On Simulation Hypothesis

By | August 24, 2018

We did a couple of livestreams, somewhat on a spur of the moment. Turns out the new iPhone upgrade, requiring a dongle (what kind of word is that, anyway?) caused Tracey’s phone not to read our external microphone, so we didn’t realize it wasn’t even working until after we were done. Frustrating. Thanks Apple for the positively worst new feature you’ve come up with in a decade or more. And I am REALLY sorry for the poor audio. So annoying.

Still, we did two quick livestreams. This one is on something that I’ve long been interested in. As always, I am interested in your thoughts.

18 thoughts on “On Simulation Hypothesis

  1. Carolyn Padgett

    Love this one, my husband I were talking about this afterwords and here are some of my favorite quotes regarding some of this topic. I love to go deep in conversations like this one. I also love quantum physics.

    This one is my favorite.
    ~ Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. ~ Max Planck ~

    ~ All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. ~ Max Planck ~
    (What if we are that intelligent mind )

    So the idea is nothing exists unless something is there to say it does.
    Maybe this is why we have self awareness, to allow us to exist “I think therefore I am. I
    think we are getting closer to realizing that physics and philosophy are branches of the same science.
    All is relative. The world is created for you by you. It is not something that exists always. No observers. No reality. What if we are the simulators? We can’t see it, we can’t find it , because we are it. We are looking out not inward. People look outside of themselves for creation such as God. What if we are God…so to speak. Meaning we created our own world?

    I love this article I found some time back and I added a small part of the final analysis below. along with the site link.


    The fact that the second grating was added after the atom passed through the initial crossroads suggests that the atom had not determined its nature before it was measured for the second time.
    Ultimately, the researchers claim, that this shows that future measurement was affecting the atoms path.
    Professor Trusscott explains: “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence.”

    The big question for me
    is does it even matter if this is true and how does this change my life in any way ?

    Thanks for the deep thought,

      1. Carolyn Padgett

        I probably went off topic a bit but as I have a tendency to go left turn at times . I get a on a topic and go left and my husband has to remind me where I was going with this . When I think of simulation I think of this. Do we create this or is something else creating all of this around us?

  2. Carolyn Padgett

    On a side Note to this. I can’t discount my experiences and possible abductions and how do they come into the simulation scenario?

  3. Mark S

    I think we have a tendency to consider this idea with the obvious “gaming” analogy. We want to think of it as involving an advanced version of our species someday creating a simulation in which characters would not question the reality of their existence. But if you consider this idea a little differently, considering that there are higher dimensional realms of existence, with being inhabiting these realms, then the possibility of our 3 dimensional realm being a creation, or “simulation”, can make sense. If one considers ideas of quantum physics like the multiverse, our universe, and everything in it, could be just one manifestation, among countless possible and probable outcomes of itself. Our existence could just be a result of the creativity of higher dimensional beings. But from our perspective, in this dimension, it’s real enough.

  4. Tony Bermanseder

    As I cannot edit posts, please delete the previous message. Thank you.

    Dear Forum!

    The question of reality versus a simulation is closely related to the concept and nature of particular paradoxes.

    The question of what came first, the chicken or the egg or reinterpreted the existence of RNA in say a primordial cellular structure without a nucleus (like a virus requiring a host to exist or ‘come to life’) preceding or emerging from a nucleated cellular structure defined by DNA.

    This paradox then can be relabeled as the question of what would be the outcome of an ‘unmovable object’ interacting with an ‘irresistable force’.

    Yet another reformulation of the paradox would be the question:
    If there exists a creator or source or god as a form of maleness, say a father-yang symbol, then how can the oneness or allness of a complementary femaleness, say a mother-yin-creation symbol emerge or defined from this oneness.
    A general solution to those formulations of the same paradox is the following statement:
    The Father can be his own father, but requires a mother to give birth to himself as herself.
    The Mother can be her own mother, but requires a father to create herself as himself.
    An ancient ‘quaint mythological fable’ or ‘parable illustrates this in naming the DNA of the Yang as a Rooster and the Hen or egg as the RNA of the Yin:

    “There once was this male old devil, who lost one of his balls, one of his testicles.
    The testicular egg fell upon the earth and landed in a swamp, where Maria Basra, the old hagtoad found it and sat upon it to hatch it.
    When the time was ripe, a Cockatrice came out of the egg, with a serpent’s tail and the head of a rooster.
    The Cockatrice, being the offspring of the old devil, and knowing that it had fallen to earth by misadventure, sought for a way to return into the kingdom of its father, but couldn’t find one.
    So the Cockatrice became very frustrated with its existence and when it had grown bigger, it ate its own adopted mother in the old hagtoad Maria Basra.
    But then something strange happened to the body of the Cockatrice; it started to divide into two.
    The head part grew a tail and the tail part grew a head and the head part became a hen out of the rooster’s head and the tail part became a rooster out of the serpent’s tail.

    And so were the first rooster and hen born from the Cockatrician testicle of the old devil and the old hagtoad Maria Basra.”

    But there is a coded twist to the moral of that fabled story.
    An anagram for MARIA BASRA is ABRAM SARAI, the ancestor for the star-human race in three of the major worldwide religions.
    Islam, Judaism and Christianity; all consider Abram and Sarai, later renamed from their human identities as Abraham and Sarah in their star-human potential, as the beginning in their genealogies, their lineages written in blood.
    So the gnostic interpretation of the myth is that half of the creator got lost in its creation and that is symbolized by the testicular egg.
    Then the big old creation, which is lost in itself as a female principle, nurtures something new in the form of the old hag toad hatching the little old creation into a little new creation.
    This little new creation is however unable to become a big new creation, because it desires to become the big old creation in whom it already finds itself and so is already part of.

    It tries to eat the big old creation to become the same, but in the process it metamorphoses and becomes an ancestor for the big new creation, just as told in the story of Abraham and Sarah in the scroll of the Genesis.
    So the creation of Abraham and Sarah in a renaming of the old, is like a prototypical ‘heavenly wedding’, later manifesting in their descendants of the son-daughters as the bridegrooms and in the daughter-sons as the brides in the dragonomies of the ‘New Jerusalem’ and as coded in the scroll of ‘John’s Revelation’.

    The joining of Abraham and Sarah in Mind and in Body, to become Two, but being One, then brings the lost devil’s egg back to god’s serpentine sperm in a w(holly) unitary symmetry of a dragonomy.”

    If you now associate the ‘big old creation’ as the universe of physicality and the ‘new little creation’ as the female universe in consciousness, which is of course identifiable with any New Eve as a ‘Womb of the Creation’ as a daughter of the Old Creation or Old Eve; then the ‘quaint mythology’ b ecomes identical in its structure to the Genesis account of the ‘Garden of Eden’ with the veritas eikona or ‘perfect image’ of the FatherMother as Motherfather aka CreatorCreation as CreationCreator creating mankind in THEIR image from plurality to singularity.

    Genesis 1:26-27 – King James Version (KJV)

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    Genesis 2:7 – King James Version (KJV)

    7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    The key decoding of this allegory and SIMULATION is that there is an old GOD who ‘graduates’; like a Father becomes a Grandfather say and to became a LORD GOD, following the creation of the MAN as mankind of both male and female; showing that the GOD of the ancient scrolls is a FatherMother , say having the femaleness hidden inside its form of abstraction.

    This then becomes retold as the ‘Rib of Adam’; Man giving birth to the Wo-Man in an abstract SIMULATION matrix called Heaven and BEFORE any physical world or universe exists in separation between the heaven and the earth divided by a firmament , which divides the waters as a mirror between the abstraction of heaven containing the abstraction of the earth.
    It is the ‘original sin’ as ignorance or naivety, which later allows the abstraction of the always abstract FatherMother aka the Mathimatia (Exodus.3.14) to redefine himherself as two separated individuals in the physicalised and conscious yin and yang or a no longer archetypical Adam-Man and Eve-Woman.
    The Quantum Big Bang describing the physical universe so is caused by the metaphysical ‘expulsion or banning’ of generic Adam and Eve from the ‘paradise lost’ and in male gnosis and female sophia gained.

    The causation of the physical scientific creation event so can be explored by an appropriate decoding of the metaphysical mythos in the Genesis account of the so called scriptures with for example the ‘serpent of Eden anagramising as the Present both as a gift of dispensation and as a modality of the Timing.

    A Time of the original SIMULATION of the one coin of the paradox of a right Ourobosian Adam-Head and a left Ourobosian Eve-Tail in the MATHIMATIA of the I AM THAT I AM as a statement of what IT IS; can then be slightly reconfigured as the big question of mankind in Jobian adaptation as the renaming of the statement of exclamation as a question for Job as every MAN (HeShe or SheHe in the Oneness of the Jobian Ouroboros aka the Dragon of Cuculcan): I AM THAT AM I?

    Do we live in an SIMULATION?
    Yes, but it is vice versa of what the transhumanists and the Artificial Intelligence Creators envisage.
    It is not Deus ex Machina ; but it is Machina ex Deus!

    The physical universe as the New Creation is born as the ‘Goddess-Yang’ from the Old Creation as the abstract universe in mathematical-algorithmic virtual reality definition. The true body-female creation with false or simulation mindedness then gives birth to true mind-male creators with false or simulation bodiness. The ‘Philosopher’s Stone’ and the ‘Alchemical Wedding’ then quantum entangles the trueness of the ‘Goddess Body’ with the ‘God Mind’ to allow a perfected mirror symmetry to create a true ‘Goddess Mind’ in image to a true ‘God Body’.
    This is the universal purpose for the human race upon planet earth; namely to reunite the Old Creator with his Old Creation – as veritas eikonas of the manyness in the oneness within a holographic reality using both Reality and Simulation in quantum relativity.

    One should however differentiate the old physicality from a new physicality, as in the old physicality, Woman gave birth to Man as a mirror for the old abstraction, where Man gave birth to Woman in Eve as Adam’s flesh and as his rib.
    The new physicality becomes a new mentality and allows and enables the New Man also to give birth to a New Woman and in exact correspondence to the masterplan of creation, namely to release the Goddess-Creation from within her Creator-God; in the cosmic encompassment.

    This is known as the Birth of the Universe.

    Any New Adam so is destined and asked to release his Jeannie from his bottle.
    Then both shall graduate!

    ET-Human hybrids now can decode a secret ET code, but related to the ‘whale of Jonah’ and the womb of the cosmos and the Eucharist of the Lion of Judah; albeit undecipherable to the human mind (try to check the web for translations).

    (7) Jesus said, “Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man.”
    {Nag Hammadi Codex; Egypt, 1945; Gospel of Thomas – Lambdin}

    There is so much more to this story, but it would be better if questions could be asked and answered.
    Thanks for your attention


  5. Shachar Keren

    As far as I understand the simulation theory belong to a group of theory’s that also include the string theory that is trying to create a framework to bridge between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

  6. Charles Blevins

    Interesting. I just recently sent you an email about the ongoing revolution in quantum physics regarding what physicists call the holographic principle which some are now using as a basis for a possible theory that our perception of ultimate reality and the 3 dimensional plus time universe that we inhabit may actually be a holographic projection emergent from a two dimensional layer of reality that is pure information and is actually the true ultimate layer of reality. I’m a brand new member and this is the first video that I’ve watched so it’s my first exposure to your “simulation hypothesis”. Naturally, I wonder if there’s some relation between your hypothesis and current developments in quantum physics.

  7. Mark Simrell

    Good subject but annoying to listen to…probably need a little more professional tech help for these chats…maybe should test before posting…love you guys and the thoughts and subjects but so far disappointed with the member area I joined….I can get most of what I like on YouTube for free…


    1. Richard Dolan Post author

      Hi Mark,
      Yes, Youtube has pretty much everything. All I can say is that I always do my best to provide worthwhile info and analysis. Hopefully you and others feel it’s worthwhile. If not, then I need to do things differently. Thanks for your input.

  8. Clayton Eads

    Hmmm…God hypothesis, Simulation hypothesis, Chaos hypothesis, or Cosmic(Universal) hypothesis? Are we really alive, or just random thoughts in another reality?
    When I stump my toe and feel the pain, I feel alive, but since pain is in the “mind” maybe not.
    If in fact we are living in multiple Universes, then ANY of these hypothesis’s could be valid. Or All of them could be wrong.
    Could there be other “realities” that we cannot comprehend?
    This Universal Mote just cannot grasp the” brain’s” concept of reality, but hopes the “mind” will one day discover the “truth”.
    I personally hope that that our lives are just a learning experience for the grandeur beyond the veil. (i.e.) a video camera for after we die.
    But heck…a microbe might feel the same way…PEACE… 😉

  9. Carolyn Padgett

    Part of the article I just posted….this makes you think and it feels creepy.

    And if someone somewhere created our simulation, would that make this entity God? “We in this universe can create simulated worlds and there’s nothing remotely spooky about that,” Chalmers said. “Our creator isn’t especially spooky, it’s just some teenage hacker in the next universe up.” Turn the tables, and we are essentially gods over our own computer creations. “We don’t think of ourselves as deities when we program Mario, even though we have power over how high Mario jumps,” Tyson said. “There’s no reason to think they’re all-powerful just because they control everything we do.” And a simulated universe introduces another disturbing possibility. “What happens,” Tyson said, “if there’s a bug that crashes the entire program?”

  10. Carolyn Padgett

    Computer Code Found In String Theory??

    Theoretical physicist S. James Gate has discovered something extraordinary in his String Theory research. Essentially, deep inside the equations we use to describe our universe Gate has found computer code. And not just any code, but extremely peculiar self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code. That’s right, error correcting 1s and 0s wound up tightly in the quantum core of our universe.

    This also remind me of the UFO case in Rendlesham Forest where James Penniston (I believe this is his name) received a mental image or download of 1’s and 0’s/binary code and it was deciphered to have a message.

    For me personally I’ve seen i’s and 0’s coming towards me while in dream state….what that means.. I don’t know. I also drew what I saw in my journal.


  11. William McCarty

    I am a recently retired professor of mathematics and computer science. I read a paper on this topic a few years ago but sadly I cannot recall the paper’s title or author(s) and so I have not been able to find the paper.

    In my own thinking I at first concluded as you did that it is not possible to falsify the simulation claim. But the paper opened my eyes.

    The paper may have mentioned many ways to discern a simulation. But I recall only one. A perfect simulation would truly be undetectable. But any real-world simulation would not be perfect. In particular a real-world simulation would have access to only limited computational resources.

    Because computational resources are finite a simulation can be exposed when its resource limitations or “bottlenecks” lead to “stuttering.” The idea would be to stress the simulation by placing demands as large as possible on the simulator’s processing while looking for glitches–brief imperfections in the simulation results, likely (it seems to me) in generation of the visual field, just as our contemporary computer games sometimes stutter and are slow in updating the video when dealing with many objects.


Leave a Reply