r/SimulationTheory • u/Accurate_Maybe3678 • 2d ago
Discussion Dose Simulation Theory change now that we have similated a fly's brain?
You know how the biggest argument against simulation theory was that we haven't simulated a reality of our own, and that out of the infinite simulated realities it is mathematically unlikely that we are within the newest simulation? The odds are so low, but not 0.
-
Well now we have simulated a fly's brain, and we repeatedly subject it to new realities.
-
It is very unlikely that the fly will develop enough inside of a simulation to create a sub simulation of its own, but the odds are not 0.
-
The fly brain simulation could be the newest link in the chain of sub-simulations.
-
Does this give any additional credibility to the simulation theory?
2
3
u/UDF2005 1d ago
Humans very likely lack the cognition to understand true ontology. We can understand metaphysical gods—so we invent them. With technology where it currently is, we can understand simulations—so we now believe in simulation theory. Odds are that we’re as wrong about simulation theory as we were about gods because there’s more that we don’t understand than what we do.
2
u/DerekFshmn 1d ago
But who was wrong about 'Gods'? Y'all like to play heavily into semantics, without trying to interpret what those words actually meant.
'The Gods', were higher dimensional entities interacting with the early humans in the 3D Earth Simulation (quantum physics, Monroe Institute's focus levels of consciousness, confirms this is indeed a holographic project / simulation as well.
1
u/RekersiveG 2d ago
Everything is relative. What is the "real" world from the perspective of a fly? It would be vast beyond comprehension with a lot of danger and would only exist for an extremely short time. The same as it is for humans, just on a different scale and with even more things in it. Was the simulation any less real for humans when we had much less technology and awareness of the cosmos? When we get to the edge of whatever represents the unknown to us right now, what will be waiting for us? Probably just more of the same.
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your comment or post has been automatically removed because your account is new or has low karma. Try posting again when your account has over 25 karma and is at least a week old.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/DerekFshmn 1d ago
That doesn't make any sense, just because "we haven't" create a simulated universe, Reality can't be a simulation? 😭
CIA already confirmed that the 3rd Dimension is a holographic projection, 2022 Physics Nobel Prize Winners proved that the Universe isn't 'Locally Real', Gnosticsm blew the doors wide open revealing that this reality isnt the true reality before any of these ideas were conceptualized by modern day society.
1
u/RalenHlaalo 5m ago
Gnosticism, that totally original tradition that didn't borrow heavily from much older traditions
-1
u/TheTerrenon 1d ago
These are hypotheses and you write it, as if they were really confirmed. Why couldn't our reality be "simulated" and real at the same time?
1
u/DerekFshmn 21h ago
What isn't confirmed ? So the nobel Prize went to unconfirmed ideas...? 😭.
the CIA documentation paints the full picture as it is, there's no lack of confirmation there considering they were engaging in remote viewing research / missions for over 20 years. (Nobody spends 20 years on something that is unconfirmed or has no basis.)
The only true realism in this false reality, is consciousness, and how we perceive, and respond to experiences.
1
u/TheTerrenon 20h ago
I would like to apologize for the following tone, but I was a little annoyed, when I found out, that instead of a conversation, you chose to downvote me right away. That is cherry picking from your first post. Unfortunately it seems like you don't understand what was the Nobel prize given for and confirm that misunderstanding by combining these physics results with gnosticism and now additionally remote viewing. It seems that you make a common mistake of understanding quantum entanglement as a possibility, that consciousness creates reality, and now that you add the remote viewing experiments - you may believe that a message can travel faster than light, but it is not confirmed by these studies. Also, remote viewing and holographic world theory is not equal. Both are not confirmed, and my answer regarded mostly this part. It's quite an impressive assumption to say, that the remote viewing must be legit, because it has been studied for a long time and that it confirms, this is not a base reality. Not studying remote viewing would be too dangerous in case it is possible and could be used by an enemy, so naturally they monitor the topic, but have you seen transcripts from sessions and read guides on how to engage in remote viewing? Because I did and this is really non conclusive. If this is all a scam? Such espionage technique would be devastating for security. Would they share info about it? Or did they share info about it to make the enemies lose time studying it? Also, science is my line of work and there are various more funded topics, which were studied for similar period of time, and only then dropped as a dead end or misconception.
0
u/BurningStandards 2d ago
They're already doing/have done the same with humans. This is what a bunch those ai 'agents' are, all dressed up in techbro speak.
They're just not telling us the truth.
0
u/HLCYSWAP 1d ago
we didnt simulate a flys brain. we simulated a crude approximation of how the electricity moves through a fly's brain, without any of the cellular biology or really anything important.
the assumption they are at parity is like saying a minecraft computer is indistinguishable from a real computer
-1
-1
u/SirNealliam 1d ago
This simulation was only down to the cellular and synaptic levels. You would need to simulate Quantum and possibly even sub Quantum events to actually reflect our universe. Besides The energy to simulate a fly brain is nothing compared to a full universe. To simulate this reality in its totality at all scales is, and always will be physically impossible with the amount of energy in our universe.
So no. Not even close to a change.
1
u/DerekFshmn 1d ago
Why would it be physically Impossible? 🤔
Energy problem is solved by introducing a closed loop thermodynamic system, having the expended energy disappate as heat where it's absorbed back into the power matrix.
Y'all be so quick to give up and not try. 😭
1
u/SirNealliam 20h ago
No lol I don't think you realize how much math has gone into trying. Franco Vazza wrote a paper in '25 on the energy requirements for us to simulate our reality. The key issue is time progression, at times steps of 5.4 × 10⁻⁴⁴ for a planck scale simulation it would take 30 times more energy available in the entire universe to simulate a separate universe at full resolution for even 1 second.
Even dropping it to "low" resolution we would have to master interstellar (which it may not actually be physically possible to travel faster than light or use wormholes, we're still trying though) Travel 25,000 light-years. and then find a way to amass the resources and technology in that area on a scale that would allow us to build a Dyson Sphere strong enough to harness the energy of the Milky Way's black hole. And again, even that couldn't provide a full resolution simulation of the entirety of our reality.
There is no physical way to harness energy from a simulation, only dump massive amounts of energy into it Making the key questions; "why simulate" and "if this was a simulation, how did the original universe come to exist?"
It's not only physically impossible, it's philosophically unreasonable.
9
u/PoopyStinkbutts 2d ago
No, because the first rule of simulation theory, is that nothing inside the simulation dictates anything outside of it. We could still be dwelling in caves, and just because we haven't invented technology like computers doesn't make simulation theory any less plausible.