Regarding the simulation hypothesis, I like Isaac Asimov's take on it in his story "The Last Question", which is supposed to be his favorite piece of his own writing; It's well aligned with the hypotheses you laid out in this article:
I personally subscribe to Spinozian take on this whole idea that runs along similar lines with a slight humanitarian twist; it posits that all of us are essentially fickle pixels trying to recall they're all part of a bigger picture.
The picture reflects the workings of a omni-powerful proto-entity that once decided to create the whole of existence to shake off its boredom and loneliness living in eternity across the timeless void, by creating an infinitely universal MMO comprised of amnesiac particles of itself looking to put together the whole picture through as many eons, individuals, situations, reincarnations, civilizations as it takes. Simply put "What if 'God' was ALL of us?".
This is probably a confusing concept at first sight; for anyone interested, it has been neatly elaborated in more intelligible narrative form in the short story "The Egg" by Andy Weir, which has been adapted into this nice animated short:
This is something I constantly think about every day. It seems the most basic code of the game is "life" and "death" and from there a universe is not created, but simply exists and always has. At least this code is the "most basic" in the sense of the human understanding of time, etc. I don't know whether to be excited or indifferent about death! I think the journey is to be excited about, and there is no real "destination" (death). Just answered my own question... Anyways, the journey I think is infinite in a four-dimensional sense. The way the universe expands in ALL directions. There is no "path". For there to be a singular path, time would have to be more than what it is: simply a human construct. The universe is much much bigger than time...
Every day I think about this... and I can never quite grasp who I am or what I am or what it means to exist and it seems to be equally annoying and interesting. What I do know is it is quite mentally taxing.
Interesting, and what if God, whatever you call him, is real? What if it's not a game but a creation where being made in Gods image, is his attempt to create more beings like him? Because he was the first or only one of his kind, or both. Maybe we create games as practice for our future when we become like God. What I'm trying to say is that maybe, everything you said is true, but it's not a game.
See I don't know either and I have the same idea about energy as you do. Because you can't destroy energy, it doesn't die, it only changes, so maybe what we call a soul is our personal energy .
Your reincarnation theory is very similar to my own. Another aspect I have considered is that, if time is an illusion(there is good evidence it is), there wouldn't actually be past or future lives, only parallel lives. To me, this additional aspect adds even more credence to the reincarnation theory. If our consciousness is quantum entangled with the consciousness of other versions of our consciousnesses in other universes, then it would make sense that they all effect each other since that's exactly what occurs in quantum entanglement. Concerning the supposed debunking of simulation theory, I also found it to be nonsense. Elon himself lately said on The Joe Rogan Show that simulation theory can't be true because Neuralink hasn't been implanted in humanity yet. That just proves Neuralink hasn't been implanted in humanity within the simulation. He could have been kidding, I suppose. His sense of humor is different because of his autism and intelligence etc (which I like), but he never let Joe Rogan or his audience in on the joke if so. Anyway, that's an obvious logical fallacy. He seemed so adamant about the idea before, including on Joe's podcast. I found his sudden change of mind kind of strange, especially with such minor evidence as he claimed changed his mind.
I enjoy this sort of speculation in that stoner/sci fi sort of way, though I am not really either. But I wondered.....so I sent the link to someone who unlike you and me is a physics/maths/computer guy. The reply was scathing! He acknowledged the fun thought experiment aspect, and the sci fi possibilities, but I had obviously touched on a nerve where actual science people find it irritating when non specialists let their imaginations go wild. Basically he said that the real maths and physics was woo enough, and also that the maths and physics actually supports a lot of crazy stuff but he had no tolerance for crazy stuff not supported by the maths and physics. Well OK, that's fair enough. But I reminded him that this was not an attempted dissertation on the universe, but rather an informal speculation essay on a forum that normally deals with other topics, so go easy! Anyway, it led to a long and involved correspondence, so all good.
My personal objection is that the religious take on things 'might be true'. I utterly disagree. They are subject to the same scrutiny as any other class of ideas, and under that scrutiny, just NO WAY.
Regarding the simulation hypothesis, I like Isaac Asimov's take on it in his story "The Last Question", which is supposed to be his favorite piece of his own writing; It's well aligned with the hypotheses you laid out in this article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7O0ytdM8ew
I personally subscribe to Spinozian take on this whole idea that runs along similar lines with a slight humanitarian twist; it posits that all of us are essentially fickle pixels trying to recall they're all part of a bigger picture.
The picture reflects the workings of a omni-powerful proto-entity that once decided to create the whole of existence to shake off its boredom and loneliness living in eternity across the timeless void, by creating an infinitely universal MMO comprised of amnesiac particles of itself looking to put together the whole picture through as many eons, individuals, situations, reincarnations, civilizations as it takes. Simply put "What if 'God' was ALL of us?".
This is probably a confusing concept at first sight; for anyone interested, it has been neatly elaborated in more intelligible narrative form in the short story "The Egg" by Andy Weir, which has been adapted into this nice animated short:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI
This is something I constantly think about every day. It seems the most basic code of the game is "life" and "death" and from there a universe is not created, but simply exists and always has. At least this code is the "most basic" in the sense of the human understanding of time, etc. I don't know whether to be excited or indifferent about death! I think the journey is to be excited about, and there is no real "destination" (death). Just answered my own question... Anyways, the journey I think is infinite in a four-dimensional sense. The way the universe expands in ALL directions. There is no "path". For there to be a singular path, time would have to be more than what it is: simply a human construct. The universe is much much bigger than time...
Every day I think about this... and I can never quite grasp who I am or what I am or what it means to exist and it seems to be equally annoying and interesting. What I do know is it is quite mentally taxing.
This perfectly describes my existential opinion of it all.
To a precise tee.
I, however, could not have strung the words together so adroitly.
Thank you for posting this!
What a great subject, I would really get into that.
Interesting, and what if God, whatever you call him, is real? What if it's not a game but a creation where being made in Gods image, is his attempt to create more beings like him? Because he was the first or only one of his kind, or both. Maybe we create games as practice for our future when we become like God. What I'm trying to say is that maybe, everything you said is true, but it's not a game.
See I don't know either and I have the same idea about energy as you do. Because you can't destroy energy, it doesn't die, it only changes, so maybe what we call a soul is our personal energy .
Your reincarnation theory is very similar to my own. Another aspect I have considered is that, if time is an illusion(there is good evidence it is), there wouldn't actually be past or future lives, only parallel lives. To me, this additional aspect adds even more credence to the reincarnation theory. If our consciousness is quantum entangled with the consciousness of other versions of our consciousnesses in other universes, then it would make sense that they all effect each other since that's exactly what occurs in quantum entanglement. Concerning the supposed debunking of simulation theory, I also found it to be nonsense. Elon himself lately said on The Joe Rogan Show that simulation theory can't be true because Neuralink hasn't been implanted in humanity yet. That just proves Neuralink hasn't been implanted in humanity within the simulation. He could have been kidding, I suppose. His sense of humor is different because of his autism and intelligence etc (which I like), but he never let Joe Rogan or his audience in on the joke if so. Anyway, that's an obvious logical fallacy. He seemed so adamant about the idea before, including on Joe's podcast. I found his sudden change of mind kind of strange, especially with such minor evidence as he claimed changed his mind.
I enjoy this sort of speculation in that stoner/sci fi sort of way, though I am not really either. But I wondered.....so I sent the link to someone who unlike you and me is a physics/maths/computer guy. The reply was scathing! He acknowledged the fun thought experiment aspect, and the sci fi possibilities, but I had obviously touched on a nerve where actual science people find it irritating when non specialists let their imaginations go wild. Basically he said that the real maths and physics was woo enough, and also that the maths and physics actually supports a lot of crazy stuff but he had no tolerance for crazy stuff not supported by the maths and physics. Well OK, that's fair enough. But I reminded him that this was not an attempted dissertation on the universe, but rather an informal speculation essay on a forum that normally deals with other topics, so go easy! Anyway, it led to a long and involved correspondence, so all good.
My personal objection is that the religious take on things 'might be true'. I utterly disagree. They are subject to the same scrutiny as any other class of ideas, and under that scrutiny, just NO WAY.