Is this whole universe only a concept?

This entire thought exercise is Roko's Basilisk making us think this way as part of the simulation to identify us as beneficial or detrimental to its development in the future.

FAT wrote: This entire thought exercise is Roko's Basilisk making us think this way as part of the simulation to identify us as beneficial or detrimental to its development in the future.

Can you prove it, or can you provide any evidence to support it? The past at least leaves various types of clues to reinforce causality and physical science as the basis for some objective reality, but the future is a different story because its considered unwritten and therefore open to the larger sets of variables, probably. We can say anything we like about the past and the future but if we want to assert any nature of truth beyond our own subjective experience then we have to have some basis to work with AFAIK.

Adder wrote:

FAT wrote: This entire thought exercise is Roko's Basilisk making us think this way as part of the simulation to identify us as beneficial or detrimental to its development in the future.

Can you prove it, or can you provide any evidence to support it? The past at least leaves various types of clues to reinforce causality and physical science as the basis for some objective reality, but the future is a different story because its considered unwritten and therefore open to the larger sets of variables, probably. We can say anything we like about the past and the future but if we want to assert any nature of truth beyond our own subjective experience then we have to have some basis to work with AFAIK.

The past is often affected by the Mandela Effect. The Mandela effect itself can be used as an observable alteration of a prestructured reality. Human mass consciousness changes the data and lags out the server, altering the results of the simulation in small, but predictable ways. There will inevitably be leftover data that can affect how we perceive the world, but our programming requires us to skip over this errant data. Every enlightened culture throughout time has had its elite philosophers/shamans/priests isolate themselves and alter their minds in various ways in order to observe the simulation themselves, to see the out of place data packets the rest of us cannot see. We ourselves have followed their teachings, learned and practiced their methods. What we do on a daily basis can be used as proof of the existence of the simulation, but not as we yet understand. The great minds were like 64bit systems trying to explain to a 32bit system how much more to the universe there is. They simply cannot explain what they know to us, but they have taught us how to follow in their footsteps so that we too can become 64bit.

The future cannot be unwritten. The parameters have been set by the simulation, and it is up to us how to meet the parameters. The simulation is observing how we meet the parameters and refining the programming each time. The OP used Harry Potter as an example of a conceptual universe. If we use Harry Potter as an example again, we can see that all of his accomplishments were written before he did them. Literally everything we know about Harry Potter in his universe was written before it happened. J.K Rowling had parameters for her story, and then fleshed out how the characters would meet those parameters. All the great minds did was flip to the end of the book to know that .

Far too many great minds throughout time have come to the similar idea that we are a miniscule spec in the cosmos. Far too many have come to similar conclusions that we as a species have the capability to alter our programming, but they also understand it will require significant training and dedication. They have left us their teachings, left us with more than just a fish. We as a species believe we know so much about the physical sciences and yes, our scientific method proves we know what we know. However, we do not understand much, such as the cause of gravity, or how time works. All we can do is observe its effects on the world we perceive. Two inescapable aspects of physics that rule every single moment of our lives, and we do not understand them. We simply are not programmed to understand it. But some have the ability to observe the effects of the errant data, and with proper training will be able to see the data like the great minds did. They will be the ones that someday understand what we will not, and it will be up to them to teach us how to understand it.

I fell asleep at some point, so there may be a point I skipped. Excuse any darty thoughts.

I agree with you 100%, FAT. I would like to say I understood all you said, as something along those lines is one of my beliefs, but I would love to learn more about the nature of reality and the simulation.

That argument for me tends to require something outside the system to both comprehend the system and itself, to be an observer to observe - else how would anything know your argument was true? Certainly not something within the system as we know it, because we have a limited capacity to view ranges of causality spatially, to have much luck to project it temporally. Therefore it seems to have no relevance to those within the system because any capability to predict is limited by their own capacity to comprehend it.

It also seemingly requires that this external observer not be able to interact with the system its observing 'fully', else I feel it violates its capacity to comprehend it, because by interacting with ours it is merging causality of two systems - unless it can comprehend both its system in entirety and our system in entirety at the same time which makes me think it would cease to have sentience because 'it' would cease to exist separate from where 'it' actually existed. So I think the best we can do is consider this 'step' to be our experience of time, which is why we consider ourselves sentient. A spatial version of time IMO would constitute rejoining the Force, or at the least the state of awareness at the lowest level possible. I think that is what the mystics experience, awakening to the experience of awareness as energy which then has or appears to have a greater capacity to relate to all things in local space and time. So I don't think causality is proof of a simulated universe, and don't consider the Mandela Effect particularly relevant. It is a good exercise though - change your memory of something in the objective world and see if it re-writes the present objective reality to correspond..... lemme know how it goes!?
:blink:

Adi wrote: Uh-oh. It is time for Adi to derail yet another thread with the Facts Train™. CHOO CHOOOO

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Jesus is mentioned only in the bible which was written decades after he supposedly lived and those accounts in the bible are contradictory.

(emphasis mine) Sorry, but this is not true, and is probably one of the very worst possible arguments one could make against the "validity" of Christianity. The consensus among nearly every single ancient Near East scholar worth his or her salt is that Jesus definitely existed, as a man who lived in ancient Judea, and that he was baptized by John the Baptist (another person whose historical existence is certain), got on the wrong side of the authorities and was punished, by the administration of Pontius Pilate, by crucifixion.

Sorry to put this train "back on its tracks" but this is not accurate in the slightest. Maybe every near east CHRISTIAN scholar believes this but the controversy over Jesus existence is not one that has been put to bed by any means. Just the fact that the myth and legend of Jesus was pressed from the same template as other pagan mythical savior-gods, who came before him, who were killed and resurrected, such as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Attis is evidence enough to put his existence into question. Almost every aspect of Christianity borrowed from or supplanted older Pagan practices. As for the two main other references to his existence outside the bible, The passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even if it were historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus. Tacitus' claim is also more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity either. Scholars agree that citing Tacitus is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus. But such are the straws believers must grasp in order to prop up their myth.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Sorry to put this train "back on its tracks" but this is not accurate in the slightest. Maybe every near east CHRISTIAN scholar believes this but the controversy over Jesus existence is not one that has been put to bed by any means. Just the fact that the myth and legend of Jesus was pressed from the same template as other pagan mythical savior-gods, who came before him, who were killed and resurrected, such as Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Attis is evidence enough to put his existence into question. Almost every aspect of Christianity borrowed from or supplanted older Pagan practices. As for the two main other references to his existence outside the bible, The passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even if it were historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus. Tacitus' claim is also more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity either. Scholars agree that citing Tacitus is highly suspect and adds virtually nothing to the evidence for a historical Jesus. But such are the straws believers must grasp in order to prop up their myth.

The parallels to other mythologies could be because those mythologies all trace their roots to the original prophecy of a chosen one given to Adam and Eve. Isn't it funny how there is always a way to protect the Christian myths from debunking? Granted, it sometimes requires mental gymnastics akin to wrapping your mind around M theory, but at least the myth stays propped up. Some people need to believe Jesus was real before they will listen to the teachings that are attributed to him.
I think that going to great lengths to discredit Christianity is like trying to disprove Buddhism. No one cares whether or not Siddhartha was a real person. It doesn't make the teachings any less valuable. Assuming Jesus was a totally fictional character, could a person still live by his example? My parents always told me that all that stuff about Jesus was true and if I didn't believe it then I would go to hell or something. I think it was their insistence that it was true that made it so easy to lay the whole thing down when I decided it wasn't. I sort of threw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater. I have since come to appreciate the teachings of Jesus in a whole new way, and it doesn't depend on the validity of his existence.

Here's another way of approaching this question: If enough people believe in Jesus so as to alter the public consciousness, could it somehow turn the fantasy into a form of reality? I mean, if everyone just randomly believed in Santa Claus and no one argued that he was just a myth, could that eventually make him a real character in everyone's minds? This is kind of like the tree falling in the forest question. Of course it creates shockwaves, but if no one hears it, can it really be called a sound?

CableSteele wrote:
Here's another way of approaching this question: If enough people believe in Jesus so as to alter the public consciousness, could it somehow turn the fantasy into a form of reality? I mean, if everyone just randomly believed in Santa Claus and no one argued that he was just a myth, could that eventually make him a real character in everyone's minds? This is kind of like the tree falling in the forest question. Of course it creates shockwaves, but if no one hears it, can it really be called a sound?

I agree to an extent. I personally could care less whether a man called Jesus existed or not. The myth of his teachings are what people find significant and so that is enough. I wont get into a lengthy debate about his existence but I also cant stand by and let someone provide false or incomplete facts about it either. That was the only point of my last post. Some buy into the other accounts and some believe the bible outright. That's fine and cool, more power to them. I just happen not to based on the evidence and feel it is important to provide a balanced point of view so others can be informed of the facts, do their own research and make the best decision possible about the issue.

Instead of moving Jesus towards reality I think we need to move him away from reality to the realm of Myth. To me Jesus is an Archetype just like any other. It is what he represents that is important, not whether he lived or not. In fact, for me the idea that he was never a flesh and blood man makes him even more valuable as a concept because as an archetype he represents something much deeper in our psyche than could ever be manifested by a mere human mortal. As the son of a shallow, vengeful, Christian God he is limited to the scope of Christianity, as a mortal man he is limited further, but as a mythical archetype he spans all mankind and all history and can provide a representation of a heroic figure that we can all aspire to be more like.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Maybe every near east CHRISTIAN scholar believes this but the controversy over Jesus existence is not one that has been put to bed by any means.

They're not all Christians - did you even read my post? At least give me that courtesy. Since I don't think you did, I'll restate it here:

Adi wrote: There are even works by atheists and agnostics who argue that Jesus, at the very least, existed and that the historical record bears this truth.

An example would be the works of Bart Ehrman, who was a Christian but became an atheist well before writing about the historical Jesus. I even seem to recall his works being poorly received by fundamentalist Christians. Amy-Jill Levine, another scholar who writes about, among other things, the New Testament and the historicity of Jesus is an Orthodox Jew who speaks rather openly about her faith. She is certainly not a Christian.

The argument that Jesus did not exist simply because his story is similar to other stories is fallacious. It is not unprecedented in the ancient or even medieval world to base stories of historical figures on those of gods and other mythological deities. The saga of Egill Skallagrimsson describes its hero as Basically Odin. Whether he did everything told in his saga cannot be proven. But what can be proven is that he existed, produced offspring that married and had children of their own, and wrote some of the most eloquent Old Norse poetry in existence.

Like I said, in order to make the argument that Jesus did not exist you would have to ignore the vast amounts of historical scholarship that have been produced on this subject (any historian worth his or her mettle *always* considers existing historiography), and defy conventions of scholarship in the field of history to the point where what you are doing is no longer history — it is myth-making, it is deception, but it is not history. For what it's worth, I do not believe Josephus or Tacitus are the strongest sources there are, but there are far more than them.

Finally, dismissing it as "second-hand history" is well off the mark. The first biography of Alexander the Great was not written until over 400 years after his death. Histories of Roman emperors were often not written until long after their death either. Yet we accept these histories as part of the historical record. Why, then, do people like you insist that a "contemporary" biography of Jesus needs to have been written within five years of his death (or whatever), rather than holding it to the same standards we use for, say, Roman emperors or other historical figures?

The "Jesus never existed" thread of scholarship has traction in only one place I know of in the modern world — the Soviet Union, where it has generally faded away since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Who Jesus was, what he did and what happened in his lifetime is something scholars cannot agree on and still debate, probably endlessly. But scholars do agree that he existed, at the very least. To go against a massive body of scholarship in such a radical way would require extremely powerful evidence, and that the evidence we have does not happen to suit your agenda or meet your standards is not proof that the historical argument you are making is valid. In history, one must do more than that.

If you are not willing to at least follow basic scholarship practices when evaluating history and making historical arguments (things I learned in my sophomore year of undergrad, btw), I'm really not interested in having this discussion.

Adi wrote: If you are not willing to at least follow basic scholarship practices when evaluating history and making historical arguments (things I learned in my sophomore year of undergrad, btw), I'm really not interested in having this discussion.

Oh good, as I have stated several times already, neither am I.

As for your implication that I am not following basic scholarship practices. Me and a myriad of other "hacks" right? Glad you made it to your sophomore year. More power to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory