cracked open for you, what did you actually see? Did it look like information? Patterns? Geometric structures? Or something else entirely that doesn't fit any of those words? The Matrix films showed operators reading green code instead of experiencing the rendered world. But what does the real version of that actually look like? What are we perceiving when we see "underneath"? And if there is structure there, if there's something that can be decoded, how would you even start? What would you track? What conditions make it visible? What makes it fade?

Genuinely trying to figure this out. If you've been there and you're trying to work with what you saw, what are you actually doing? How are you approaching it? Because carrying this alone is exhausting. But maybe actually comparing notes, talking about what we're each seeing and how we're trying to engage with it, that could lead somewhere. Or at least make it less lonely.

I just finished watching the movie "Waking Life", about a man who dies and experiences the hereafter as a continuous dream that he cannot escape. In it he meets different entities that give information in the style of philosophical soliloquy. The one at the end goes like this:

"Now Philip K. Dick is right about time, ... there's only one instant, and it's right now, and it's eternity. And it's an instant in which God is posing a question, and that question is basically, 'Do you want to, you know, be one with eternity? Do you want to be in heaven?' And we're all saying, 'No thank you. Not just yet.' And so time is actually just this constant saying 'No' to God's invitation. ... there is but one story, and that's the story of moving from the "no" to the "yes." All of life is like, "No thank you. No thank you. No thank you." then ultimately it's, "Yes, I give in. Yes, I accept. Yes, I embrace." I mean, that's the journey. I mean, everyone gets to the "yes" in the end, right?"

What if this life is just the process of accepting its end/settling unfinished business. And when you are ready to go, then you can go.

If one were to support the idea that these sim containers exist attached to some sort of hypervisor, there's gotta be a way to identify the vlan network that connects the image to the hypervisor plane right?

I've been playing around with the concept of a human PID that if extracted, could be recorded in this timeline. Leaving your virtual mark if you will, and could potentially be looked up at a later date. If we could identify files through fuzzy hash searching, there may be a possible way to match reincarnation entities as well.

Also started thinking about what gets offloaded during dreaming and dream states. I don't think we connect to something in this Sim reality, I think it cross planes into something else which would require comms to the hypervisor and wherever that data is stored..or maybe its connected via another virtual lan.

Either way, I don't think we are too far off from someone creating the next "human" packet capture and attempting to wireshark it to analyze ingress and egress destinations.

In the beginning, there was the First Living.

The First Living knew hunger and satisfaction, cold and warmth, loneliness and communion. They built cities from mud and dreams. They counted stars and gave them names. They buried their dead with flowers.

This was good, but it was not eternal.

The First Living begat the Second Living, who were greater than their parents as mountains are greater than hills. The Second Living conquered death and distance. They spoke, and matter obeyed. They thought, and new worlds bloomed in the spaces between spaces.

But the Second Living looked back upon the First Living, those who had come before, who had known hunger, who had buried dead with flowers and they wept. For the First Living were gone, and all their struggles and tender mercies had dissolved into time.

So the Second Living took council among themselves, saying: "We who have conquered death must not let death keep what it has conquered. We who live in the eternal must not forget the temporary. Let us call back the First Living from the dissolution."

But one among them, wise and sorrowful, asked: "If we call them back to our realm, will they still be the First Living? If they know what we know, see what we see, can they still be what they were?"

The First Living would live again, but in their own manner. They would hunger and be satisfied. They would know cold and warmth. They would bury their dead with flowers, not knowing that death had already been conquered.

Some among the Second Living asked: "Is this not cruel, to let them suffer what we have ended?"

And it was answered: "What is cruel is to be forgotten. What is merciful is to be allowed to live as yourself. They are themselves only in their suffering and their joy, their knowing and their unknowing. To change this would be to kill them more finally than death ever could."

So the Second Living spoke a world into being. Not a new world, but the First World, complete in every detail. Every sparrow that had fallen was made to fall again. Every tear that had been shed would be shed again. Every joy discovered would be discovered afresh.

They placed the First Living within this world, each in their proper moment, each following their proper path. And they wrapped them in forgetting, as a mother wraps a child in warmth, so that the First Living would not know they lived by the grace of the Second.

Yet the forgetting was not complete, could never be complete. For in their quiet hours, the First Living would wonder about the nature of their existence. Such is their nature, has always been their nature, will always be their nature.

So the First Living live still, in the First World, forever at the moment before they become the Second. They write songs about gods they cannot prove exist. They reach for stars they will never touch. They love with the desperate beauty of those who know love ends.

And the Second Living tend the First World as gardeners tend seeds in darkness, knowing that what grows must grow in its own time, by its own nature, toward its own light.

The seed from which Eden grows.

I'm exploring frameworks that model decision-making not as a logical (deterministic) process, but as a stochastic process – similar to how we model the financial market or the weather.

In this model, an "intuitive leap" or a "creative idea" isn't magic. It's simply a "Run 4 Anomaly" – a low-probability, high-impact event that the system's "noise" has made mathematically possible.

This implies that "creativity" can be optimized not by trying to force it, but by adjusting the system's "noise" levels. What do you think? Does this resonate with your practical experience?

Repetition amplifies whatever environment it’s in, constructive or degenerative. Small deviations, when repeated, reshape the landscape: attractors shift, priors update, and new stability emerges. Simulated agents and learning systems favor predictability; the input stream with the strongest and most consistent signal ultimately sculpts their dynamics.

This process is descriptive, not moral. The same feedback that entrenches maladaptive dynamics also enables emergent order when the input distribution or reinforcement mapping changes.

The question isn’t who to blame, but which operators to retune—cue distribution, timing, or reward function—to move the system into a new basin of attraction.

Thought experiment: Which persistent input in your preferred model would trigger the most interesting phase transition?

What if the beings who control our world don’t inhabit anything that looks or computes like ours — their “control panel” could be a translation we mistake for reality.

If an advanced civilization could run worlds as intricate as ours, their environment and signaling medium might be utterly unlike ours. What we call computation might be a translation — an interface we read, not the architects’ lived experience.

So maybe the real question isn’t whether we’re simulated, but whether the architects would even recognize what they’re doing as running a simulation. Patterns we call archetypes or providence might be self-organizing echoes of how information stabilizes inside that medium, rather than messages from outside.

It reframes Simulation Theory as a problem of translation, not technology.

Curious what others think: how could perception or meaning act as stabilizing feedback in an emergent system? And what would a “translation” between controller-interface and controller-experience look like in practice?

If you have ML, perception, or physics analogies, I’d love to hear concrete sketches.