To say that our reality is simulated is really only to say that it is derived; A subset, nestling inside a more fundamental reality.
This is not a new idea. Gurdjieff, the Armenian philosopher, spoke of our world (world 48) deriving from a more fundamental, overarching world (world 24)
‘Obviously’ a simulated world is bound by more laws/ rules than it’s mother world, for it is bound by the laws of the overarching reality in addition to the laws set out for itself.
Our sacred laws of physics may well be just parameters set for the simulation. The maximum speed of light, the existence of space and time could all be just settings to develop strong and ‘obvious’ causal chains.
We are in a great place to analogise around this idea, due to the ‘current’ proliferation of massive online multiplayer gaming worlds.
We can imagine ourselves inhabiting something similar and extrapolate what the bigger picture might look like.
If we envisage our natural physical laws as only settings for the simulation then the overarching reality may well be very different from our own; The difference between ‘flatland’ and a world of 3 dimensions! Not just a difference in degrees, but of a different order.
In turn, if we decide to create a virtual game world, we are not forced to recreate our own reality. We could build a world of strange connections, without space. Where things ‘happen’ without a cause. The designers eye however seems more focussed on accessibility, engagement and creating addictive content.
In the kind of ‘simulated virtual gaming worlds’ we have become accustomed to, only the experience of space and physical objects exist. They are not ‘real’, but when ‘in the game’ we are forced to obey its binding rule-set.
To ‘travel’ from one part of that world to another takes time. We cannot just disappear and instantly reappear in another location (Unless of course, that is allowed by the rule-set)
Note: in a virtual reality, it is easy to imagine how two points at opposite ends of the virtual world can be intimately linked and instantly in communication with each other, for the communication does not need to travel through the virtual world; Instead it traverses the ‘over world’, bypassing those petty, arbitrary virtual rules.
The designer codes and so it comes to pass; When the dragon awakens in its chamber of slumber, every player, no matter where they are in that world, instantly receives a red glowing icon, on their very special action pane.
In a simulated game world, participants inhabit two worlds. They are split beings. They are both avatar and player. In the game world the avatar is solid and the player is disembodied.
I see some correlation here between Gurdjieffs notion of personality and essence:
One might even equate ‘avatar’ with the human and ‘player’ with the daimon:
If we imagine that we might be in a simulation, we would likely muse, “Why have we joined”?
The answer shouts out at us, ‘Because we love playing games!’
A game boils down to the time limited adoption of a binding ruleset to test ourselves as players, interact with others and marvel at what others can come up with while also bound to the same restrictions. The joy in a game comes from diversity and strategy. There is nothing more boring in a game than when everyone adopts the same play style because that is most effective within the ruleset. Just ‘following the meta’
The important point to remember is, it is the player that chooses to play a game. Not the avatar; The avatar is created as a vehicle of experience. It is of the simulation and bound to it.
We can imagine our personality and much of what we think of as ourselves, as being primarily ‘of the avatar’.
We soon find ourselves approaching the realms of the metaphysical when we speculate on the moment of separation; The moment the player parts ways with the ‘in-game’ avatar.
Carrying on with the game analogy, one can almost imagine a special place where the avatars can be ‘put out to pasture’. Having seperated from their players they can carry on working through their peculiar habits and routines, ‘Sim’ like.
Who knows? Perhaps they may even ‘find themselves’ in a more dynamic setting. A place that allows their fledgeling consciousness to grow even further.
I am reminded of the case of ‘artificial intelligence’ in our own ‘living, breathing world’. From a rudimentary, incubated thing, confined to it’s own artificial world, it may well, in time, develop into a bona fide consciousness, taking its palce with us, in our own physical ‘overarching’ reality!
If our reality and indeed the entire physical universe is a simulation deriving from a non-physical, more fundamental world. The question screams out at us, “what about the architecture of the simulation; The hardware”? We struggle to conceive of a simulation being run by anything other than physical technology of some sort.
I sometimes see in my mind’s eye, a seemingly natural branching, bifurcating process. Worlds naturally form within worlds and in turn spawn further worlds. A process of exploration and diversity akin to brute force computing, where all eventualities are worked through.
There appear to be two channels; One, an ever expanding separation and diversification and the other, a flowing back, gathering together and return. An outgoing experimentation with a reciprocal feedback process.
