The Universe is definitely a Simulation. (proof using formal logic and the Fermi Paradox)

This document is an overview an approach to a solution to Simulation Theory. It’s written in semi-formal language as to be readable by a large reader base.

The ultimate goal of philosophy related to Simulation Theory is to answer to one (or) two questions:

Is the universe a simulation?

Is it physically possible to demonstrate that the universe is simulation?

The following questions are also important to Simulation Theory in a general way

If it can be proven that the universe is a simulation — Is scientific inquiry still valuable or necessary?

If it was proven academically that the universe was a simulation- what would be the public response?

If the universe was proven to a simulation — Would economic activity still be possible?

If some person discovered conclusively that the universe was a simulation — how would they respond?

Has anyone already discovered the answer to the fundamental questions of Simulation Theory? If so — have their been conceited efforts to share or disseminate this information in a critical way? If so then why isn’t such knowledge common?

If the universe is a simulation — Why is it this way? Are there other simulations?

What is ouside the simulation? Is there an infinite regress of simulation environments?

If this is a simulation — Why are we inside the simulation?

If Simulation Theory can demonstrate condition A than the B is already demonstrated.

The coinage, “simulation” does not have any technical or specific meaning outside the one presented by common language

It is not necessary to understand or pontificate on the actual details of simulation or simulation(s) to integrate them into a logical paradigm. It is sometimes assumed in prevailing literature (I’m looking at you Wolfram!) that the self-generative, fractal nature of the observable universe as well as reduced dimension simulation environments (Game of Life, 3D particle engines, State-Driven Machine Environments Without Termination Conditions (SDMEWTC)) might tell us something about simulation theory — — they very well may — however for the purposes of engaging in philosophy and critical thought regarding this subject — Assumptions are not made about, “how” the simulation actually works or how the observable mechanism relates superficially to the outer or inner embedded simulation environments. It is the foolhardy goal of this document to establish something sort of self-defeating — That simulation theory can be proven from local criteria without the need for, “advanced” or “extraordinary” knowledge especially scientific knowledge in the Popperian mode of falsifiablity. In a very real way — Simulation Theory is not an advanced concept. It is not a new or extraordinary philosophical idea.

Essential points and necessary conditions.

— We have not observed intelligent life or Von Neumann probes in deep space. Other than in some rare instances we have been given very little indication that other intelligent life forms exists in the universe (or perhaps our section of the universe). This is curious because as a civilization we have developed space-flight technology and have conceived of what, “”we” call” Von Neumann probes. It would seem likely that any civilization in deep space — even perhaps even just 100 or several hundred years ahead of us would be actively colonizing the universe. In unfortunate line with the Fermi paradox this doesn’t seem to be the case. It is possible and conceivable that advanced alien civlizations might mask their presence in the universe for the benefit of lesser advanced civilizations. This may be the case but because there isn’t any positive evidence for this fact other than our own technological advancement, it remains to be seen.

— -The human race may soon develop computers capable of faithful simulations of whole universe(s) Whether we will actualize realize them is not actually consequential. It is of consequence however that statistically speaking we are unlikely to be the first to realize this technology. Speaking materially and causally it is unlikely that if whole-universe simulations actually exist (even in principle) that this is the first and this can be demonstrated by simple fact that our, “iteration” of the simulation (if we might conceive of it that way) has almost all but demonstrated the realizability of whole-universe simulations within itself.

— Despite this — embedded whole-universe simulations are demonstrations of infinite regressions. There is no way of knowing which, “layer” of the simulation one is occupying at any given time making evaluating one’s causal existence impossible (ie — If consciousness is extending itself into reality from a, “higher” layer simulation — Is that its original source? Or is it an extension-of-an-extension? How can that be evaluated?) If it is impossible to evaluate one’s causal existence then the actual truth-value of Simulation theory is meaningless anyway. This gives embedded simulation theory derivatives less descriptive and holding power. They fail to answer the critical two questions of Simulation Theory but postulating that the question, “is it possible to prove whether or not it is possible to prove (…) whether or not the universe is a simulation?” is an infinite regress and is therefore unanswerable. This may be the case — and may have some critical value in the evaluation of simulation theory’s subject matter — however because this solution does present an infinite regress it will be discounted for the time being.

— -Agents in any given environment may act in accordance with their own directives. Things including, “consciousnesses” have desires and will act in accordance with desires or directives prescribed to them. It is not necessary for the purposes of this document to establish, “why” or “how” these mechanisms take place — only that they do and they do apparently given any common demonstration of, “consciousness” even when this consciousness is only hypothetical. Even though it seems trivial it is assumed that consciousness cannot exist without some, “desiring” or “directing” capacity. This would render the consciousness causally inert. These terms can be debated but for now they are taken for granted due to the fact that our most obvious demonstration of consciousness, (“ourselves”) has this essential quality and as there isn’t any obvious demonstration of a consciousness without a body — So it can be taken for granted. Arguments which reference universes where consciousness’ can exist, “without a body” may be consider or debated but are taken for granted at the current time. There existence is as-it-seems not of consequence to S-Simulation theory at this time.

— -Without making an appeal to solipsism the universe is how it appears — There are many people and many consciousness’ with varying degrees of expression and both the reader and writer of this document are demonstrations of,” AN common consciousness.” For the purposes of demonstration this model includes the apparent consciousness of plants and animals as being, “similar” but reductively dissimiliar to our own consciousness. This however is not necessary. S Simulation theory can be demonstrated ontologically to any agent in any simulation with only simple formal logic and the apparent conditions of consciousness which we face.

— -Consciousness actually exists. It is not necessary to demonstrate an operative model of consciousness or intelligence within the observable universe to evaluate S Simulation theory. The existence of consciousness can be taken for granted. It is assumed that, “consciousnesses” are what are reading this document.

— -Living, evolved forms exist which are capable of, “housing” or “demonstrating” consciousness even if there isn’t an agreement on the formal definition of, “consciousness” in terms of these forms discreetly. Simple everyday usages and references to, “the consciousness of a person” “the consciousness of a dog” “the consciousness of a flower” are taken at face value. Their simple and commonly agreed upon linguistic meaning is enough to evaluate and prove S-Simulation theory.

— -Direct knowledge of the a grossal sense of, “outside” the universe is not possible or demonstrable by apparati in the observable universe except by some capacity related to its outside character. If it was — someone would have demonstrated it openly by this point in history — assuming all simulation’s, “histories” are linear in nature. Knowledge of, “outside” the observable universe may be apprehensible to human beings as later in this document I wil attempt to establish that human consciousness must necessarily exist outside the observable universe. It may be possible that a necessary quality of, “beings” is the quality of self-observance (not formally; literally). If this is the case some, “presence” (expressed as the consciousness of a person) must be able to know itself in its, “outside” quality even from within the simulation. This can be demonstrated grossly by making a reference to VR-goggles. Even though the whole quality of one’s, “seeing” is occupied by the goggles- one still has, “knowledge” of, “seeing” outside of the context of the VR display (even if one was, “born” with the VR goggles attached to them) The operative character of consciousness might be of this character but this remains to be a seen. It is only a consideration.

— The fundamental nature of phenomena is not voidistic — Reality actually exists and is self-contingent in all degrees. There are not parts of observable reality (simulation) which exhibit greater, “existingness” than any other at least apparantly.

— -It is it at least conceivable that the vast majority of conscious, living, “entities” (consciousness’) may exist outside the simulation. A civilization outside of a simulation would not — In normal circumstances send all of its, “people” into the simulation unless it was necessary. It is possible that a gaping majority of, “individuals” who have existed have discovered this fact and made some personalized stride towards post-Simulation living and activity. It is possible that the fact that the universe is a Simulation is easily demonstrable.

— If the observable universe is a simulation then there must (probably) be an, “outside” the universe. It may be that the universe is not, “inside” a computer but may could be conceived of a a self-referential, self generative computer which uses macroscopic or quantum phenomena to do calculation which is (currently) playing out its core operation and doesn’t have an, “outside” or, “inside” in some simple way (indeed — I think this is the case.). While there is some fertility in this line of thinking in terms of the descriptive capabilities of the observable universe — it has a mild flaw when we frame within the bounds of Simulation theory philosophy. This would mean that the universe just IS a computer. That wouldn’t tell us anything about whether or not this Generative Computational Machine (called, “The Universe”) is actually a simulation or not and would not answer either of the two central questions related to Simulation Theory. Commentaries regarding fractals, self-similarity, uncertainty, semiotics, and computability might have some potency and value but are ultimately unrelated to the subject criteria of Simulation Theory and its critical questions.

Given the conditions of any but especially the observable universe we occupy — Given conditions of consciousness which are apparently (and in reality) similar to our own — Given the the above conditions are true then the following must necessarily true of any observable universe. An assumption is made that there is an, “unobservable” universe that is primary (point 3 in regard to embedded simulation theory being an infinite regress).

Whether or not the, “primary” universe is actually observable or not is not literally being considered here. It may be possible that consciousness’ experience of itself is itself an observance of, “outside” the universe because whatever projective mechanism, “the consciousness” uses to, “view” itself must, “view” itself, “outside” of the simulation necessarily. This means the quality, “consciousnessing” is inherited by derived expressions of consciousness outside the observable universe. I’ll note that this is just a consideration.

The following must necessarily be true. Of any observable universe with the simple notion of conscious living entities conforming the the above mentioned terms and simple definitions we can derive from our own experience of consciousness we must necessarily conclude after some meditation on the subject —

The universe is a simulation.

It is not physically possible to demonstrate that the universe is as simulation. It is however demonstrable if one is able to engage in science in such a way that consciousness is taken for granted without needing to understand the functional mechanism by which it is enacted or projected into the universe. We can engage in this science in good-faith because we have directly perceptory knowledge of consciousness in that we, “are” human consciousness as it apparently is demonstrated in the observable universe! Psychology stands as a prototype this kind of science.

Demonstrations of post-Simulation phenomena will be the emergent science of the 21st century.

This knowledge is common and obvious. Simulation theory has already been demonstrated. It’s highly probable that conscious living entities which have historically gained knowledge of this have

1) left the simulation through unknown means

2) before leaving disseminated knowledge of SST. Further along in this document the reasons why this knowledge has not been readily disseminated into common-lore are given.

Advanced civilizations whose existence we have no positive evidence of have left the simulation after assuming technological literacy. There are no space-faring civilizations. There are no human-like or Earthean-like space faring organisms. This is why there is no evidence of spacecraft, star-mining, high-energy energy harvesting, or Von Neumann probes in the observable galaxy. Advanced civilizations have either found a method to leave the simulation or have passively enter into their own idealized simulation environment. This makes sense strategically because an technologically advanced civilization might need to enter into their own computers in order to enter into the next stage of development due to the necessary bandwidth limits of biologically evolved neural-intelligence mechanisms. This will happen to us in over the next few centuries. It also makes sense because an civilization on the brink of energy-extinction (the exhuation of their local sun, nuclear winter, disruption of natural living environment) would consume less resources by consolidating itself into a well-established computer environment.

The necessary conditions of history are as such that Simulation theory might be seriously considered by the agents inside of the system contemporarily — The observances of far-off stars and cosmological phenomena and a limited physics to describe its character. The development of immersive, intelligence-enhancing machines — these in tandem — both in principle (as a necessary condition of, “simulation rules” Another document will be produced in regard to this) will give rise to the mass embrace of, “simulation science” by the public because the necessary conditions of deductive logic and philosophy given the actual conditions of the universe have made the thing irrefutable.

Scientific inquiry and (especially) aesthetic, moral, and artistic inquiry are still necessary and vital given the the conditions presented by S-simulation theory. In-fact — It can be shown that the conscious living entity may/has entered into the simulation for the purposes of these pursuits. Imagine going into a video game like Doubutsu No Mori (Animal Crossing) or Harvest Moon in a fully immersive-conscious experience — You would by nature have an impetus to the directives presented by the, “game.” The value of human life is not undermined by fact that is simulative — No. It is established. Whatever is, “outside” the observable universe is extending itself into this reality for purposes that are somewhat obvious. Love, charm, sweetness (…) morality, virtue, creative expression provide imputi for the expression of this extra-realitical substance as it navigates through conscious projective existence.

The public response — as SST is spread conceptually it will lead to a mass enlightenment of society. (SSTe) The knowledge that one’s essential causal identity is not, “inside” the observable universe will make us unafraid of death. The knowledge that reality is projective will make us unafraid of projectively, “bad” conditions. Literature, film, and creative endevour will provide imputi (a word I made up this evening) for activity with cognizance of the precise extra-realitical nature of human consciousness. New culture will emerge around new conceptions of human identity — with bold cognizance of the fact that the human entity is of the highest order and is not bound to temporal phenomena by nature.

This question remains to be seen. Culture and history will decide whether or not a new form of capitalism will emerge. Universal socialism may result as a consequence of SSTe. At any rate the notion that capitalistic gain has some relation to the greater meaning of human affairs will become for the first time — laughable — even to the common person. Money may still exist as useful resource of exchange among people within the simulation to facilitate creative and scientific expression.

How will a person respond to SSTe? The irony is — everyone’s seen The Matrix before. Simulation Theory on its own has only so much merit as a conceptual device — Indeed it can be demonstrate from points above that the simple conception which has been presented to us by popular culture (and indeed the classics: The Republic, Meditations, Descartes, ect…) have in most cases presented to us a version of simulation theory which ultimately can be reduced to an EST (embedded simulation theory) which as demonstrated before — is an infinite regress. The point is — SST presents a conceptualization of ST which is consistent with the human condition as it is actually presented to us. There is no need within the SST paradigm to make an appeal to superfluous knowledge — The, “necessary condition” of having discreet knowledge of the Fermi Paradox has more to do with public and personalized sentiment in regard to one living inside a simulation. It provides positive and staggering evidence for the partiality of the extensive, observable universe. For the time being we’ll leave this up to science — We’ll see.

The obvious question remains in the mind of the skeptic — Why hasn’t this been illustrated before? The reason is simple — It has. There has been extensive literature written on the subject since the invention of written language and before. Without making an appeal to mysticism — literature like Vedanta Sutra and philosophical treatise’ like Srimad Bhagavatam Purana represent a very thorough and rigorous expounding on the subject of the perseptive consciousness’ relation to, “outside” the simulation environments. Vivid descriptions of the conscious living entities relationship with its, “outer” (inner) elemenet have been given by the foremost scholars of Vedanta and post-Vedantic, Upanishadic literature — Saraswati Thakura Maharaj Prabhupada and His Parampara disciple Srila Bhakti Raksak Srila Dev-Goswami Maharaj. The reason it, “seems” like information regarding SST is sparse is simple — The condition of the conscious living entity is as such that in the simulation it (obviously), “forgets” its position and as such — It enters into conditions by design by which it has an necessary intellectual and emotional adversity to SST thinking. As such the CLE enters more deeply into conceptions which lead they to further bewilderment by the simulation environment. This en-masse — by design has led society into a condition by which it values economic progress more than philosophy and as a result this knowledge is willfully suppressed by virtue of the simulations arrangement in regard to, “fostering” sentiment in in the consciousness’ in the simulation that reality is more substant than it actually is. This historical negative sentiment will now be overcome by virtue of the state of progressive science, embracing of multicultural values in regards to philosophical sentiment in cosmopolitan culture, and the empowerment of society in regards to its higher prospect with artificial intelligence and advanced computing systems.

It could be shown from the conditions presented that willfully we wouldn’t want to project ourselves into an, “unfavorable” environment. The precise reasons we have projected ourselves into the simulation are currently occupying is unknown but it does seem clear that we have projected ourselves into conditions that are at least reasonably favorable for basic and essential human activity. At the beginning of writing this document I had consider that one could extrapolate from SST that we are necessarily living in the best of all possible worlds (observable universe) — however I think it’s something deeper than that — We’re living in the best-average-case of all possible worlds. Simple ontological arrangements such as, “This universe BUT I am president, really rich, sexually attractive, a girl, ect…” where a simple version of our universe is presented with some slightly more favorable condition of existence (ontological principle) represent the net-positive span of the bell-curve our universe falls into. It is neither the greatest or least great of all possible worlds. It is provably not the worst of all worlds but not the best.

The question of what is outside the simulation — This document is not going to make comment on that. As such — current attitudes would facilitate an attitude by which it would be counterproductive to the purposes of this document to make comment on, “phenomena” which unobservable and beyond falsification. It is the opinion of the author though that direct experience of, “outside phenomena” is indeed possible through contemplation. In commentary given above an idea was presented — Whatever the projective quality of consciousness is as it, “experiences itself” must be taking place outside the observable universe! This means — The projective body of consciousness or seed of consciousness is itself — (unrelated to the phenomena in is experiencing) an area of, “outside knowledge.” A new form of science which would allow for positive-falsification (the presentation of negative or non-demonstable elements as bodies of evidence; mind-science; nous; Gedankengut) will most likely emerge as a result of SSTe.

The penultimate question — Why are we in the simulation? This is probably the most important question. Without answering the thing directly we can frame the, “why” of SST in a number of ways. One shortcoming of EST is that it doesn’t given a serious directive for a consciousness to do anything in its observable environment — The living conscious entity is hopelessly lost in a sea of infinite regress — Even the simple aspiration to know what the conditions of the simulation are are made moot because the definitions of those conditions might be arising in another simulation themselves. These shortcomings make the sentimental conditions required for serious consideration of SST difficult or impossible. SST is indeed — not a consideration about macroscopic phenomena — It is indeed more a consideration about how we relate to it. We know simple things about our state of consciousness — There are things that attract us emotionally and literally. Desire drives us to ends that may be quizzical to an entity which is outside of the simulation. Tracing this desire and the imperatives it creates in human activity is I think (the author) the most important lesson in all this. The basic idea is this — — We’ve projected ourselves here. That’s why it’s called, “Self Simulation” theory. It’s not that we’ll soon create a sophisticated simulation environment and exist in trans-human state inside machinery (I believe this will still happen but let’s discount that temporarily) but rather — We’ve already done that. We’ve created this observable universe so that we might occupy it in various forms for some purpose unknown. One of the directives for humanity following SSTe is an collectivized exposition on this essential topic — What are we trying to achieve here? Knowing that we, “wanted” to project ourselves in the obvious way we have we can have faith in the obvious measure of consciousness in relation to its environment — feelings, charm, positivity (…) we can now trace and follow these things with full measure subjectively without the lingering worry that these things might be made meaningless by a rendering of science which discounts them as arbitrary phenomena. I believe it’s provable given the conditions of SST that everything that happens in the observable universe must be the conscious will of the living conscious entities outside it. We have to understand — SST Self Simulation Theory can be stated simply:

“The universe is a simulation of our own creation. We have willfully created this simulation and have projected ourselves as discreet bodies of consciousness inside of it. At some point we have forgetten our relationship with the outside. This might be ok as this may exist as necessary condition of the simulation environment. It may be possible we designed simulation so that it would, “trick” us into thinking it was real — thereby keeping us from getting outside of it. This might have been our conscious will from the beginning.”

Are there other observable universes? (simulations?) — There is no necessary obstruction from the criteria in regard to this not being to only observable simulation reality that exists. It can be shown as a consequence of the criteria that an infinite number of simulations can exist (and even exist within each other) without the creation of an infinite regress so long as the there is at least one hierarchically primary universe that the others, “stem” from. I will publish a paper on this in the next few weeks.

The end of history of a planet-civilization is the development and realization of Simulation Theory on a global scale. Our global civilization has entered into this stage of its on-going legacy. Congratulations everyone! — Kai.

The final word of this document is:

Given all the things we know — that we’ve come to know. That I’ve come to know — I know this — Follow love. If we came here intentionally we designed that to be the most valuable and cherishable thing in the whole of the simulation. Well-earned love is a greater achievement than the simple conquering — of what? Some phantom? Some collective dream? Better to have come to this place and known Love — It is the utmost of things. Imagine this is a testing ground — Maybe it’s a place we’re meant to learn how to Love. I don’t know. I’m just like you. I don’t know anything in particular. In fact — All I’ve ever known was just a dream.

This document is dedicated to William Maillis and Siraj Ravel — who taught me to get up off of my ass and start dreaming again. Thank you so much.

Kyler A. Watson
kaimarmalade@gmail.coim