If we live in a simulation (which is seeming more and more to be the case, and the ancients knew this as well), then is all physics and mathematics in...

If we live in a simulation (which is seeming more and more to be the case, and the ancients knew this as well), then is all physics and mathematics invalid?

If we are in a simulation, the implication is that physics is not describing reality as is, but merely the false reality of the simulation. So we have physics and math that helps us in our day to day lives and has a function, but it doesn't have any meaning beyond that. If reality is a simulation and we are just trapped in the material realm, would there be ANY branch of science that survives? Geometry and logic seem to be the most airtight fields but again, if our entire reality is false, then even they are fake, and "logic" is actually "illogical" because while the logic is logically and internally sound, it is simply describing the logos of a false reality and again has no actual truth beyond that.

I debated posting this on EerieWeb or /x/ but ultimately settled on /x/ because EerieWeb is too dogmatic and would be less open to the possibility that their precious science might have some flaws in it.

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Simulation theory is just Gnosticism for atheists

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Gnosticism is true though.
      How can someone look around at the reality they live in, see the degeneracy, material decadence, completely lost people...and go "Yep, this is the highest realm of reality"? Actual moronation.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There are other belief systems besides Gnosticism and atheism. For example, actual Christianity that maintains that this is a fallen world and it is fallen because of our own actions, not because fake god made us wrong.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Christianity is just the corrupted israeli version of gnosticism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            gnosticism does not predate christianity, it's a christian heresy despite some antecedent beliefs in other religions

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Gnosticism is the oldest Christianity older than the canonical bible

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          monkey people are far from the most advanced species in the universe

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Atheism is israeli

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >ignoring the Greek skeptics and those of many other cultures who did not believe the lies of the religious priestly elite of their time.*
            yeah sure.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >see sunset
        >AAAAAAAAAAA SAVE ME AAAAAAAAA
        >people do bad things
        >HOW COULD THIS BEEEEEEEE AAAAAAAAA

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Good thing do not negate the evil in the world

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Gnosticism is true though.
        Anon, this is like saying Christianity is true. It's a blanket statement and you have to be a little more specific. Are you talking about Lutherans, Catholics, Mormons? Not every Gnostic is every Gnostic.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the degeneracy, material decadence, completely lost people

        You can put this down to people misusing their free will rather than an inherent flaw of our reality. These are problems that can be overcome by man.

        One thing that I do find cruel about our existence is its competitive nature and how much suffering it brings. The fact that we must consume life to live ourselves, and the problems that stem from this essential fact of life.

        I do think it is hard to understand our reality while only being able to observe such a small fraction of it. I can only assume that all is good, and that things work out in the end.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How can you assume that it is good!!!??

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why not assume the best when we cannot see the full picture? Focus on the good things in life and the light of creation will begin to shine true. As someone who had lived in fear of the creation for some time, I refuse to let it compromise my soul by assuming the worst.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            *shine through

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      more like panspermia for creationists.
      it doesn't really answer the question of existence, just moves the goalpost.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you actually cared about answering that question, checking out people's claims for yourself would be part of your practice. The point is not to be happy knowing or guessing where the prime originator is. You need a target to take action.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >which is seeming more and more to be the case
    No it doesn't

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Also kys Satan

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    geometry def survives xoxox

  5. 1 month ago
    METEYA

    We do not live in a simulation at all. We live in a holographic universe emanating from the Absolute Energy field, one might call that God or the Primordial Buddha. This paper elucidates: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00788r001700210016-5

    Physics describes the material realm at a very accurate level down to the quantum level, where conscious intention once again takes manual control over reality. When it comes to formations Earth's dimension is one of the most well-formed and stable dimensions in existence with the consciousness highly restricted in what "magic" it can perform. Due to the stability of thought and form, many unique things have evolved on Earth, such as mathematics, pure logic, and electronical logic gates. These are all incredibly rare advancements, I'm talking one in a quadrillion universes even evolving the basics. Every bit of knowledge secular physics discovers is precious and useful, even if their academics do tend to dismiss spiritual matters.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is interesting, but not sure why you would trust the CIA of all people to reveal the truth about things.

      • 1 month ago
        METEYA

        It doesn't hurt to read something. I don't trust the CIA at all, they're genocidal maniacs. However, their paper is also backed up by most esoteric texts and Buddhist suttas. I tested hemi sync, remote viewing, and vibrational attainment myself and it all works.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Meh ... not really. The paper is an interesting read, but the section that talks about reality being a reflection of the Absolute Consciousness was paraphrased from a book by Alexandra David-Neel and Llama Yongden written in 1967. And it was the author postulating that the universe functioned in this matter which allowed for the Gateway Process to function. It's an interesting concept but it doesn't preclude the notion that the universe is a simulation ... whatever the frick that means. I think it just means that people need to come to terms that reality isn't as easily understood as we think it is.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What we know as "physics" is actually just a "physics engine" like in game design. The people who are masters of this simulation can code it to work any way they want. It's poorly coded here though, it's a very chintzy machine which we're trapped in.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How do you code the feeling and taste of things?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >If we are in a simulation, the implication is that physics is not describing reality as is, but merely the false reality of the simulation
    Even if it's a simulated reality it's still our reality. It's our physics which describes our reality. Physics does not claim to work for alternative realities, only our reality

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Even if it's a simulated reality it's still our reality.
      What's the point of studying it then? It's like an npc in a video game thinking he is smart because he is analyzing the pixels on the wall, and has no knowledge of the world outside the game cartridge. It just seems to be a massive waste of time.
      I don't care about learning reality as how it is presented to me, I want to grasp reality as is with no strings attached. Call me stubborn.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    pythagorean theoreum isn't real I guess

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      You can alter the theorem by changing the initial parameters, but the relations between the sides will always hold true.
      It doesnt matter whether the reality it is based on is "the really real reality". The math is valid for the reality it describes, and you can determine what reality is being described by how the math works.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The idea of evidence of us being in a simulation is based on physics that you are now saying are not real.
    If you declare the science and math invalid, then you have no evidence of a simulation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The idea we are living in a simulation is thousands of years old and has nothing to do with the theory that has just started floating around in the last 5 or so years. Gnostics and Buddhists fully understood that we are living in a false deceptive reality. Their entire cosmology and worldview is centered around how to break free of the simulation.
      The issue of what is real and what isn't is also the core debate of western philosophy. Descartes, Hume, Kant, they all are at the end of the day arguing what knowledge is truly real and what we can dismiss as false.
      Simulation theory is not a recent theory by any means.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are retroactively covering ancient thought with modern concepts.
        Maya is not a simulation.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's a bad argument and you know it. Simulation just means a false reality. They are all just rewordings of each other. It's not retroactive. Simulation theory is just one more theory in a long line that articulated this ancient concept. The only difference (if there even is one) is that the physics conclusion was deduced by going down the rabbit hole of physics, whereas the ancient conclusion was reached by simply observing the world and intuitively getting there. Either way, people reached the same conclusion, and since the theory is accepted by people in both the scientific and spiritual community, there is probably some validity to it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Simulation just means a false reality.
            Wrong. A simulation is an attempt to mimic something, and requires an external reality.
            Maya is not a simulation, nor is Maya false.
            You are taking a modern concept and forcing ancient thought to fit it, without understanding how you are twisting ancient thought.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know why you are arguing over this and it matters so much to you that I'm wrong. I'm just going to assume you are a shill for whatever ulterior motive you have, because no sane person would try to poke nonexistent holes into my argument.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Smothering ancient thought with this pastiche idea of simulation locks people into incorrect assumptions about the ancient concepts.
            Maya is not a simulation.
            You can move on now, if you dont think it matters.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To give more examples:

        The Platonic theory of the Forms is another rewording of the simulation theory. Plato knew that the reality we live in is impermanent, ephemeral and false. We can see a chair, but a perfect Chair (with a capital C) exists in some abstract realm that we don't have access to. The only flaw in Plato's logic is that if the simulation theory is true, then even the Forms themselves are false because they are just describing the coding of the simulation, not base reality.

        The philosopher George Berkeley was even more radical with it. He said that all material is an illusion and reality only has meaningful existence in the subjective mind. Essentially, anything that you have not experienced subjectively must be met with extreme skepticism. If you have never been to Paris, as far as you are concerned, you should consider Paris to not exist until proven otherwise by actually getting on a plane and seeing it for yourself. This is very radical, but I suspect that the more we understand about how reality works, the more Berkeley will be vindicated.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >anything that you have not experienced subjectively must be met with extreme skepticism.
          Holy shit are you describing me lmao
          I truly believe that everything i don't get to experience or see/hear is absolutely non existent (to me al least)
          NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING out of what I'm experiencing concerns me

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Forms themselves are false because they are just describing the coding of the simulation, not base reality
          "Base reality" is the one Consciousness, and Forms are conceptual structures within the one Mind attached to that one Consciousness.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    physics is the rule set of this virtual reality. mathematics is a model to describe it.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The signs actually point to us not being in a simulation. The odds go way, way up if we can start performing those types of simulations, which isn't clear can actually be done.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I am a midwit,but what if black holes are galactic machinery,and we are inside of one right now.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >checked nice trips

    Think of our own current understanding of physics as primitive... just look at the big dilemma with general relativity and quantum mechanics..

    QM is exceptionally accurate in describing the behavior of subatomic particles and their interactions. It has been experimentally verified countless times, and its predictions match observations with remarkable precision. GR successfully explains gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by massive objects. GR has also been confirmed through experiments, such as the precise prediction of Mercury’s orbit.

    Both have been widely successful theories until now yet have different mathematical frameworks and assumptions.
    Combining them directly leads to infinities and inconsistencies, so how can either still be considered "accurate"?

    It sounds like we need to dramatically revamp our current models of mathematics and physics, right? but how? I don't believe there will ever truly be a "unified theory" between the two, just look at how string theory, loop quantum gravity, and other approaches aim to reconcile QM and GR, but none are universally accepted... nor will they ever at this rate.

    We're gonna need an entirely new system of mathematics, to bring an entirely new system of physics, one that will truly help us understanding ALL the facets of our universe.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good post.

      There is a paradox to it. I don't know enough about physics to make a truly educated claim that grasping the mysteries of the universe isn't possible given our current framework of it.
      But on the other hand, I don't have much interest to learn advanced physics because of the intuitive feeling I have that it is all pointless.

      I think the physicists who studied electromagnetism were truly on to something, like Faraday and Tesla. It seems that that area is the key. If we want to escape the simulation, we need to get far more empirical and experimental. Theoretical and mathematical justifications for the truth of things can no longer be considered valid.
      If we want to blast a hole through the wall of the simulation and break free, we will need to go back to the drawing board. And this is what I suspect the true purpose of CERN is.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        One of the biggest pieces of evidence that exists anon sits in almost every persons pockets. Yet hardly anyone asks where exactly that technology came from. ASML got the technology for photolithography machines from the U.S Department of Energy, yet it is a secret how exactly the DoE came across that tech. That shit created massive leaps in tech that SHOULD not exist. The amount of R&D it should have taken to create such technology would normally have taken generations. Even then the leading tech manufacturers at the time couldn't figure it out like Samsung and Intel who specialized in that field when the DoE presented them the tech. It killed Japans manufacturing tech industry which led the world in the 90s. Imagine if I took a modern smart phone and time traveled to 1970 and gave it to the government. Where the hell did the DoE get that technology because they sure as shit didn't come up with it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >One of the biggest pieces of evidence that exists anon sits in almost every persons pockets. Yet hardly anyone asks where exactly that technology came from. ASML got the technology for photolithography machines from the U.S Department of Energy, yet it is a secret how exactly the DoE came across that tech.
          Operation Paperclip … The Nazi Occult Mediums (Maria Orsic) they were using to get their advanced tech were still employed after the war, just for the Allies (and likely also the Soviets). There is a reason DOE facilities are almost always near paranormal hotspots.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Galaxy brained post OP, and /x/ is the right place; these sort of topic short circuits EerieWebgays' shut up and calculate toaster brains.
    And you are right on the money; empirical science only APPROXIMATES current state of certain aspects of this specific construct/simulation. It is not exact and all cosmological implications are complete guesswork.
    The best analogy is playing a video game and trying to model the physics through gameplay; you will only ever get an approximation of the current state of the source code, you will never know what is or is not actually possible to program, and you will never know what the game was like before (past patches) and what the game will be like later (future patches).
    The only way to actually know these are by downloading the codes and logs directly through schizo means via picrel.
    According to channelled NHIs and NDEs and OBEs..etc., in the multi-verse at large the only real constants is consciousness and free will. Imagination creates reality and there are no limit to what kind of simulation you can create and co-create with other consciousnesses to play out.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i think the theory stems from the possibility we are the possible creators of a simulation and we can very well trap *real* human lives in a simulation invention in the future. kinda like we create movies today but in the future the movie plays out for real and it feels like real people/players are alive inside of it and we watch

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's valid enough to make planes fly which is good enough for me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If they keep lowering the standard for pilots, that won't be true for much longer.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Matter is an illusion. The 'simulation' is just a dream of the Self. Math still holds. Physics still holds as a structure for predicting phenomenal experiences within the dream. But there is no "external realm" of material objects in space.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the implication is that physics is not describing reality as is, but merely the false reality of the simulation
    Reality is what you experience, and physics as we know it does a pretty good job of explaining what we experience in this material realm. Calling it a "false reality" makes about as much sense as a dry puddle.

  19. 1 month ago
    Krishna

    checked, to clarify your point

    if mathematics describes a matrix, it would answer, in your words, to a "logos" which is over and above the material world. this is the meaning of Christ.

    positivists essentially believe that empirical sense data is a Matrix, and say Science only describes predictive and explanatory models.

    but the numbers in those models would, in your words, answer to a Logos, which is Real.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    even if what you're supposing is true, what would that actually mean? whether you believe this reality is false or not, and regardless of what that actually means, something exists that we're perceiving and refer to as reality and has recognizable, consistent and predictable qualities and what we call science and mathematics are just ways of tracking its patterns so we can better navigate it. in the same vein, language is a vehicle for us to ponder and share our ideas about these things. you could say that language, science, math etc are invalid but they obviously serve a purpose to us and that's why we invented them. the fact that we can have this discussion at all proves the usefulness of language, and physics and math are ultimately just languages of a different kind. they're just models we created to better make sense of reality aren't necessarily meant to conclusively define any aspect of it. supposing reality isn't real doesn't invalidate the tools we've created to understand it any more than a story being fictional invalidates the ideas expressed in it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >regardless of what that actually means, something exists that we're perceiving
      Nope. The only thing you ever engage with is your mind. The senses being an extension of mind. Neither of which you can use to prove themselves or each other. Say nothing of the material world they claim to represent.

      Only responded due to your obnoxious image.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        of what that actually means, something exists that we're perceiving
        >Nope. The only thing you ever engage with is your mind.
        so? one doesn't disprove the other, and whether mind creates matter or vice versa is besides the point. what i'm saying is that the models of physics/science are just that, models. it is just one way that we measure or analyze what we perceive as reality, and regardless of what you believe the nature of that reality to be, they are valid within it precisely because they were conceived of and exist within it. otherwise they wouldn't exist or make sense to us. they're just one way of looking at reality as we see it, whether it's simulated is another issue entirely.
        and if say we were somehow able to determine that reality is false, and in turn that our understanding of science is therefore incomplete or inaccurate, then we'd adjust or discard it accordingly wouldn't we? and besides, even if there's some "true" reality that we're currently blind to, would it matter how we analyzed this "fake" one? we'd leave behind both this reality and the analyses we made within it and develop new models of understanding (and then potentially be in the same position once again). until that happens what's the point of worrying whether our current models would be applicable to some hypothetical "realer" reality?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This answer is it depends. In some ontological models this reality is a sort of byrproduct, "shadow", or condensation of a realer basis. In other it itself is the veil, it's an illusion outright and obscures the basis entirely in all ways other than it's means of operation. We see this through numerology and the fact that reality itself will respond to your pattern of attention.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In some ontological models this reality is a sort of byrproduct, "shadow", or condensation of a realer basis
            this is actually what i personally tend towards believing, but really nothing's off the table in my opinion. which i guess is why i don't see the point in questioning whether our current ideas of things like math and science would work outside of the reality they were developed in, because it's like, of course they wouldn't, lol. but my view is we'll cross that bridge when we reach it, i guess

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but my view is we'll cross that bridge when we reach it, i guess
            This is the key aspect. When you reach the point when you're no longer waiting or engaging. Some people are forced to the edge of the abyss and choose to cross it, others seek it. Meh. The world is essentially a high diffuse kaleidoscopic hall of mirrors.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The world is essentially a high diffuse kaleidoscopic hall of mirrors.
            true that

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they're just models we created to better make sense of reality aren't necessarily meant to conclusively define any aspect of it
      Tell that to the horde of EerieWebgays, cosmogays, and their midwit reddit orbiters.
      What you say is correct but it misses the current social paradigm entirely; people DO believe the models and theories to be THE reality and EerieWebgays the priesthood of the new gospel.
      Science never meant to define what is or is not possible, merely what is or is not predictable/reproducible presently.
      The modern religion of Scientism have mistaken the map for the terrain and their mindless acolytes calls anybody schizo for showing them even a glimpse of a mountain that do not fit onto their currently worshipped maps.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The concept of living in a simulation, also known as the simulation hypothesis, is a speculative idea that suggests our reality is actually a computer-generated simulation. While this idea has been popularized in recent years, there is currently no definitive scientific evidence to support or disprove it.

    If we were indeed living in a simulation, it would likely have its own set of rules and principles governing how the simulation operates, including physics and mathematics. In this sense, the physics and mathematics within the simulation would not necessarily be invalid; they would still be the rules that govern the simulated reality in which we exist.

    Ultimately, the validity of physics and mathematics within a potential simulation would depend on the nature of the simulation itself and how it is designed to operate. It is an intriguing and philosophical question that continues to fuel debate and speculation in scientific and philosophical circles.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Frick off chatgpt poster.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Checked digits of the beast.
    >If we live in a simulation (which is seeming more and more to be the case, and the ancients knew this as well), then is all physics and mathematics invalid?
    Not really. These are just the mechanisms by which our universe operates on the surface level. Anything atomic and above operates in a relatively predictable manner and can be understood through mathematics and physics. I think of these are the pillars of the universe that are unchangeable.
    >If we are in a simulation, the implication is that physics is not describing reality as is, but merely the false reality of the simulation.
    You probably need to understand reality as “layers” of reality. We’ve known for quite some time (since the ultraviolet catastrophe) that particles do not operate like traditional Newtonian physics. You should probably be more specific when you are talking about physics. Traditional Newtonian Physics, General Relativity, Quantum Physics are all different approaches and describe different aspects of reality.
    >So we have physics and math that helps us in our day to day lives and has a function, but it doesn't have any meaning beyond that.
    It’s a pretty big function. Being able to make airplanes and cars and being able to determine how gravity and force affect buildings are very important skills. We are so good at it that we take this for granted.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Your stuck in a recursive if loop. Stick to facts. Facts require proof. Belief requires faith.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Your stuck in a recursive if loop. Stick to facts. Facts require proof.
      Lol. As if differential calculus is a "fact." I love how the basic notion of probabilities represented by letters to denote a range of these probabilities that we don't understand is somehow considered a fact. It's the greatest con in history that somehow physics is a hard science that is factual in nature.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I did a very brief survey of the branches of math and what they are actually measuring and doing, in order to get an idea of what areas I wanted to study, and I remember thinking that the majority of them are clearly bullshit, just my absolute first instinct gut reaction. Calculus and anything beyond seems to be a israeli trick like astrology. Probability and statistics are straight up pseudoscience. It just blows my mind how in the branch of knowledge that is considered to be the most logically sound there are like 90 branches that focus on guessing or estimation.

        On an epistemological level, mathematics also makes the very bold and arrogant assumption that the rational understanding that we have in our brain is the highest understanding possible. We know intuitively that A=A, and of course Bertrand Russell can do some fancy 700 page proof that proves that, but at the end of the day, there is no actual proof identity laws or the law of non-contradiction are absolutely essential to how the order of the universe operates.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Calculus and anything beyond seems to be a israeli trick like astrology.
          Saying they are a trick is probably too far, but it is presented as something far less definitive than believed. Astrology, in it’s modern form is kind of stupid. Pick up Lilly’s Anima Astrologiae or Christian Astrology and it becomes more interesting. Also, Kepler’s De Fundamentis is an interesting read as well. Reading through these works is when I realized there is a practical use for trigonometry. I’m personally convinced there is a secret to astrology that isn’t commonly known. My present operative theory is that the effect of the stars at night and the constellations opposite of the current “sign” are what result in any affect on human behavior. I don’t take it too seriously, but it’s fun for me. Calculus is less interesting to me. Once you understand what the variables represent (like b,f, or Lambda), it’s actually pretty easy.
          >Probability and statistics are straight up pseudoscience.
          Mostly. It depends on the statistician. If they are faithful to the data being collected, then statistics can reveal some interesting things. More often than not, “statisticians” are basically con men and their interpretations are slanted toward whomever is paying their salary.
          >On an epistemological level, mathematics also makes the very bold and arrogant assumption that the rational understanding that we have in our brain is the highest understanding possible.
          Again, it depends on the mathematician, but yes, most are c**ts. I like Stephen Wolfram and I think he has some interesting ideas about reality and AI. The basic notion that consciousness itself is a physical force and that consciousness forces time to proceed linearly is interesting and does fly in the face of dudes like Wittgenstein and Russell. And it helps explain why the universe functions differently than what we perceive.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They think it's pseudoscience because the human brain has a very hard time getting probability right.
            so the more Math became counterintuitive to anon, the less "real" the math was concluded to be.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >If reality is a simulation and we are just trapped in the material realm, would there be ANY branch of science that survives?
    Well, yes. All of them would survive. They would just be defined in the larger context of universes. When people talk about vibrations, they are talking about matter which operates at the speed of light. All other frequencies and emanations within the “speed of light” universe are basically modulations on this base frequency. IMO, “dark matter” is basically the matter of the universe that operates at the speed of light that is affected by gravity and time. It really doesn’t matter (pun intended) what other universes exists, the rules of this universe and the “science” of this universe will always exist.
    >Geometry and logic seem to be the most airtight fields but again, if our entire reality is false, then even they are fake, and "logic" is actually "illogical" because while the logic is logically and internally sound, it is simply describing the logos of a false reality and again has no actual truth beyond that.
    False isn’t a good word. Just because other realities and “dimensions” exist, this universe still operates as it’s own unit with its own rules.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >False isn’t a good word. Just because other realities and “dimensions” exist, this universe still operates as it’s own unit with its own rules.
      That is true, but here's how I see it. The analogy is like if you did research on something, but instead of getting access to everything, your boss compartmentalizes and only allows you to know 5% and kept the rest secret. Or like working in a chair factory, but instead of being an artisan and creating the finished product of a full chair you only work on creating one of the legs.
      So I don't really care about learning "truths," I want to know The Truth and anything that is a decoy from that I consider to be a waste of time. So math and physics may describe our reality, but if it's not the top layer and there is a layer beyond it we haven't discovered yet, then I don't really care about learning it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The analogy is like if you did research on something, but instead of getting access to everything, your boss compartmentalizes and only allows you to know 5% and kept the rest secret.
        This is why I believe in the prison planet theory. If you think about General Relativity in conjunction with the Law of Universal Gravitation, then you have the basic forces of our planet all conspiring to keep us on this planet. We know that GPS satellites need to be configured to account for time dilation, and we know via Newton’s Gravitational Laws and General Relativity that mass, gravity, and time are interconnected and time in the absence of a gravitational field created by an object of large mass is slower (time dilation). So, if we leave our solar system presumably traveling very quickly, time will be very slow and the farther we get from our solar system the slower time will proceed. What this effectively means is that unless we can learn to create artificial time, space travel itself will be impossible. Of course “wormholes” have been deduced to account for the lack of spacetime allowing us to “fold” space to make “instantaneous travel” theoretically possible. But outside of what seems like a bullshit theory to me, it’s almost like this dimension and the laws of spacetime exist specifically to trap us on our planet with no hope of escape. Which is why we only know the 5%. Because we aren’t supposed to know the 95% because we aren’t supposed to escape this little pocket of mass, gravity, and spacetime.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But its the opposite. For the one with a higher inertial frame, everything ELSE speeds up, but time would "seem normal" to anyone on the ship.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Correct, but this really doesn't help space travel becasue you have two sets of spacetime both operating at separate "speeds."

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >which is seeming more and more to be the case

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You

  26. 1 month ago
    METEYA

    Spoilers: It's not a simulation, it's an act of defiance against divine sollipsism. The First One screamed tears of loneliness and figured out how to make holographic realities so it wouldn't have to be alone anymore.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The First One screamed tears of loneliness
      Why? When?
      It is idiotic to think this, and even dumber to use the notion as impetus to go back to it.
      Might as well say God didnt know the answer to something so He created the Teacher's Edition and read the back of the book.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maths and physics are the simulation.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    checked.

    The thing is this:
    It's not a simulation in the sense that some alien servers are running this world. But it's an illusion in the sense that a force, usually called "the Demiurge" manipulated the minds of spirit beings (that are nor created by him and have existed before) to have an illusionary experience that we call "the world". It's basically like dreaming, only that it's a dream that all the invvolved minds share, so it appears to be solid and lasting. But if all the spirits would wake up, all this "material world" would be gone like a dream.

    The laws of physics are kind of double illusion. First there is a set of rules created by the Demiurge, and then there is a doctrine of science created by the human elite. The things that are called "supernatural" by science are natural as well, just not part of the doctrine. The elites know this, and they use "magic" to their advantage. The dogma of "science" is only for the masses to keep certain natural laws hiden from them.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The earth is flat and stationary with a dome, yes it's some type of simulation or something similar. This creation about 7000 years old now
    and according to the occultists and some mesoamerican cultures this is the fifth world.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God, as a devil, deified, lived as a dog
    Reliever deliver a reviled reveiler
    Photon not “oh” p
    Devil never even lived
    Added rater as a moronic D.A.
    Some A notes set on a E//M OS
    Red root six, a live evil axis to order
    Trap “A”, redraw a Spiral set on DNA and no tesla rips a warder apart
    Me? E/M?
    Not A Devil, I lived a ton

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Shut up

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You're gonna love this, but what if, instead of measuring everything from a unitary system, we measured everything in exponentials? We take the Fibonacci Spiral and we institute the integrals of it as 1, 2, 3, 4 etc, but for practical purposes when we reach a half point of anything we measure backwards. Theoretically we could half the calculation time and double the factorial. Neo Mathematica.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *