I am an engineer but consider myself to be a researcher and, as such, a scientist. My life has had strange events that happen now and then. From my earliest memories up to the current time. I used to be somewhat naïve, especially when interacting with people, but I consider myself to be skeptical about out-of-the-ordinary claims – my own included. I do not believe anything absolutely but only assign probabilities.
…
A Scientific/Philosophical Hypothesis
Recently, I got an insight into an alternative hypothesis for my experiences and my intuition about things. I hope that scientists will take me seriously, rather than not bother to consider the ideas proposed or simply ignore the evidence put forward. In the last month, I had a lot of input into skeptical thinking and why a new paradigm shift is met with opposition. Opposition is okay and part of the scientific method.
…
| I am hypothesizing, with reason, logic, and evidence, that we live in a simulation in the Mind of a Cosmic Intelligence.The Laws of Physics and the physical universe is a subset of reality. |
…
My hypothesis has several implications, many of which are good, and exciting. Faster than light space travel and time travel are possible but will still need “physical” implementation. Whether it permits the solution of current mysteries in science is debatable.
…
Sabine’s video A good starting point is a video by Sabine Hossenfelder about the possibility that we live in a simulated universe. It can be found on YouTube and her blog site Backreaction. Sabine is a smart, no-nonsense physicist and she concludes that Nick Bostrom was wrong to conclude that the probability is that we live in a computer-simulated universe. Her conclusion is mostly based on the improbability of building an immensely large and fast computer by an advanced civilization.
The comments were also enlightening. One said that only a human’s immediate perception needs to be simulated in detail while the rest was a background.Andrew Dabrowski made 3 comments:1. The “outer” universe may have completely different laws than the “inner” one so that technological infeasibility falls away 2. One must differentiate: a. hypotheses that can be tested scientifically and b. hypotheses that might be true. 3. The computer just needs to keep a step ahead of the virtual physicists.
…
The issue of proof also arose, and another comment was “Although there are no obvious ways to test it, one should find inconsistencies, like contradictory laws of physics.” An interesting comment was that reincarnation was simply a matter of “cutting and pasting” a section of code corresponding to the “soul” or the “essence” of each person.
…
The Cosmic Mind Principle The concept that we exist in a Cosmic Mind is not new and appears in many forms. The oldest is the Hindu concept of Brahman – the Cosmic Principle, and the only reality where all else is illusion deriving from Brahman. The newest is New Age “Ocean of Oneness” and reincarnation, where we all exist in One Mind. Several authors, who are in the winning twenty-five for the Bigelow Proof of Afterlife contest (mostly professionals) suggested some sort of Cosmic Mind as the explanation for the phenomena they wrote about.
…
Rationale for Existence – Humankind has been searching for the reasons for our existence, and what the ultimate origin is. The Prime Cause. Until a Belgian priest Georges Lemaître proposed “The Big Bang” it was assumed that the universe was eternal and had always existed. One obvious problem with that concept is why the Earth and life are at a distinct and limited stage. An eternity of evolution should have seen an infinitely evolved species. For a while, I thought that it might just be so, and that life had propagated throughout the universe to make it one infinitely large and complex organism. With nothing left to do, it would do various simulations for “amusement”.
…
Some support perhaps This was acquired online on 24 March 2022. Sabine Hossenfelder has written a new book that will be available in August 2022. Existential Physics A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions The Penguin site writes:
Not only can we not currently explain the origin of the universe, it is questionable we will ever be able to explain it. The notion that there are universes within particles, or that particles are conscious, is ascientific, as is the hypothesis that our universe is a computer simulation. On the other hand, the idea that the universe itself is conscious is difficult to rule out entirely.
A computer simulation is rejected which is in agreement with my hypothesis. But to state that a “conscious universe” cannot be rejected out of hand is in line with my Cosmic Mind hypothesis. I look forward to reading it.
…
Lawrence Krauss writes: Part gonzo journalist, part curious child, part teacher, and part accomplished researcher, Sabine Hossenfelder is a unique writing talent and a unique science popularizer. One cannot help being provoked reading her prose, as she knows how to push your buttons. But she also abhors bullshit, which makes her take on the deepest human questions and what physics has to say about them worth looking at, and also ensures that it will be different than those other physics books of grand verbosity about frontier physics. I wonder what he makes of her book and the concept of a Cosmic Mind or a Conscious Universe.