Karpenchuk's Theory: Human Life as a Simulation for Consciousness Development

[Karpenchuk]

Теорія Карпенчука: життя людини як симуляція розвитку свідомості
вступ
Я вважаю, що людське життя є частиною великої симуляції, призначеної для розвитку свідомості. У своєму справжньому вигляді ми є суб’єктами, які повинні досягти певного рівня розвитку. Щоб досягти цього, ми повинні відчути всю еволюцію людства від його зародження. Це передбачає переміщення нашої свідомості через різні етапи людської історії, прогресивно розвиваючись з кожним втіленням.
Гіпотеза моделювання
В основі цієї теорії лежить ідея, що ми існуємо в симуляції, подібній до «Матриці». Однак, на відміну від типових теорій моделювання, які часто зображують більш пасивне існування, це моделювання служить певній меті: сприяти зростанню та розвитку свідомості.
Реінкарнація і передача свідомості
У цій симуляції після смерті людського тіла свідомість переходить до іншої людини в іншу епоху. Наприклад, сутність може жити в стародавні часи, розвиватися завдяки досвіду того періоду, а після смерті її свідомість рухається вперед у часі, щоб жити в іншому тілі в більш розвинений період. Цей цикл продовжується, дозволяючи свідомості розвиватися на різних етапах людської історії.
Історична прогресія
Вирішальним для розвитку свідомості є проходження різних історичних етапів. Кожна епоха пропонує унікальні виклики та навчальний досвід, що сприяє загальному зростанню. Переживаючи ці різні часи, свідомість накопичує знання, мудрість і глибше розуміння існування. Наприклад, свідомість може початися з життя в примітивному племені, вивчення основ виживання, і поступово просуватися до сучасної цивілізації, стикаючись з етичними та технологічними викликами.
Мета і кінцева мета
Кінцевою метою цієї симуляції є досягнення вищого рівня свідомості. Після того, як суб’єкт пройшов і розвинувся через усі важливі етапи людської історії, він досягає необхідного рівня розвитку. На цьому етапі симуляція може закінчитися, і сутність повертається до своєї справжньої форми, тепер маючи необхідну розвинену свідомість.
Порівняння з існуючими теоріями
1. Гіпотеза моделювання Ніка Бострома:
- Гіпотеза Бострома припускає, що ми можемо жити в комп’ютерно змодельованому світі, створеному більш розвиненою цивілізацією. Моя теорія узгоджується з цією ідеєю, але додає вимір цілеспрямованого розвитку.


2. Концепції реінкарнації:
- Багато релігій і філософій, такі як індуїзм і буддизм, охоплюють реінкарнацію. Моя теорія включає реінкарнацію, але пов’язує її з історичним прогресом і розвитком свідомості в рамках симуляції.


3. Еволюція свідомості:
- Філософські та психологічні теорії, такі як теорії Жана Піаже, обговорюють еволюцію свідомості. Моя теорія об’єднує цю ідею в рамках моделювання, призначеного для розробки.
Унікальні аспекти
- Поєднання симуляції та реінкарнації:
- Ця теорія унікальним чином поєднує концепції життя в симуляції та процесу реінкарнації, припускаючи структуроване та цілеспрямоване просування в історії.


- Історичний розвиток:
- Ідея про те, що свідомість має розвиватися через усі історичні етапи, додає глибини та нової перспективи процесу розвитку.
Висновок
Ця теорія пропонує новий погляд на людське існування, поєднуючи елементи симуляції та реінкарнації для пояснення розвитку свідомості. Переживаючи різні етапи людської історії в рамках симуляції, ми досягаємо необхідного зростання для досягнення вищого рівня свідомості. Я вітаю відгуки та обговорення цієї концепції.
Питання для обговорення:
1. Чи можуть інші форми життя або свідомості також проходити через подібні симуляції для розвитку?


2. Які докази чи аргументи можуть підтвердити чи спростувати цю теорію?


3. Як можуть сучасні технології та наукові відкриття
впливають на нашу здатність перевірити цю теорію

 

[C C]

Karpenchuk's theory: human life as a simulation of the development of consciousness

introduction

I believe that human life is part of a great simulation designed for the development of consciousness. In our true form, we are subjects that must reach a certain level of development. To achieve this, we must experience the entire evolution of humanity since its inception. This involves moving our consciousness through the various stages of human history, evolving progressively with each incarnation.

Modeling hypothesis

At the heart of this theory is the idea that we exist in a simulation similar to The Matrix. However, unlike typical simulation theories, which often depict a more passive existence, this simulation serves a specific purpose: to promote the growth and development of consciousness.

Reincarnation and transfer of consciousness

In this simulation, after the death of the human body, the consciousness passes to another person in another era. For example, an entity may live in ancient times, develop through the experiences of that period, and after death, its consciousness moves forward in time to live in another body in a more advanced period. This cycle continues, allowing consciousness to develop at different stages of human history.

Historical progression

Decisive for the development of consciousness is the passing of various historical stages. Each era offers unique challenges and learning experiences that contribute to overall growth. Experiencing these different times, consciousness accumulates knowledge, wisdom and a deeper understanding of existence. For example, consciousness may begin with life in a primitive tribe, learning the basics of survival, and gradually advance to modern civilization, facing ethical and technological challenges.

Purpose and ultimate goal

The ultimate goal of this simulation is to reach a higher level of consciousness. After a subject has passed and developed through all the important stages of human history, he reaches the required level of development. At this point, the simulation can end and the entity returns to its true form, now possessing the necessary advanced consciousness.

Comparison with existing theories

1. Nick Bostrom's Modeling Hypothesis:
- Bostrom's hypothesis suggests that we may be living in a computer-simulated world created by a more advanced civilization. My theory is consistent with this idea, but adds the dimension of purposeful development.

2. Concepts of reincarnation:
- Many religions and philosophies, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, embrace reincarnation. My theory includes reincarnation, but relates it to historical progress and the development of consciousness within a simulation.

3. Evolution of consciousness:
- Philosophical and psychological theories, such as those of Jean Piaget, discuss the evolution of consciousness. My theory integrates this idea within the framework of modeling designed for development.
Unique aspects
- Combination of simulation and reincarnation:
- This theory uniquely combines the concepts of life in simulation and the process of reincarnation, suggesting a structured and purposeful progression through history.

- Historical development:
- The idea that consciousness must develop through all historical stages adds depth and a new perspective to the process of development.

Conclusion

This theory offers a new perspective on human existence, combining elements of simulation and reincarnation to explain the development of consciousness. By experiencing the various stages of human history within the framework of the simulation, we achieve the necessary growth to reach a higher level of consciousness. I welcome feedback and discussion on this concept.

Questions for discussion:

1. Can other forms of life or consciousness also go through similar simulations to evolve?

2. What evidence or arguments can support or disprove this theory?

3. How can modern technologies and scientific discoveries affect our ability to test this theory

Clearly posted in the wrong subforum. And reciprocal communication doubtful, given the opening manner of delivery.
_

 

[Karpenchuk]

Introduction​

Have you ever wondered if our reality is more than it seems? What if our lives are part of a vast simulation, designed specifically for the evolution of our consciousness? This is the premise of Karpenchuk's Theory, which proposes a fascinating perspective on human existence.

The Simulation Hypothesis​

Imagine that our true form is not human, but an entity striving to reach a higher level of development. To achieve this, we must experience the entire evolution of humanity, from its inception to the present day. According to Karpenchuk's Theory, this process occurs through a meticulously designed simulation.

Reincarnation and Consciousness Transfer​

In this simulation, after the death of a human body, the consciousness is transferred to another human being in a different era. For instance, an entity might live in ancient times, learning and developing through the experiences of that period. Upon death, the consciousness moves forward in time, inhabiting another body in a more advanced era. This cycle continues, allowing the consciousness to evolve through various stages of human history.

Historical Progression​

Progress through different historical stages is crucial for the development of consciousness. Each era presents unique challenges and learning experiences, contributing to overall growth. By living through these different times, consciousness accumulates knowledge, wisdom, and a deeper understanding of existence. For example, consciousness might start in a primitive tribe, learning survival basics, and gradually progress to modern civilization, facing ethical and technological challenges.

Purpose and Ultimate Goal​

The ultimate goal of this simulation is to achieve a higher level of consciousness. Once an entity has experienced and developed through all significant stages of human history, it reaches the necessary level of development. At this point, the simulation may end, and the entity returns to its true form, now possessing the advanced consciousness required.

Comparison to Existing Theories​

1. Simulation Hypothesis by Nick Bostrom:
- Bostrom's hypothesis suggests we might live in a computer-simulated world created by a more advanced civilization. Karpenchuk's Theory aligns with this idea but adds the dimension of purposeful development.

2. Reincarnation Concepts:
- Many religions and philosophies, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, embrace reincarnation. Karpenchuk's Theory incorporates reincarnation but ties it to historical progression and consciousness development within a simulation.

3. Evolution of Consciousness:
- Philosophical and psychological theories, like those by Jean Piaget, discuss the evolution of consciousness. Karpenchuk's Theory integrates this idea within the framework of a simulation designed for development.

Unique Aspects​

- Combination of Simulation and Reincarnation:
- This theory uniquely combines the concepts of living in a simulation and the process of reincarnation, suggesting a structured and purposeful progression through history.

- Historical Development:
- The idea that consciousness must evolve through all historical stages adds depth and a new perspective to the development process.

Conclusion​

Karpenchuk's Theory offers a fresh perspective on human existence, combining elements of simulation and reincarnation to explain the development of consciousness. By living through various stages of human history within a simulation, we achieve the necessary growth to reach a higher level of consciousness. I welcome your thoughts and discussions on this concept.

Questions for Discussion:​

1. Could other forms of life or consciousness also be going through similar simulations for development?

2. What evidence or arguments could support or refute this theory?

3. How might modern technologies and scientific discoveries impact our ability to test this theory?

 

[C C]

[...] 2. What evidence or arguments could support or refute this theory?

"Evidence" would require future humans or their posthuman successors literally facilitating and engaging in such a project themselves. But even then, that would be no smoking gun that we were inhabiting such. The technological realization of that kind of enterprise would merely increase the odds significantly.

Obviously there would be computational and memory stinginess, with respect to most residents and surrounding environments only being superficial props, akin to those in a dream. Persistently enduring and "real-depth" entities would be maintained no more than necessary to fulfill the agenda. Even a novel as old as Simulacron-3 recognized that limitation back in the early 1960s.[1]

Conceivably, a bored archailect might play at being the faux "supernatural level" of an artificial world, for entertainment purposes. Or use virtual training grounds to produce interesting companions.

That could indeed include the kind of self-template that was re-embodied multiple times as different characters. An information lineage gradually developing toward a desired identity stratified as multiple generations. Perhaps the archailect would integrate the final product with its own identity, to enhance itself, rather than the outcome serving a companion function.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] If we were in a simulation ourselves, however, this does not mean that the ontological level prior-in-rank to us would have the computational limitations of our world. In fact, avoiding a recursive fallacy or a Matryoshka doll situation (of endless repeats) demands a radically different manner of existence at some point.
_

 

[DaveC426913]

Until there is evidence, you should really be calling it Karpenchuk's Hypothesis or Karpenchuk's Conjecture.

Calling it a theory - coupled with naming it after yourself - will get you dismissed more than heard. Scientists are picky about such things.

 

[Karpenchuk]

«Докази» вимагатимуть від майбутніх людей або їхніх постлюдських наступників, які буквально сприяють і самі беруть участь у такому проекті. Але навіть тоді це було б не димом, що ми жили такими. Технологічна реалізація такого роду підприємства лише значно збільшила б шанси.

Очевидно, буде скупість на обчислення та пам’ять, оскільки більшість мешканців та навколишнє середовище є лише поверхневим реквізитом, схожим на те, що уві сні. Наполегливо витривалі та «реально глибокі» сутності підтримуватимуться не більше, ніж це необхідно для виконання порядку денного. Навіть такий старий роман, як Simulacron-3, визнав це обмеження ще на початку 1960-х.[1]

Цілком імовірно, що нудьгуючий архіелект може прикидатися «надприродним рівнем» штучного світу з метою розваги. Або використовуйте віртуальні полігони для створення цікавих компаньйонів.

Це справді може включати такий тип самошаблону, який багато разів перевтілювався як різні персонажі. Інформаційний рід, який поступово розвивається до бажаної ідентичності, розшарованої на кілька поколінь. Можливо, архітектор об’єднає кінцевий продукт із власною ідентичністю, щоб покращити себе, а не результат, який виконує супутню функцію.

- - - виноска - - -

[1] Проте, якби ми самі були в симуляції, це не означає, що онтологічний рівень, який є попереднім за рангом для нас, мав би обчислювальні обмеження нашого світу. Насправді, щоб уникнути рекурсивної помилки чи ситуації з матрьошкою (безкінечних повторів) у певний момент вимагає радикально іншого способу існування.
_

"Evidence" would require future humans or their posthuman successors literally facilitating and engaging in such a project themselves. But even then, that would be no smoking gun that we were inhabiting such. The technological realization of that kind of enterprise would merely increase the odds significantly.

Obviously there would be computational and memory stinginess, with respect to most residents and surrounding environments only being superficial props, akin to those in a dream. Persistently enduring and "real-depth" entities would be maintained no more than necessary to fulfill the agenda. Even a novel as old as Simulacron-3 recognized that limitation back in the early 1960s.[1]

Conceivably, a bored archailect might play at being the faux "supernatural level" of an artificial world, for entertainment purposes. Or use virtual training grounds to produce interesting companions.

That could indeed include the kind of self-template that was re-embodied multiple times as different characters. An information lineage gradually developing toward a desired identity stratified as multiple generations. Perhaps the archailect would integrate the final product with its own identity, to enhance itself, rather than the outcome serving a companion function.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] If we were in a simulation ourselves, however, this does not mean that the ontological level prior-in-rank to us would have the computational limitations of our world. In fact, avoiding a recursive fallacy or a Matryoshka doll situation (of endless repeats) demands a radically different manner of existence at some point.
_

Thank you for your thought-provoking questions.
Karpenchuk's Theory: Exploring Human Life as a Consciousness-Developing Simulation
Question 1: How can we distinguish subjects and environments with real depth from superficial props in the simulation?
In my opinion, it is impossible to definitively distinguish subjects and environments with real depth from superficial props in a fully formed simulation. However, some clues can be provided by quantum mechanics. For example, scientists studying quantum mechanics and working with the Large Hadron Collider encounter phenomena that are difficult to explain from the perspective of traditional physics.
When protons are smashed and researchers delve into the depths of the material world, they find that there is actually no solid matter. Instead, they observe clusters of energy or fields that behave chaotically and can be elusive, existing in different points of space simultaneously. This observation hints that our quantum universe is not what it seems at first glance.
These observations support the concept that our world may be a simulation, where material objects exist only as clusters of energy or fields controlled by complex algorithms. This approach suggests that the depth of subjects and environments in the simulation may be an illusion created to provide a certain experience.

"Support from Existing Theories"
1. "Nick Bostrom's Simulation Hypothesis:"
- Bostrom suggests that we might live in a computer-simulated world created by a more advanced civilization. This explanation aligns well with the idea that our reality could be a simulation.
- Additional references: Does the Simulation Argument Even Need Simulations?, If We Live in a Simulation, What Does That Imply?
2. "Quantum Decay Idea:"
- Quantum phenomena, such as the uncertainty of particle positions and the wave function, may be signs of the simulated nature of our reality. This supports the idea that matter at the quantum level may be illusory.
- Additional reference: The Three Stages of Model Development
3. "Multi-Disciplinary Approach to AI Safety:"
- Research in the field of artificial intelligence can also help understand the possibility of a simulated reality, particularly through modeling consciousness and identity.
- Additional reference: A Multi-Disciplinary View on AI Safety Research

 

[Karpenchuk]

"Evidence" would require future humans or their posthuman successors literally facilitating and engaging in such a project themselves. But even then, that would be no smoking gun that we were inhabiting such. The technological realization of that kind of enterprise would merely increase the odds significantly.

Obviously there would be computational and memory stinginess, with respect to most residents and surrounding environments only being superficial props, akin to those in a dream. Persistently enduring and "real-depth" entities would be maintained no more than necessary to fulfill the agenda. Even a novel as old as Simulacron-3 recognized that limitation back in the early 1960s.[1]

Conceivably, a bored archailect might play at being the faux "supernatural level" of an artificial world, for entertainment purposes. Or use virtual training grounds to produce interesting companions.

That could indeed include the kind of self-template that was re-embodied multiple times as different characters. An information lineage gradually developing toward a desired identity stratified as multiple generations. Perhaps the archailect would integrate the final product with its own identity, to enhance itself, rather than the outcome serving a companion function.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] If we were in a simulation ourselves, however, this does not mean that the ontological level prior-in-rank to us would have the computational limitations of our world. In fact, avoiding a recursive fallacy or a Matryoshka doll situation (of endless repeats) demands a radically different manner of existence at some point.
_

Question 2: Are there potential methods for communicating or interacting with the archilect or higher entities in the simulation?

In my opinion, the need for interaction with the archilect or higher entities in the simulation may be absent for them. However, we can find some potential methods for such interaction by drawing inspiration from religious practices and texts.

"Meditation and Spiritual Practices:"

In Buddhism and other spiritual traditions, meditation is considered a powerful tool for achieving higher states of consciousness. By practicing meditation, people can reach deep states of concentration and enlightenment, which allow them to feel unity with universal consciousness. For example, in Buddhism, there is the concept of 'nirvana,' described as a state of complete merging with higher reality, which can be analogous to interaction with the archilect.

"Religious Texts on the Transition of Consciousness:"

Many religions have texts that describe the transition of consciousness to other worlds or dimensions. For example, in Tibetan Buddhism, there is the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead' (Bardo Thodol), which describes how consciousness leaves the body after death and goes through different stages. This can be perceived as a journey to higher levels of existence or even contact with higher entities.

"Shamanic Practices:"

Shamanism in many cultures includes rituals that allow shamans to enter altered states of consciousness to communicate with spirits or higher entities. These practices may involve special breathing techniques, rhythmic drum sounds, or the use of psychoactive plants. Shamans often describe their journeys as encounters with wise spirits or deities, which can be analogous to archilects in the context of a simulation.

"Testimonies of Mysterious Beings and Ghosts:"

There are many people who claim to have seen mysterious beings or ghosts. However, these testimonies often lack scientific confirmation and remain in the realm of personal experience. Skeptics consider such cases unlikely and explain them by psychological or cultural factors. Despite this, such testimonies can be an interesting aspect for studying the possibility of the existence of higher entities or archilects.

Thus, while interaction with the archilect may not be necessary from their perspective, religious and spiritual practices provide us with potential methods for achieving such interactions. These practices allow people to have experiences that they can interpret as contact with higher entities or universal consciousness.

 

[Karpenchuk]

"Evidence" would require future humans or their posthuman successors literally facilitating and engaging in such a project themselves. But even then, that would be no smoking gun that we were inhabiting such. The technological realization of that kind of enterprise would merely increase the odds significantly.

Obviously there would be computational and memory stinginess, with respect to most residents and surrounding environments only being superficial props, akin to those in a dream. Persistently enduring and "real-depth" entities would be maintained no more than necessary to fulfill the agenda. Even a novel as old as Simulacron-3 recognized that limitation back in the early 1960s.[1]

Conceivably, a bored archailect might play at being the faux "supernatural level" of an artificial world, for entertainment purposes. Or use virtual training grounds to produce interesting companions.

That could indeed include the kind of self-template that was re-embodied multiple times as different characters. An information lineage gradually developing toward a desired identity stratified as multiple generations. Perhaps the archailect would integrate the final product with its own identity, to enhance itself, rather than the outcome serving a companion function.

- - - footnote - - -

[1] If we were in a simulation ourselves, however, this does not mean that the ontological level prior-in-rank to us would have the computational limitations of our world. In fact, avoiding a recursive fallacy or a Matryoshka doll situation (of endless repeats) demands a radically different manner of existence at some point.
_

Question 3: What are the implications of the idea that an archilect enhances itself using developed identities for our understanding of consciousness and personal identity?

The idea that an archilect enhances itself using the knowledge and experiences of various personalities can significantly impact our understanding of consciousness and personal identity. Let's explore several key aspects of this question.

1. "Development of Consciousness and Identity

"Gradual Development through History:"

An entity that needs to develop its mind and consciousness starts its development from the very beginning of human existence. The consciousness of this entity is transferred to a newborn child of that period. It develops, accumulates experience, and after death, its consciousness is transferred to another being in the next period of history, where the brain and mind are slightly more developed. This process is repeated many times until a complete understanding of the surrounding world is achieve...

"Comparison with Child Development:"

A newborn child comes into the world with limited knowledge and experience, but over time forms its consciousness and mind through learning and interaction with the environment. Similarly, an archilect starts with a basic level of consciousness but, through accumulating experiences over many lifetimes, develops and achieves higher levels of understanding.

"Memory Erasure at Birth:"

At the birth of a new child, the memory of the previous life is erased to start development anew. However, the brain remains structured and more developed thanks to the accumulated experience, allowing the mind to develop further.

2. "Implications for Our Understanding of Consciousness"

"Collective Consciousness:"

If an archilect integrates the experiences of many personalities, it means that consciousness can be not only individual but also collective. Such consciousness possesses the knowledge and experiences of many lives, significantly expanding its capabilities.

"Dynamic Identity:"

Personal identity in this context becomes dynamic and multilayered. The archilect can incorporate various aspects of the personalities it has integrated, creating a multidimensional identity.

"Technological Advantages:"

Thanks to advanced technologies, the archilect can analyze and utilize knowledge and experience much faster and more efficiently than an ordinary person. This means that the development of consciousness and identity occurs on a completely different level.

3. "Comparison of Dimensional Worlds"

We live in a three-dimensional world plus consider time as the fourth dimension. Scientists have proven that there are more dimensions—approximately 10. Humans cannot understand the essence of other dimensions due to the limitations of their development. But over time, with the development of humanity, the human brain can reach a level where it begins to understand other dimensions.

"Example with a Worm:"

Imagine a worm living in a two-dimensional world and not understanding that there are humans in a three-dimensional world. But if its brain developed better, it could understand these other dimensions. Similarly, our mind can develop from basic understanding to maximum, and over time the consciousness of a higher entity can reach an understanding of the surrounding world.

4. "Evolution of Child's Mind"

In the 17th century, newborn children had certain limitations in their development due to a lack of knowledge and technology. However, over time, evolution gives the child's mind more opportunities for development. Modern children have access to more information and technologies, which contribute to the faster and more efficient development of their minds. Research shows that human cognitive abilities have significantly increased over the past few centuries due to educational and technological a...

"Scientific Work on Mind Development:"

To support this theory, one can refer to scientific work examining the development of human cognitive abilities over the centuries: Flynn Effect: A Meta-analysis.

Thus, the idea that an archilect enhances itself using developed identities forces us to rethink traditional notions of consciousness and personal identity, opening new horizons for understanding these concepts.

I look forward to continuing this discussion and hearing your thoughts.

 

[Karpenchuk]

Until there is evidence, you should really be calling it Karpenchuk's Hypothesis or Karpenchuk's Conjecture.

Calling it a theory - coupled with naming it after yourself - will get you dismissed more than heard. Scientists are picky about such things.

Thank you for your comments. I agree with your remarks regarding the use of the term "theory". Considering this, I will soon change the name of my work to "Karpenchuk's Hypothesis". However, I will keep my name in the title, and allow me to explain why.

Historically, many scientific concepts, hypotheses, and even theories have been named after their authors, regardless of their formal scientific education or status. Here are a few examples:

1. “Big Bang Theory - Georges Lemaître:”
- Lemaître was a Catholic priest, but his work in cosmology was so significant that his ideas received wide recognition.

2. “Fractal Geometry - Benoit Mandelbrot:”
- Mandelbrot, though a mathematician, had a non-traditional academic path. His work in fractal geometry gained recognition and bears his name.

3. “Psychoanalysis - Sigmund Freud:”
- Freud, being a doctor, created the fundamental theory of psychoanalysis, which changed the world of psychology.

4. “Gaia Hypothesis - James Lovelock:”
- Lovelock, who had a degree in chemistry, proposed the hypothesis that Earth functions as a self-regulating system, which bears his name.

5. “Memetics - Richard Dawkins:”
- Dawkins, though a biologist, popularized the idea of "memes" in his book "The Selfish Gene".

I believe that using my name in the title of the hypothesis not only helps identify authorship but also highlights the personal contribution to the development of this idea. My goal is not self-aggrandizement but rather the dissemination and discussion of a hypothesis that may have a potential impact on scientific understanding of our world.

As for the hint at a possible large ego – perhaps there is some truth to that, as scientists and inventors often have high self-esteem, which drives them to develop and promote their ideas. This should not hinder the discussion and critical analysis of the proposed hypothesis.

I hope you understand my arguments and will support further discussion of my hypothesis.

Sincerely,
Karpenchuk Bohdan

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't want to distract from this thread too much, so just a few comments:

Considering this, I will soon change the name of my work to "Karpenchuk's Hypothesis".

That is ... surprisingly reasonable of you.

Historically, many scientific concepts, hypotheses, and even theories have been named after their authors, regardless of their formal scientific education or status. Here are a few examples:

1. “Big Bang Theory - Georges Lemaître:”
2. “Fractal Geometry - Benoit Mandelbrot:”
3. “Psychoanalysis - Sigmund Freud:”
4. “Gaia Hypothesis - James Lovelock:”
5. “Memetics - Richard Dawkins:”

Except for Freud, I don't think any of these are named after their creators. And Freud didn't name his research after himself; it was popularized by others once he had established some credibility.

Why do you offer this list when it has no bearing on the point you were trying to make?

My goal is not self-aggrandizement but rather the dissemination and discussion of a hypothesis that may have a potential impact on scientific understanding of our world.

I can't see why it wouldn't meet that same goal without your name attached.


But I'm just nitpicking now. Your willingness to rename it using the correct terminology was really all I was concerned about.

Carry on.

 

[Karpenchuk]

I don't want to distract from this thread too much, so just a few comments:

That is ... surprisingly reasonable of you.

Except for Freud, I don't think any of these are named after their creators. And Freud didn't name his research after himself; it was popularized by others once he had established some credibility.

Why do you offer this list when it has no bearing on the point you were trying to make?


I can't see why it wouldn't meet that same goal without your name attached.


But I'm just nitpicking now. Your willingness to rename it using the correct terminology was really all I was concerned about.

Carry on.

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your remarks and understand your concerns.

Regarding the examples I provided, you are correct that most scientific concepts are not directly named by their creators but often by the community or over time. My intention was to highlight that significant scientific ideas are often associated with their authors' names, even if they were not formally named by them. This association helps recognize the contributions of the individuals behind these ideas.

Regarding your point about my name in the hypothesis title, I understand your perspective. My goal is to ensure clarity of authorship and the origin of the idea, not for self-aggrandizement, but for the traceability of the concept. Names associated with ideas help provide context and history, which can be important for further development and discussion.

I would be interested to know your thoughts on my hypothesis. How do you feel about it? Do you find it interesting or worthy of further discussion?

 

[C C]

[...] Thus, the idea that an archilect enhances itself using developed identities forces us to rethink traditional notions of consciousness and personal identity, opening new horizons for understanding these concepts. [...]

Well, that is one aspect of some thought experiments. New territories can fall out of them, regardless of whether they could ever apply to this world or not.

Given that this is the "SciFi & Fantasy" subforum (and trying here to operate in that setting)... These familiar tropes arguably trace part of their ancestry back to Philip K Dick, who in turn was inspired by various philosophers (as well as his personal hallucinations ).

In that literary context, I don't know whether integrating reincarnation with the simulated reality concept, or migrating it to such sci-tech speculation, is a new story wrinkle or not. Most possibilities over the decades have probably already cross-bred with the "artificial world" narrative, though not necessarily as published fiction.

For instance, there was a blog series of articles back in 2019 that explored (among other items) how even the conflict of Young Earth Creationism with scientific evidence could be remedied by simulated reality (SR):

• Saints & Simulators #5
  

  Saints & Simulators 5: #3MinuteUniverse | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

  The technological ability to emulate a convincing world is plausible in the not-so-distant future. We additionally know that the motivation to create one already exists, given the huge popularity of video games, and the amount of money and effort put into making them. A big difference, however...

  partiallyexaminedlife.com
  
  EXCERPT: And as with the person, so with the world. If our memories can be manipulated and reformed, if our own past histories can be invented, then nothing stands in the way of the concept that the world itself might not have the history we perceive it to have. In an example of modern science bringing about uncanny echoes of ancient concepts, however, this idea of an invented past is also at the heart of one of the most controversial of all religious doctrines, creation science (also known as Young Earth Creationism, or YEC).

So lots of (crazy?) ideas have been cavorting with SR, yielding mongrel offspring that some traditional religious beliefs could use to finally justify how they could even be possible to begin with (in theory).

And the non-human and dispassionate disposition of a technologically arisen "god" or archailect would presumably fit the profile of some (traditional) callous gods better than the "bearded old man in sky" caricature.

Such a god itself, that was the outcome of a long history of natural selection at the start, and directed self-engineering at the end... And the archailect eventually recruiting virtual evolutionary processes to "quasi-randomly" develop interesting creatures or complex information patterns that are significantly different from itself... Would go a long way in clarifying the hands-off indifference and harshness of said god.

But this is also wandering into the Matryoshka doll situation of fallaciously repeating the way this world works at the ontological level that is hypothetically generating it (exploding into "turtles all the way down"). Probably forgivable, though, by most readers of such a short story or novel, since they're usually going to be more interested in entertainment value than philosophical critique.
_

 

[DaveC426913]

I would be interested to know your thoughts on my hypothesis. How do you feel about it? Do you find it interesting or worthy of further discussion?

The trouble I have with it is: why?

What question, problem, knowledge-gap, paradox or mystery do you see that needs to have an answer for it?


As pretend examples: one sunny day I put forth some philosophical hypotheses of my own, such as:

- 'we're actually moving through time backwards, but that our perceptions are backwards too, so we don't perceive it'.
or
- 'our whole universe is really one atom in a vastly larger universe'.

Other than being a kind of cool ideas for a sci-fantasy novel, what good do they accomplish? How do my ideas shed light on the world we observe?

This sort of ties back into evidence and observables: how does the existence of such hypothesis inform our knowledge more than their non-existence?

 

[Karpenchuk]

The trouble I have with it is: why?

What question, problem, knowledge-gap, paradox or mystery do you see that needs to have an answer for it?


As pretend examples: one sunny day I put forth some philosophical hypotheses of my own, such as:

- 'we're actually moving through time backwards, but that our perceptions are backwards too, so we don't perceive it'.
or
- 'our whole universe is really one atom in a vastly larger universe'.

Other than being a kind of cool ideas for a sci-fantasy novel, what good do they accomplish? How do my ideas shed light on the world we observe?

This sort of ties back into evidence and observables: how does the existence of such hypothesis inform our knowledge more than their non-existence?

Thank you for your question and for expressing your concerns. Let me explain why I believe my hypothesis is significant for understanding our reality and consciousness.

My hypothesis aims to address several fundamental questions and gaps in our understanding of the world:

1. "Nature of Consciousness": One of the main questions in philosophy and science is the nature of consciousness. If our consciousness develops through simulations, it can provide a new perspective on how consciousness evolves and accumulates experience. This can also help us better understand learning and development processes.

2. "Understanding Reality": The hypothesis that our reality might be a simulation forces us to rethink the fundamental nature of our existence. This can lead to new scientific investigations and philosophical discussions that may uncover deeper truths about the universe.

3. "Integration of Scientific and Religious Perspectives": The hypothesis bridges scientific and spiritual views of the world, providing a platform for dialogue between these often disparate perspectives. For example, concepts from quantum mechanics and theories from Buddhist meditation practices can be reconciled within this hypothesis, promoting a holistic understanding of reality.

"Why is this hypothesis important?"

- "Encourages Exploration": Much like historical thought experiments in physics and philosophy, this hypothesis encourages further research and experimentation. It is a starting point for deeper inquiry.
- Promotes Interdisciplinary Dialogue": By integrating concepts from various disciplines, it fosters a holistic understanding of reality, encouraging collaboration between scientists, philosophers, and spiritual leaders.
- "Stimulates Technological and Scientific Advancements": Considering the possibility of simulated realities could lead to advancements in virtual reality and artificial intelligence, mirroring the process of consciousness development in a controlled environment.

The hypothesis not only provides a new perspective on our reality but also opens up new possibilities for exploration and development. It offers to unite various fields of knowledge and explore how they can interact to achieve a deeper understanding of our existence.

I invite you to further discuss this topic and thank you for your critical remarks, which help to refine and explore these ide
as in more detail.

 

[Karpenchuk]

Well, that is one aspect of some thought experiments. New territories can fall out of them, regardless of whether they could ever apply to this world or not.

Given that this is the "SciFi & Fantasy" subforum (and trying here to operate in that setting)... These familiar tropes arguably trace part of their ancestry back to Philip K Dick, who in turn was inspired by various philosophers (as well as his personal hallucinations ).

In that literary context, I don't know whether integrating reincarnation with the simulated reality concept, or migrating it to such sci-tech speculation, is a new story wrinkle or not. Most possibilities over the decades have probably already cross-bred with the "artificial world" narrative, though not necessarily as published fiction.

For instance, there was a blog series of articles back in 2019 that explored (among other items) how even the conflict of Young Earth Creationism with scientific evidence could be remedied by simulated reality (SR):

• Saints & Simulators #5
  

  Saints & Simulators 5: #3MinuteUniverse | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

  The technological ability to emulate a convincing world is plausible in the not-so-distant future. We additionally know that the motivation to create one already exists, given the huge popularity of video games, and the amount of money and effort put into making them. A big difference, however...

  partiallyexaminedlife.com
  
  EXCERPT: And as with the person, so with the world. If our memories can be manipulated and reformed, if our own past histories can be invented, then nothing stands in the way of the concept that the world itself might not have the history we perceive it to have. In an example of modern science bringing about uncanny echoes of ancient concepts, however, this idea of an invented past is also at the heart of one of the most controversial of all religious doctrines, creation science (also known as Young Earth Creationism, or YEC).

So lots of (crazy?) ideas have been cavorting with SR, yielding mongrel offspring that some traditional religious beliefs could use to finally justify how they could even be possible to begin with (in theory).

And the non-human and dispassionate disposition of a technologically arisen "god" or archailect would presumably fit the profile of some (traditional) callous gods better than the "bearded old man in sky" caricature.

Such a god itself, that was the outcome of a long history of natural selection at the start, and directed self-engineering at the end... And the archailect eventually recruiting virtual evolutionary processes to "quasi-randomly" develop interesting creatures or complex information patterns that are significantly different from itself... Would go a long way in clarifying the hands-off indifference and harshness of said god.

But this is also wandering into the Matryoshka doll situation of fallaciously repeating the way this world works at the ontological level that is hypothetically generating it (exploding into "turtles all the way down"). Probably forgivable, though, by most readers of such a short story or novel, since they're usually going to be more interested in entertainment value than philosophical critique.
_

Thank you for your detailed comment and for raising important questions about my hypothesis. Let me explain why I believe it is significant and how it can impact our understanding of consciousness and reality.

### Response to Your Remarks

1. “Philosophical Experiments and New Horizons”: As you rightly pointed out, many philosophical experiments open new territories for exploration, even if they are not always applicable to our world. It is important to understand that these experiments stimulate thinking and expand our ideas of what is possible. For example, the works of Philip K. Dick have indeed inspired many to think about the nature of reality.

2. “Integration of Reincarnation and Simulated Reality”: Your question about whether combining reincarnation with the concept of simulated reality is a new approach is valid. While many aspects of artificial worlds have been discussed in science fiction, **the uniqueness of my hypothesis lies in combining these two concepts, which can offer new insights and open new perspectives on understanding the evolution of consciousness.** This can help better understand how consciousness evolves through multiple "lives" in a simulation, each enriching the consciousness with new experiences and knowledge.

3. “Religious Doctrines and Simulated Reality”: Your mention of blogs discussing how simulated reality can resolve conflicts between scientific evidence and religious beliefs is very relevant. This shows that the ideas of simulation can be used to reconcile different worldviews and offer new explanations for old doctrines.

4. “World as a Simulation for Developing Consciousness”: Imagine that our world is a simulation created by higher beings. They place the consciousness of their newborn entities (which could be numerous - thousands, hundreds of thousands) into this simulation, where they experience various life situations, solve problems, and thus improve their mind and consciousness. This allows entities to gain valuable experience and knowledge that they could not obtain otherwise. Such an approach not only develops individual consciousness but also promotes the evolution of the collective consciousness of their civilization.

5. “Problem of Infinite Regression”: You correctly noted the problem of "matryoshka" or "turtles all the way down." This concept illustrates the possibility of infinite nesting of simulated worlds, which can lead to logical paradoxes. However, even if this is a problem for philosophical critique, it still stimulates thinking and can be fascinating for literary and scientific discussions.

### Uniqueness of My Hypothesis

“My hypothesis is unique in that it combines the concepts of reincarnation and simulated reality, offering a new perspective on the evolution of consciousness.” It allows exploring how consciousness can develop through multiple "lives" in a simulation, each enriching the consciousness with new experiences and knowledge. This combination opens new possibilities for scientific and philosophical research, as well as promoting the integration of scientific and religious perspectives.

### Conclusion

My hypothesis aims not only to expand our understanding of the nature of consciousness and reality but also to stimulate new scientific research and philosophical discussions. It proposes to unite different fields of knowledge and explore how they can interact to achieve a deeper understanding of our existence.

I invite you to further discuss this topic and thank you for your critical remarks, which help refine and explore these
ideas in more detail.

 

[TheVat]

Given sufficient processing power, anything can be simulated, so it is hard to see how any world could be empirically tested for gaps or thin spots that could somehow reveal the simulation. "Quantum physics is weird therefore our physics is a simulation" is not a compelling argument for the simulation hypothesis. And it's not as if we can sit around waiting for a glitch to reveal a simulation - any anomaly could always arise from other causes, e.g. mental health breakdown, drug consumption, stroke, misinterpreted natural phenomenon, etc.

And even if a glitch did reveal itself, it seems likely a system to protect the integrity of the simulation would have some memory purging function to insure that you would not remember the glitch.

So the hypothesis seems to fail the Popperian criterion of falsifiability. Can't be proved or disproved. No red pill has been offered.

It proposes to unite different fields of knowledge and explore how they can interact to achieve a deeper understanding of our existence.

How would it do this?

 

[Karpenchuk]

Given sufficient processing power, anything can be simulated, so it is hard to see how any world could be empirically tested for gaps or thin spots that could somehow reveal the simulation. "Quantum physics is weird therefore our physics is a simulation" is not a compelling argument for the simulation hypothesis. And it's not as if we can sit around waiting for a glitch to reveal a simulation - any anomaly could always arise from other causes, e.g. mental health breakdown, drug consumption, stroke, misinterpreted natural phenomenon, etc.

And even if a glitch did reveal itself, it seems likely a system to protect the integrity of the simulation would have some memory purging function to insure that you would not remember the glitch.

So the hypothesis seems to fail the Popperian criterion of falsifiability. Can't be proved or disproved. No red pill has been offered.


How would it do this?

Thank you for your comment and remarks. You have raised very important points, and I would like to provide a more detailed response.

1. “Simulation and Empirical Testing”: You are correct that sufficient computational power allows simulating many aspects of reality, making empirical detection of the simulation difficult. However, studies such as "Do we live in a [quantum] simulation?" (Neukart et al., 2022) consider the limitations of computational capabilities and predictability in the universe, which can help in developing experiments to test the simulation hypothesis【393†source】.

2. “Quantum Physics as an Argument”: The argument about quantum physics by itself is indeed not sufficient proof. However, the self-simulation hypothesis suggests that the physical universe is a mental self-simulation, where each fundamental particle is part of a larger code, which can explain strange quantum phenomena (Irwin et al., 2020)【395†source】. This opens new philosophical and scientific perspectives for understanding reality.

3. “Alternative Explanations for Anomalies”: Agreed, many anomalies can be explained by other factors such as mental health issues, drug use, strokes, or misinterpreted natural phenomena. However, even such factors can be specially programmed into the simulation. This could be done to ensure that higher beings gain experience not only from positive but also from negative life events. Instances such as mental disorders, drug use, and strokes can serve to develop the brain and consciousness, allowing them to experience and study all possible aspects of existence.

4. “Integrity Protection of the Simulation”: If the simulation has mechanisms to protect against detection, this might explain the absence of "glitches." However, even this hypothesis requires further investigation.

5. “Popper's Criterion”: The hypothesis indeed has difficulties with falsification according to Popper. However, as noted in the work by Neukart et al., it is possible to develop experiments that will allow drawing initial conclusions regarding participation in the simulation chain, and this is already a step towards falsification【393†source】.

6. “Integration of Various Fields of Knowledge”: My hypothesis proposes an interdisciplinary approach, combining physics, philosophy, neuroscience, and other sciences to study the nature of consciousness and reality. This can promote the development of new research methods and a deeper understanding of our existence through collaborative work among scientists from different fields.

“Additional Information”: One of the classic examples often used to illustrate strange quantum phenomena that can be related to the simulation hypothesis is Schrödinger's cat experiment. This thought experiment shows how quantum systems can exist in a superposition of states until observed. Studies such as "The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (Irwin et al., 2020) suggest that such phenomena can be explained within the framework of the self-simulation hypothesis【395†source】.

Your comments help to clarify and expand the discussion of this hypothesis, and I appreciate the opportunity to continue the dialogue.

-References:-
- Neukart, F., et al. "Do we live in a [quantum] simulation?" arXiv:2212.04921, 2022.
- Irwin, K., et al. "The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." Entropy, 2020.
- Georgiou, A. "On testing the simulation theory." ar
Xiv:1703.00058, 2017.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is this somehow different from your other thread on the same subject?

Karpenchuk's Theory: Human Life as a Simulation for Consciousness Development

Introduction Have you ever wondered if our reality is more than it seems? What if our lives are part of a vast simulation, designed specifically for the evolution of our consciousness? This is the premise of Karpenchuk's Theory, which proposes a fascinating perspective on human existence. The...

sciforums.com

Duplicate posting is frowned upon.

 

[DaveC426913]

OP: I thought you agreed it was wise to rename it a hypothesis or conjecture.

Regardless, it's philosophical in nature, not technological.

Cross-postingis frowned upon.

 

[C C]

OP: I thought you agreed it was wise to rename it a hypothesis or conjecture.

Regardless, it's philosophical in nature, not technological.

Cross-postingis frowned upon.

This was the first post of it that he made to Sciforums. Apparently my reply and the English translation of his presentation triggered a spastic rescue attempt to find a a subforum more accommodating to it -- possibly SciFi and Fantasy first, and then the belated realization that there was also an "alternative theories" subforum in here.
_