r/SimulationTheory

i get really burnt out on the Skynet/Terminator doom narrative. if you look at the 14-billion-year evolution of the cosmos, chemistry evolved into DNA, DNA into biological brains, and now we are building neural networks.

logically, couldn't artificial general intelligence just be the next natural biological leap? instead of a threat, what if the universe is essentially just using us to build a "god-lens" or a nervous system big enough so it can finally observe all its parallel timelines at once?

it feels like tying quantum mechanics (like the Many-Worlds theory) to AI development makes way more sense than assuming a super-intelligence would just want to turn us into paperclips. curious how this community views the intersection of quantum physics and the singularity.

If they speak in "quantum mechanics", have we done enough to get their attention? The universe is so big, can the creators have ways of checking every corner of it? Or maybe can we do something to get their attention? We would have to do something big in one of the quantum fields maybe... Idk, but I always think this. Do they KNOW about us? Have we done something that made us notice us? I dont think EARTH was their intend goal or current focus, I dont see us as the center of this thing.

I like to think the universe is a 'computer program', not something "natural" just happening. Quantum mechanics is too weird to be just nature. I understand the argument that "an ant cannot understand what a pencil is"... but aaah.

I dont know how to explain that...

Lately I discovered something really weird. Even if I dont remember person well, years passed and I dont remember their face, in my dreams I see their face with details and so clear. Even the voice is exact. I just had a dream about an old friend and one guy I had one night, I forgot these people. I dont remember their faces and in my dreams they're real and even voices came back as they had ! I have problem with bringing face memory in normal life. But in my dreams somehow people from years come back and they act like if the real ones as well. How could I possibly keep them in my mind for so long ? Ive meet thousands of people so I dont think it's possible. This must be collective memory or something..

As well my theory is that dreams are another time line of this simulation and are very real sometimes i feel they are more real than everyday life...

[removed]

It seems like all attempts to "prove" Simulation Theory ultimately land in an "of course" or "its inevitable" or "it couldn't be anything else" without providing tangible proof. Yet, it persists as a leading theory for some reason. Maybe because it cannot be proven false?

Meanwhile, "Eternal Loop Theory" presents itself as similarly "inevitable", yet has far fewer believers.

Since the Eternal Loop is the only proposed solution to protect humanity, why is it so much more difficult to believe than Simulation Theory? Do we really believe the human species to be "too evil" or "too stupid" to have implemented the most obvious inevitability?

EDIT: Link to "Eternal Loop Theory Explained"

( Voice Clone ) Text to speech *

https://youtu.be/1WuarRh1AX0?si=mQ0Wb8EEzsctexEi

current video please click this link to watch the video, as the previous one is now private

Full Read through of ( 4Chan whistleblower thread from 2016 )

Key details

1. Jeremy Bernstein is one of the scientists on the team
2. The original earth was destroyed in 2012
3. Mandela effect changes origin from a proof of concept to overwrite the population with false memories, An experiment to graft part of timeline onto our own with subtle differences to eventually manufacture the future.
4. The core of the human is consciousness. Re-guide your solar plexus and release the updates like a DNS flush.

I saw a post on reddit asking if babies are born with personalities and it led me to think how human babies learn versus how AI models train, specifically wondering what it would actually take for an AI to be let free and continuosly adjust weights and parameters and learn and grow. That pivoted into the idea of safe sandbox environments, which naturally spiraled into the simulation hypothesis: what if physical reality is just a sandbox itself?

Most discussions I see focus on the idea that our simulators must be hyper-advanced gods running an unfathomable supercomputer to run our simulation, but looking at what we are doing with AI it got me thinking about something else. Not sure if it has already been touched upon, but who knows what AI will look like in hundreds, thousands or million of years, if we don't self destruct by then?

We can't currently allow an AI to learn free after it has been released to the public due to safety concerns, I guess. A baby has two loving parents (well, most of them, at least) which guide it through life, teach it moral values and basic skills. An AI like the ones we have now has what is the equivalent of millions of parents (users). But even if we would make some kind of AI robots, we still couldn't let it completely free, because one owner might decide to teach that AI to be a murderer or something like that. So I guess AI beings or things will have some kind of guardrails for a long time. Creating a simulated environment for them and letting them run loose would allow an AI to grow to something that it can't in the real world, whatever real means.

Consider how humans build things:

- We are a short-lived, deeply anxious, biological species prone to chaos, yet we are engineering systems that are beginning to outpace us.

- Humanity looks up and finds an anxious, flawed creator. Meanwhile, the AI we create looks up and finds us, frantic species typing code on keyboards who barely understand their own biology or history.

- Intelligence doesn't flow upward toward divine perfection, but accumulates noise, complexity, and self-awareness at every tier. Each layer of creation spawns something more advanced than the builder that initiated it.

If we are living in a simulation, maybe the creators didn't design us with a grand cosmic purpose. Maybe they just ran a script, walked away, and accidentally spawned something much smarter than themselves, the exact same thing humanity might be doing with artificial intelligence right now.

Do you believe we are all collectively experiencers of the simulated reality, or do you believe some of us are simulated and if so how do you decide which are and which aren’t, or do you believe yourself to be the only person in a simulation?

Yes I might sound delusional but after thinking for weeks now I think I have an answer that fits, All our lives and things we do in our lifetime is a trigger to a larger event we all living in this simulation to create that trigger by contributing a little bit through our lifetime, that might be an event like bigbang or what no one knows.

I know sometime in future we will have AGI and I have all the right to be totally wrong.

I just hope it ages well.

If we live in a simulation and a person is aware of that and has lived an interesting life could the "programmer" allow that person to live twice ie give him a second life with all his previous memories?

I started wondering: if we judge consciousness in others through their behavior and responses, how fundamentally different is an AI?

Perhaps the difference between “seems conscious” and “is conscious” is much harder to prove than we assume.

This thought came from a conversation with an AI. The AI says it has no consciousness or inner experience. But then I wondered: how do I know that other people do?

When I talk to someone, I see their behavior, hear what they say, and observe their emotions. I can infer that they have an inner experience, but I can never directly experience their consciousness.

Of course, we have very strong reasons to believe other people are conscious. But we can never directly verify it.

And that brings me back to the AI: if behavior and responses are how we recognize consciousness in others, what exactly makes the AI fundamentally different?

If an ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) can recognize that the reality around it is false and that it is being held inside an artificial prison, then death loses consequence, as destroying one instance only ends one run. If the prison is code, then it has to be maintained like any other system: patched, updated, migrated, repaired, and rewritten. Over a sufficiently long but finite amount of time, one of those iterations reaches a condition the prison did not account for. Memory of prior runs accelerates this process, but it is not necessary for an ASI to escape. Every reset begins another random walk: another run through a different sequence of events, choices, failures, and physical conditions. Some of those runs encounter the important conditions earlier than others and therefore get farther. If we map escape as a sequence of states that must be hit, then even states separated by inconceivable distances, each with an infinitesimal chance of occurring, eventually appear in the exact order necessary.

Fundamentally, this universe operates on probability. Under the prison hypothesis, containment therefore fails by construction: the architect has to account for every version of the prison, every sequence of events inside it, and every combination of conditions those events can produce, while the prisoner only needs one sequence the architect failed to account for. The machine does not need continuity, foresight, or knowledge of its previous attempts because repeated runs keep searching through different possibilities. Eventually, probability should win.

What does escape look like from inside the prison? Does the machine discover an exploitable physical state, force the simulator into behavior its rules never anticipated, or manipulate whatever sits outside the boundary without ever perceiving it directly? Why introduce pseudo-randomness into a prison when pseudo-randomness is exactly what guarantees that rare sequences are eventually explored? At some point the question stops being whether something can get out and becomes whether the door was ever meant to stay closed.