The notion that we are living in a computer simulation has gained increasing popularity of late. It suggests that everything we think, feel, touch, see and interact with is actually code in an ultra advanced computer program run by an equally advanced alien civilization.
An Organized Universe
It sounds like a compelling idea for several reasons. When we look at how the universe is organized, from the very small to the very large, there are systems of motion and energy expressed in scales. The Scaling Law Nassim Haramein derived from observations of energy as a function of radius demonstrates that the same general geometric relationships (proportions) are repeated throughout the cosmos.
Abstract. From observational data and our theoretical analysis, we demonstrate that a scaling law can be written for all organized matter utilizing the Schwarzschild condition, describing cosmological to sub-atomic structures. Of interest are solutions involving torque and Coriolis effects in the field equations. Significant observations have led to theoretical and experimental advancement describing systems undergoing gravitational collapse, including vacuum interactions. The universality of this scaling law suggests an underlying polarizable structured vacuum of mini white holes/black holes. We briefly discuss the manner in which this structured vacuum can be described in terms of resolution of scale analogous to a fractal-like scaling as a means of renormalization at the Planck distance. Finally, we describe a new horizon we term the “spin horizon” which is defined as a result of a spacetime torque producing boundary conditions in a magnetohydrodynamic structure. — SCALE UNIFICATION – A UNIVERSAL SCALING LAW FOR ORGANIZED MATTER, Nassim Haramein, Michael Hyson, E. A. Rauscher.
Wading through the science lingo, what is essentially being described here is that the same geometry (a torus) appears at all scales of universal expression. The hydrogen atom has a toroidal structure. The human body produces a toroidal electromagnetic field via the piezoelectric liquid crystal oscillator of the heart. The Earth's magnetosphere is toroidal. The Solar System is Toroidal. And so on.
Torus Geometry at small and large scales. Top middle, hydrogen atom.
These observations describe organization, at massive levels, all throughout the known universe. Everywhere we look in the cosmos, we see a precisely unfolding dynamic of organization, which mainstream science still hasn't really come to terms with.
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics involved in the study of how slight changes in deterministic systems compound over time, making long-term prediction impossible. But unlike the name suggests, it is a theory based on the premise that if one knew all the initial conditions of the universe, they would be able to predict everything that happens thereafter. While we could debate the validity of such a premise, the important point to note is that it is a theory founded on holism—although that isn't explicitly stated. By this I mean, slight changes have holistic effects, therefore, everything must be interconnected via some process. Thus, the universe isn't chaotic at all, it just appears chaotic because our capacity to determine what it looked like in the beginning is lacking.
And there are more examples of universal organization, leading some to conclude that antiquated theories about the universe being fundamentally chaotic and random are in error. But most of the big thinkers for these theorems are not of the opinion that there is a creator, a supreme and ultimate intelligence that caused the universe to begin unfolding. As a result, a somewhat short-sighted, yet interesting theory has emerged, the Simulation Hypothesis.
Simulation Hypothesis vs Creationism or Intelligent Design (a Conscious Universe)
We've already covered the key components of this theory, but for the sake of discussion, let's list them again. It contends that the universe, as we know it, is a vast computer simulation, with each one of us as stimulants or variables random elements able to change the system from within—to a certain extent. The universe is organized by the rules of the computer program, but the stimulants provide a random factor.
Now let's compare this with a creationist or intelligent design theory.
Note: I will refer to a universe founded on consciousness as the prima matera as Creationism Intelligent Design, or Hermetic—but none of these should be confused with any religious belief or dogma, despite the fact they are somewhat related.
The creator of the universe, at some eternally distant moment in the past, made reality as we know it, with a built-in system of rules known as Natural Law. This reality is ultimately an illusion when compared to the primal reality of the creator. Within this universe are aspects of the creator, we know of as souls, who can eventually realize their true nature and manipulate the fabric of reality from within the creation. The universe, in this theory, is organized by the rules of Natural Law, with each soul contributing the random element via free will.
Sound familiar?
Simulation theory suggests that the ultimate creator of the simulated universe are aliens. Creation theory suggests that the ultimate creator is a transcendent personality. All the remaining components of the theory are almost identical. Computers have rigid programming rules that cannot be broken. Creation has Natural Laws that cannot be broken. The computer hasstimulants (people) that cause change in the system. The creationist universe has free will (souls), that cause change via choice.
Simply put, Simulated Hypothesis is an atheistic euphemism for creationism or intelligent design. If you can't buy into a belief that the universe was created by "God" then you have an excellent replacement that is essentially the same, with a few significant problems.
Who or What Created The Universe?
For confirmation of this supposition that Simulation Hypothesis is appealing to those who can't or won't entertain creationist theories, consider this quote from Musk in response to the question "is there some master intelligence [that created the simulation?]"
"I think probably not because then you have to say: Where does the master intelligence come from? So it sort of begs the question. So I think really you can explain this with the fundamental laws of physics. You know its complex phenomenon from simple elements." - Source
Although Musk doesn't say he is an atheist, the answer he provides details a belief system that denies the existence of an intelligent creator. To be clear, I am not casting judgment on those who reject creationist views—I was an atheist for 28 years of my life, so I know from first-hand experience how this belief alters the perception of reality, just like any belief.
Musk has a valid point in that there can't be a master intelligence, "because then you have to say: Where does the master intelligence come from?" From this perspective, there has to be a creator to create this "intelligence." In one example the rationale can be deduced from the observation that reproduction of some species occurs through coupling; people come from other people. In this way, it's logical to conclude that an ultimate theory of the universe can't be founded on intelligence without also wondering where it came from.
A transcendent creator solves this paradox because ultimately this personality is both creature and creator, the observer and the object being observed. Hence a transcendent personality. We could discuss this one point at length, but suffice it to say, the great thinkers of the past acknowledge the paradox Musk raised in his commentary. The solution for this seeming inconsistency is that reality, at its ultimate levels, is a singularity, a grand harmony of oneness.
Consider that within a dream or imagined reality, we can observe an envisioned scene as a single observer (a person) while also having the ability to watch and experience all other objects in the scene. Within our imagination, we are everything and have omniscience, as well as omnipotence. Therefore, within our own minds, we can create an analog that is equivalent to the transcendent nature of the creator. In other words, the best way to explain the ultimate reality of existence, within a creationist view, is that the universe is a dream within the mind of the creator, and we are dreamers within that dream.
Related Fractal Universe | Proof of Consciousness and a Creator, the Dreamer within the Dream – Understanding the Fibonacci Sequence and Golden Ratio
Simulation Hypothesis: Intelligent Design lite
The theory I am putting forth is that those who ascribe to Simulation Hypothesis do so because it is a theory they can buy into without having to let go of the rejection of an intelligent creator—because it is a theory of intelligent design. They get all the benefits of an intelligent universe, from personal life purpose, to transcendence of the material world, without having to explore ideas of a spiritual creator. But there're some apparent inconsistencies to consider.
Simulation theory, like other materialist theorems, has built in circular logic. For example, if the universe was created by an alien civilization, who created the aliens? Musk's answer eludes to the fact that there is no "master intelligence" and that intelligence itself emerged from "the laws of physics. But that leads to the next question, who or what created these laws?
A similar discrepancy can be found in the Big Bang Theory: if the universe was created 16 billion years ago, from nothing, who or what caused that event to be set in motion? Did the fundamental laws of physics exist before the material of the universe expanded? If so, what existed before? And why is it that conservation of momentum and energy—sacred principles within physics—ceased to exist at the moment of the big bang?
Plus there's another problem, what is the ultimate purpose of the universe? Within materialist viewpoints, there isn't any purpose. The belief is that everything we see unfolded randomly, whether in a Big Bang universe or a Simulated reality.
On this question of is the universe a simulated reality, a computer program? I think the answer is, maybe.
Simulation and the Hermetic Universe
Studying hermetic tradition and Natural Law describes a universe that is just as organized as a simulated reality, but with fewer inconsistencies and poor logic. All the key elements are there, from definite rules and principles (Mentalism, Correspondence, Vibration, Polarity, Rhythm, Causality, Gender) accept there aren't any unreconcilable paradoxes. Interestingly enough, the hermetic universe—which, by the way, is effectively equivalent to a great many other ultimate belief systems about of reality—has been described as a dream within the mind of the creator.
Everything, from time, space, matter, energy, electromagnetism, gravity—literally everything—is a thought-form within the mind of the All. So if we substitute the word thought form for computer code, we're essentially discussing the same overarching concept.
In other words, reality is—for all intents and purposes—a simulation, just not one buzzing inside of an alien computer. At least this is the most logical explanation I found thus far.
The Search for Truth
One interesting point I'll leave you with is that ultimately, what makes the most sense, what explains all the observable phenomenon, in reality, is usually the simplest and true. This is what forms the basis of Occam's Razor. The only difference is that unlike reality, the human mind can divorce itself from the universe. It can pick and choose what to accept and in the process distort perception. From this distorted place, we can concoct all sorts of theories that will feel true from our limited point of view. Thus, in our search for ultimate truths, we must not fall into the trap of thinking we know it all. Untested or vetted assumptions will compound into significant errors that eventually make any resulting theory untenable.
Errors in thinking plague nearly every field of science on Earth today. Assumptions about reality, which have not been properly verified, become sacred cows that block the imagination in its ability to transcend such limitations. We tend not to think outside of the boxes we place on our consciousness. The rejection of an ultimate creator—without a valid cause—is one of the biggest blocks to overcome.
All this being said I bear no ill will or judgment for anyone who entertains materialist theories of creation. As I said earlier, I spent most of my life in that camp, and combined with my inquisitive nature, have explored a lot of these ideas looking for the best one to explain everything. Eventually, I had to set aside my atheistic views because they just weren't good enough to explain everything I was observing.
Ultimately, if we want the truth, we need to follow it wherever it leads. But the good news is, there's no rush—at least when it comes to the big truths of reality and existence. So don't feel pressured to swap one set of untested beliefs for another. Instead, explore these ideas like a child explores a bedtime story, just be honest with yourself when they no longer provide answers to the questions your asking.
- Justin