Simulation Theory and Acintya Bhedabheda Tattva (Hinduism)

Kyler Watson
Oct 8, 2018 · 8 min read

An overview of Simulation Theory from a Vedantic perspective by Kai Sridhar Das Prabhu.

There’s been a lot of talk recently about Simulation Theory due to mentionings of the thing by Elon Musk in interviews. It isn’t anything new. The Indu Valley civilization had this idea a long time ago and wrote it down in a series of commentaries called Vedanta-Sutra or Brahma Samhita. Links to English translations of these commentaries can be found at the end of this document.

The observable universe is a simulation of our own creation. We have created this universe and extended some portion of ourselves into it to do and experience certain things. At some stage the basal element of consciousness forgot that they are in a cycle of simulation environments or became attached to the simulation environment. This is the condition of a mundane person.

At some stage of the history of this simulation several or most became aware of this and made efforts to go beyond the bounds of the observable universe. The Vedas, Vedanta Sutra, and Srimad Bhagavatam Purana represent the commentaries of the beings that successful took to this science historically and are now available today to provide a framework for Simulation and post-Simulation science and philosophy. This civilization is represented in contemporary history by the Indu Valley Civilization about which we know little other than from their philosophical literature. This document will try it’s best to refrain from ANY appeal to mysticism or religious sentiment. This is not because I desire to write this way but simply to demonstrate that this isn’t the writings of some quack or the like. This document is meant to be absorbed as pure philosophy although it uses the Vedantic system of ontology and philosophy as a starting point.

A painting I did today. It’s called, “Vaikuntha’s Waiting Boys!”

These commentaries were written as functional guides for, “consciousnesses” to provide them with a mechanism to, “escape” the simulation or perhaps at least understand their position inside of it. It isn’t necessary to create a 1-for-1 simulation of a universe to demonstrate this fact. It isn’t necessary to create a simulation of a brain inside a powerful computer to understand the mechanism by which consciousness is enacted. We can prove this using simple observances of our own condition and logic.

***interesting to note, “of our own creation” is only semi meaningful here. The word, “our” is used as in, “our backyard, our trip to Europe, ect..” This makes the assumption that all the consciousness(s) existing in the observable universe have a common source, substance, or game-directive. I believe this is a necessary condition of Simulation Theory but I’ll get to that later.

***It’s worth noting the I don’t believe the directive of these historical texts is to, “escape the simulation/universe” but using this sort of language makes expressing a complicated point easier.

In all the universes there is only one seed of living consciousness that has variegated extensions. This is possible and conceivable because the rules of logic, “outside” the universe may/are different than the ones presented to us in this universe. (ie. law of identity, law of non-contradiction, ect…) It created the universe and extended fragments of itself into the simulation for purposes knowable or unknowable. Our observable universe and consciousness as human beings is the living result of these conditions. I believe this can be proven logically without making an appeal to religion or mysticism. It is the necessary product of ontology in regards to the conditions of human consciousness with or without regards to neural mechanisms that, “give rise” to consciousness or thought.

There is only one, “outside” the universe. This can be demonstrated because, using the logic which is common to the observable universe and its formal definitions, that having multiple, “outsides” creates problems ontologically (which, “outside” created this;? which, “outside” are we from?”) which I believe are ultimately just infinite regresses in disguise because we end up having to trace the, “original” “outside” simulation they stem from — Logically this would be the same reality referred to in a model where there is only one, “outside” the universe and doesn’t provide anything greater in terms of descriptive capacity.

This is the terms of our theory so far:

Consciousness or whatever substance first gives rise to consciousness demonstrably first existed outside the observable universe and extended itself inside of it.

The observable universe is a simulation

Most obviously conscious, living beings are so. P-Zombies are non-existent or rare because a universe full of any number of P-Zombies is descriptively non-distinct different than a universe of, “real” people. The only exception is a universe which is entirely composed of P-Zombies which we’ll discount for the time being.

Although there is only one original substant, “outside” reality, it is extended, “into” the observable universe in multi-varied forms.

The basal element of consciousness exists outside the universe and is not the result of emergent behavior of human brain or central nervous activity although brains do, “allow” for consciousness to take place in some sense — They are not the consciousness’ primal or original substance.

Linear time and history are a function of the observable universe only.

The basal element of consciousness extends itself into the central nervous systems of evolved animal and plant forms. Because the basal element of consciousness is not necessarily tied to any specific form or expression it can modify itself to the form chosen. This would make sense if the universe was a simulation — When one, “unit” of expression is exhausted another can be taken based on the desire of the consciousness at the time of death.

Atomic reality (particle interactions and macroscopic phenomena) is an evolutionary mechanism to give rise to forms evolved enough that the basal element of consciousness can extend itself appropriately within them. The tendency for stars to form in the early-mid stage of cosmic inflation is to evolve Earth-like planets.

The beings outside the simulation can end all suffering and problem instantly if there was impetus to do so. This means there is a directive from, “outside” to allow for this to happen. If evolutionary mechanisms are indeed, “transcendentally better” than hard-coded ones that means that all suffering is to at least some extent — good and necessary. Perhaps just necessary. This, “necessity” would be a function of a directive coming from outside the observable universe giving it a higher-order expression than the simple, “necessity” arising from the arrangement of particles and macroscopic phenomena.

There are probably beings in the observable universe that are vastly more powerful than us which have yet to make discreet contact with us on an en-masse scale. They are most likely observing us and taking note of our behaviors and actions. I do not believe that they would take steps to prevent humanity from injuring itself though — See the above comment in regard to evolutionary mechanisms.

There is not/will never be a Star Fleet like civilization because civilizations that evolve to the point of building 1-to-1 simulation environments of atomized phenomena just end up leaving the simulation. We are at the cusp of this happening. Where they go and what the nature of, “outside” the simulation is only speculative at this point. There are necessary consequences to its existence in relation to the observable universe however — As far as anyone can tell no living entity has, “come back” with any consequential knowledge of outside the universe.

This means that from the perspective of beings outside the universe that evolutionary mechanisms are superior to hard-coded mechanisms or environments. post-Simulation beings might use any number algorithms or mechanisms for creating environments. For whatever reason they chose one which gives rise to universe(s) which are similar or the same to our own.

From what has been described we can conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes that appear for whatever the purposes of human existence as it appears in the observable universe. This is because we can choose initially what universe we wish to occupy. It would be illogical to choose a universe non conducive to reasons for the living conscious entity to project itself into said universe.

There are probably, more beings outside of the observable universe than in.
A mechanism for the existence of life after death becomes feasible.

Consequences — Perhaps the universe outside of ours is less complex or subtle than the one we are presented with. Perhaps this is the case. If it was though it would have vast consequences in computer science. It would mean that by some mechanism some thing — which may or may not have to create with rules similar to one in the observable universe gave rise to a mechanism or computer which is computationally more complex than its expressive features — It would mean that in some, “simple” universe — There was some lower-domain, lower order function(s) gave rise to higher-domain functions — This would only strengthen the conception of an infinite, “outside” universe(s) — This substance would either be — A) So transcendental as to being counter-intuitive by nature and beyond the scope of understanding B) necessarily sourced from some, “other” reality which strengthens the basic conception of simulation theory in a general way anyway because of infinite regression.

Conclusion —

The observable universe is a simulation. This can be proven given:

1) The actual conditions of consciousness as they manifest in the observable universe in an obvious way without an appeal to neuroscience or needing to understand the formal mechanism for intelligence.

2) A system or simulation which uses evolutionary process to create useful or novel forms seems in an obvious way to be superior to a universe where the simulation is hard-coded into environment. This is further confirmed anthropically because the observable universe HAS evolved complex forms in this manner. This is necessary to describe why the universe is non-static.

2) Ontology and formal logic without needing to make an appeal to set theory or the like.

3)The hypothetical existence of computer simulation systems although they aren’t absolutely necessary.

Culture doesn’t want itself to be a simulation because it’s invested in everything being real and having meaning related to selfish gain. The nature of the outside reality is that everything is giving- serving. This reality is selfish. That’s why it’s hard to get out of it. It is based around, “I” and “Mine.” This is the conclusion given by Bhagavata Purana. Something to think about. If reality is a simulation our thoughts concerning what is, “ours” or “us” is mostly moot. This would be quite the upset.

References:

Kyler Watson

Written by

Hello World, I’m not Siraj! ;3 Just kidding. I’m an ML Engineer and Artist and complete neurotic psycho. Into Bayes Theorem, Emergent behavior, and The Jam.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade