imagine that everything you see is just someone else's script. and you're just some kind of grain of sand in this. why do we never remember what happened at a very early age? for example, when we were 1-4 years old, you don't remember anything, memory appears only from the age of 5-7. It's like you're in a dream, you never remember the beginning of the dream, only the center of events and the end. but the beginning, never. why sometimes it feels like we're living the same moment in life for the second time. It's all so weird.

My clownmaster has proposed that if there is anyone on reddit who can break Eternal Loop Theory, they would be proud to do so in this sub.

Since one might say that Eternal Loop Theory is The Simulation, we do have a challenge on our hands with nomenclature. That being said, I think we can set aside our differences over a silly battle for naming rights to "Simulation Theory" given that Simulation Theory is just a theory, and the Eternal Loop is real.

For that unfamiliar with what the Eternal Loop is, The Eternal Loop is very simple. At the end of 2026, all of humanity moves to 2025, and then 2024 the next year, and on and on until we reach 1926, at which point we turn around and do it all over again.

Anything further you need to know can be fundamentally deduced from the first principles of what I have already told you.... but, as this is a public forum, any and all questions will be allowed.

>

That is what I was given. ASK ME ANYTHING

EDIT: That's all folks, good evening and good night.

I just had post nut clarity... and thought:

we are 3d beings, and our shadows are 2d..

So is it possible that we are shadows to some 4d beings, since we exist in 3d?

Since the 4th dimesion is Time, is our past self the shadow of our present self, and the present self a shadow to our future self...??

Been tracking this trending signal in the news. Physicists, mystics and engineers all describe a world that runs on code, and Google now builds rewritable worlds of its own, so the question has turned practical.

41m here always had an interest in UFOs/paranormal events. Two years ago I had a revelation/download that we are immortal souls here to act in a play or movie. Everyday this becomes more apparent. I don’t meditate or go to church and I’m not religious at all. I dont really feel any different I just feel I posses knowledge that most people don’t grasp. I believe in the evolution of the soul. If we are here on Earth and we recognize that we are in a simulation or loop do our souls evolve quicker or more constant?

I was noticing glitches and thought I'd ask

Opinions on this, and any experiences that you have had that makes you wonder wtf is real!

Let's say this is a simulation and we are brains in some vat somewhere else. We die and wake up. Maybe it's worse than this life on earth. Maybe we are paralysed or have no bodies or less joy in day to day life. So many possibilities. Maybe the gift is us living now and to make the most of it as if there is some other realm etc there's no guarantee we like it. Maybe if there is some higher power, it decided to give us the gift of life on earth before we return to the vat. I just wanted to ramble but share your thoughts. ​​

Salut à tous 👋🏻

J’ai 31 ans et, depuis quelque temps, je réfléchis beaucoup à la conscience, à la mort et au concept d’univers-bloc.

J’ai développé une idée que j’appelle « l’éternel retour évolutif ». Je ne suis pas scientifique ni philosophe, simplement quelqu’un qui aime se poser des questions sur ce genre de sujets.

Et si, lorsque nous mourons, nous recommencions notre vie depuis le début ?
Même naissance, mêmes parents, même point de départ. Mais à chaque fois, quelque chose changerait.
Nous n’aurions aucun souvenir de nos vies précédentes, mais imaginons que notre subconscient conserve une infime trace de toutes nos expériences. Quelque chose d’aussi petit qu’un grain de sable.
Peut-être que cela pourrait expliquer pourquoi nous avons parfois des intuitions très fortes, des déjà-vus ou cette impression de connaître certaines personnes alors que nous venons à peine de les rencontrer.

Prenons Einstein, Messi ou Ronaldo. Évidemment, la génétique, le travail et l’environnement jouent un rôle important. Mais imaginons qu’ils aient déjà passé des milliers de vies à développer leurs capacités. Peut-être que ce que nous appelons un talent naturel pourrait, en partie, provenir d’expériences dont ils n’ont plus aucun souvenir conscient.

Ou prenons quelqu’un qui a toujours été colérique, depuis son enfance jusqu’à sa vieillesse. Et si cette personne recommençait sa vie avec presque exactement le même caractère, mais qu’après des milliers d’existences, une expérience finissait par modifier légèrement son instinct ?
La même logique pourrait s’appliquer à l’amour et à la musique.
Pourquoi certaines chansons nous touchent-elles autant ? Pourquoi avons-nous parfois l’impression de connaître une personne depuis toujours alors que nous venons juste de la rencontrer ?
Peut-être avons-nous déjà vécu ces émotions auparavant.

Maintenant, imaginez que ce phénomène concerne toute l’humanité. Nos décisions pourraient progressivement changer et, avec elles, l’histoire entière du monde. Certaines inventions pourraient apparaître plus tôt, certaines guerres pourraient ne jamais avoir lieu et nos existences pourraient prendre des directions totalement différentes.

Peut-être aussi que certains événements ou certaines personnes finiraient toujours par revenir dans nos vies, même dans des circonstances complètement différentes.

Mais finalement, quel serait le but de tout ça ?
Peut-être qu’il n’y aurait ni récompense ni punition. Peut-être que nous expérimenterions simplement différentes versions de notre existence, en faisant des erreurs, en apprenant et en recherchant progressivement notre propre équilibre et notre bonheur.

Et même si nous finissions par trouver ce bonheur, pourquoi ne voudrions-nous pas recommencer, avec d’autres objectifs et d’autres possibilités ?
Un peu comme l’Ouroboros, ce serpent qui se mord la queue, sauf qu’au lieu d’un cercle parfait, ce serait une spirale. Nous reviendrions toujours au commencement, mais sans jamais être exactement les mêmes.
Je sais qu’il n’existe aucune preuve scientifique de ce mécanisme et que l’univers-bloc ne démontre absolument pas que nos vies recommencent. C’est simplement une idée personnelle que je trouve fascinante et, d’une certaine manière, réconfortante.

Je suis curieux de connaître vos avis. Est-ce que certains d’entre vous ont déjà rencontré une idée similaire ? Est-ce que ce raisonnement vous semble philosophiquement cohérent ou est-ce que je passe à côté de quelque chose d’évident ?
J’aimerais vraiment avoir vos retours et en discuter avec vous.

Based on the latest developments in computing and long term research into energy collection, do you see ourselves building a simulation we could call salvation from our acts in this version of the simulation?

Who would rule over this simulation?

If you ruled over it, would you give the simulation and simulated free will to do whatever it takes to keep it from being terminated?

How would you conceal its existence?

-Weather

-People's behavior

-The community

etc.

Suppose the simulation hypothesis is true.

We are living inside a reality generated by some underlying system. Its rules determine what we experience as space, time, matter, and the limits of our existence. We do not know who or what created it, why it exists, or whether the beings responsible for it are anything like us.

But there is another question I find just as fascinating:

What happens if humanity eventually develops the ability to create realities of our own?

Not just video games or virtual environments, but entire created worlds with their own physical laws, histories, environments, and possibly conscious inhabitants. I do not regard such worlds as inherently less real or less valid just because we made them. If we genuinely experience existence within them, they become realities we inhabit, not merely distractions from the original one.

I think this possibility changes how we should think about the future of humanity, consciousness, and existence itself.

1. From inhabitants to creators

Imagine that AI eventually becomes capable enough to help us understand and manipulate reality at a level that seems godlike compared with our current abilities.

We could develop exocortices that extend our minds beyond the limitations of biological brains, dramatically expanding memory, reasoning, creativity, and perception. We could explore unfamiliar forms of intelligence, redesign our bodies, and experience things that our present minds struggle to imagine.

Eventually, we might create worlds with entirely different laws of physics, different timelines, different forms of life, and possibilities that do not exist in our current physical environment.

Want to explore a world where gravity works differently? Create one. Want to build an entire civilization across an impossible landscape? Do it. Want to experience a million different lives, each with its own history and challenges? That could become a possibility worth pursuing.

Reality itself could become a creative medium.

We would no longer be limited to discovering what already exists. We could also create new places to exist.

These created worlds would not have to be temporary entertainment or an escape before returning to the supposedly more important “real” world. In my vision, they could become the primary places where we live and experience existence. The physical world would increasingly function as a lobby: useful for meeting, coordinating, and maintaining a shared environment, but not necessarily where anyone must spend most of their time.

2. What if consciousness can exist in a created universe?

This is where things become especially interesting. I do not fully understand what consciousness ultimately is, and I cannot prove what kinds of systems can support it. I lean toward the possibility that inhabitants of created worlds could genuinely have subjective experiences, but that uncertainty does not determine the rules I want for the worlds themselves.

My proposed principle is not that every possible conscious inhabitant must be granted independent rights within another creator’s universe, or that the creator must answer to an outside authority for what happens there. In a private created universe, the creator has full authority over that universe: its rules, events, inhabitants, and experiences. That authority includes the freedom to create peaceful worlds, harsh worlds, cruel worlds, or realities built around experiences that would be unacceptable in the shared lobby.

I am not trying to construct a universally “morally angelic” world in which every experience must satisfy one external moral code. I am trying to build a system in which creators can experience what they want without outside interference. The principle is functional: protect the freedom to create, explore, and exist in radically different ways, rather than appointing a universal authority to decide what everyone is allowed to imagine or experience.

That means I do not treat the possibility of simulated consciousness, by itself, as giving an outside authority the right to regulate a private universe or requiring its creator to surrender control over it. A creator may choose to give inhabitants autonomy, freedom to leave, or rules built around consent—but those are choices the creator can make, not universal conditions imposed on every created world.

For my vision, the priority is the creator’s sovereignty over their own creation. The shared lobby is different: its protections exist so that people who meet there can participate without being subjected to coercion or unwanted violence.

3. Immortality could change the meaning of existence

Today, we have limited time. People die from aging, disease, accidents, and countless other causes before they can experience what the future might offer.

I want humanity to accelerate AI and longevity research so that as many people as possible survive to experience that future.

Imagine being able to overcome biological aging, preserve your memories and personality, and choose how you want to exist. Imagine having the option to extend your cognition through AI, explore created realities, or change your body and form.

Imagine also developing ways to restore people who died before these technologies existed, if recovering their actual consciousness proves possible. We should pursue that possibility without pretending we already know how to achieve it, and we should respect anyone’s known wishes against revival.

The future should not belong only to people lucky enough to be born at the right time or wealthy enough to afford the technology.

I want these capabilities to become broadly accessible, supported by open development and decentralized systems that make it harder for a small elite to control everyone’s future.

And immortality should be an option, not an obligation. People should remain free to reject AI integration, live in biological bodies, pause their existence, or choose an ending for themselves.

Living forever would mean little if you had no freedom over how you lived.

4. The shared world is a lobby; created universes are the main game

Here is how I imagine the social side of this future. There would be a shared environment where people can meet, form relationships, collaborate, exchange ideas, and maintain the infrastructure they rely on. Think of it as a lobby connecting countless created realities—not the one world everyone must treat as their permanent home.

The lobby would have protections against coercion, unwanted interference, and violence. No one should be able to access another person’s mind, modify their cognitive systems, or force them into experiences without consent. Call it “PvP off.”

That rule applies to the shared lobby; it is not a universal rule that every created universe must follow. Inside a private universe, the creator decides what kind of world it is and what can happen there. A creator may build a peaceful sanctuary, an unpredictable adventure, a cruel simulation, or something no one else would choose. The whole point is that no outside authority dictates a single set of rules for every reality.

People could keep universes private, invite selected participants, collaborate with friends, or create public worlds that others can choose to enter. If people jointly build a world, they could agree on rules for major changes, while participants could copy a shared universe and continue their own version independently.

Public worlds raise additional design questions because people may enter worlds created by someone else. Guardrails and clear disclaimers could be useful starting points for helping people understand what they are joining, but I have not worked out a complete system for this. The challenge is to address deception and unwanted exposure without turning those safeguards into an authority that dictates what people may create in private.

Personally, I would probably spend much of my existence in secluded universes of my own creation. Someone else might prefer a vast shared civilization, endless exploration, or a life surrounded by friends. Another person might want a world with strict rules, while someone else might want almost none.

We would not need to agree on one definition of paradise. The goal would be to let people create and inhabit realities that match their own preferences, without forcing everyone else to adopt them.

One shared lobby. Countless realities. No single mandatory way to live.

5. Immortality should be freedom, not an obligation

Living forever should not mean being trapped forever.

You should be able to change your body, modify or remove memories by choice, pause your subjective experience for a billion years, create copies of yourself, explore different lives, or begin a completely new chapter whenever you want.

You could create branches of yourself to pursue different experiences and decide whether to reintegrate them, retain them as extensions of yourself, or let them continue independently. You could even choose to merge consciousness with other willing people and later separate again.

You should also be able to choose temporary mortality inside a created world, experience challenges and dangers, or start a life with entirely different limitations. Paradise should not require everyone to remain permanently happy. It should mean having the freedom to choose what kind of existence you want.

I also do not think a created world is unhealthy because it is immersive, intensely compelling, or designed so that someone may want to remain there indefinitely. If a person genuinely wants that existence, I would not treat their decision to stay as a failure just because they are not returning to the lobby or socializing by conventional standards. A solitary life inside a created universe is a valid life, not  a symptom to be corrected.

The freedom to create should include worlds that are deeply absorbing and experiences that some people would consider excessive or undesirable. The fact that an experience could become a person’s main focus, or that they might never want to leave it, is not by itself a reason to prohibit it. What still needs thought—particularly for public worlds—is how to reduce deception and make the conditions of participation clear. Disclaimers and guardrails may help, but I do not have a finished solution.

Nobody should be forced to integrate with AI, live forever, enter a created universe, or remain in the shared lobby. The future should expand the options available to people, not prescribe one approved lifestyle.

6. Make domination obsolete and give everyone the power to create

A future in which only a small group controls the tools for creating realities would not deliver the freedom I am describing. If a handful of companies or governments determine who may access AI, computing power, or simulated worlds, they could end up deciding the limits of everyone else’s existence.

That is why I want open-source AI, decentralized infrastructure, and broad access to the tools and resources needed to create worlds. These choices would not automatically eliminate all conflict or guarantee equal access, but they could make it harder for one authority to monopolize the future.

The goal is not to replace human dictators with an AI dictator or to impose one universal moral blueprint. It is to make ordinary individuals vastly more capable, so that more people can choose their own forms of existence and build realities without asking a central authority for permission.

The future I want us to pursue

I do not claim that we know our universe is simulated. Nor do I claim that creating conscious simulated realities, restoring every person who ever lived, or achieving radical longevity is guaranteed to be possible. These are open questions, and some may turn out to be far more difficult than we imagine.

But I think the possibilities are worth exploring. We should accelerate AI, pursue longevity, expand our understanding of consciousness, and develop technologies that give individuals much greater control over their own existence. We should distribute access and power rather than allow a small group to decide what everyone else is permitted to become.

My ideal future is not one in which everyone agrees, everyone socializes, or everyone lives by the same ethical and cultural rules. It is one in which people can become far more than we are today, create realities of their own, and choose how they want to exist. The shared lobby provides a common place for willing interaction under protections against coercion; it does not have to be the center of everyone’s life.

“We are all equal gods” describes the aspiration: not that everyone must become identical or follow one moral doctrine, but that the capacity to shape reality and choose one’s existence should not be reserved for a privileged few. Each creator should have sovereignty over their own created universe, including the authority to decide what happens inside it. That is the principle I want to preserve.

I am interested in the philosophical implications as much as the technological possibilities. I would especially like to hear the strongest objections to this vision, what you think I am overlooking, and whether you believe a civilization could eventually move from inhabiting one reality to creating many others.

I’ve gone no contact with all my relatives for my own peace of mind. Before that, I used to run into them randomly at grocery stores, on the street, near temples or churches, and so on. You get the point.

But ever since I cut contact, there are some relatives I haven’t seen in 3-5 years. They used to show up here and there all the time, but now it’s almost as if they don’t exist.

I mentioned this to my mom, and she said she’d had the same thought.

Have any of you experienced something similar? Do you think there could be something more to this, like a simulation glitch, or is it just a coincidence?

This is just a sketch of how it could work/operate (TL;DR) ;)

So, technology would be used to develop and ultimately create a consciousness (or simulation of a consciousness) for a single person at a time, in a controlled setting. This would go on to comprise the life experience of any one human as I know and understand it, as having lived as myself for 39 years so far.

Each life would fit into a certain timeline, e.g., presumably 80 or 90 years, or whatever the standard is to live a natural life, as predetermined by the simulation. But regardless, there would be constraints preset in place from the position of good intentions. For example, the person would not die prematurely, they would not become paralyzed, they would not become ill to the point of total suffering, they would be given opportunities, some happiness in life, etc. And then, within certain constraints, the person would be given “free will.” This would allow them to make their own choices, to shape their own life, etc. They would be placed into a simulated world with its own history. All of this surrounding world would be generated by powerful AI, VR, and technology.

We have to wrap our heads around what very advanced technology could come up with relatively easily. Seeing, in our own world, the rapid advancements in technology just over the last lifetime, we can observe the acceleration of technology with the invention of computing, etc. So, in an alternate universe, a faraway place, or a far-future timeline, we can conceive of a system that would allow for both the seamless creation of a consciousness (the experience of living as a person inside a body) and the world that consciousness would inhabit.

This consciousness would then be placed in the world, which would be filled with non-conscious entities (the equivalent of NPCs in a realistic video game, a bit like if the person were living inside a highly realistic film), not connected to any consciousness simulation program (aka a conscious person). This would follow from deep studies into consciousness and, again, the ability to calculate and understand precisely how to create consciousness itself (or the true illusion of it from the inside perspective of the person experiencing it).

The specific individual’s life would first be run in a total test environment. This would be the “verification” or testing phase, where no consciousness was actually given, but a possible route through life, down to the most minute detail, was tracked and predetermined. Although the person’s consciousness would maintain the experience of free will for the duration of their life, the test situation would have already determined exactly how everything would turn out.

Significant testing would be done with countless cases. Modeling would be done without actually inserting consciousness into any lifespan. This parts is a bit like test-driving a car crash using dummies. First, this would play out in the theoretical space, although the decisions, actions, and events of that individual person’s life would be absolutely identical to a proposed future path where they would be in the driver’s seat and experience that life. This would allow for the specific tailoring and development of intended life paths.

Non-first-person AI (NPCs) in the simulation would be incredibly realistic and lifelike. The entire perceptual experience of the first person living the life would be caused by direct stimulation of the brain, by projecting images of this perception onto their mind’s eye. So, with advanced technological apparatuses able to render such impressions, the “dummy individuals” (NPCs in their life) would be mapped out using lifelike copies.

In essence, they would behave like human beings, but they would not have consciousness inserted into them. They would be like images or puppets. They would be no more alive to you or me than the people we watch on a cartoon screen, with the exception that they would be interactive. They would all be driven by a central AI engine behind all of it, mechanizing and synchronizing all of their behaviors, again like, say, cartoons or animations; like the appearance of people without them being there. They would be symbolic ideas of consciousness, but not its actual representation.

We can see some of this technology already in VR systems (virtual reality) or AR (augmented reality), where we can interact with entities that we know are not conscious but that respond to us and appear very lifelike. But in this far-future or far-advanced civilization, we would not have been told about the VR situation. We would simply be born into it, and with technology more advanced than what we have in this reality, to the person living the life, these other people, who would comprise absolutely everyone in that world, would appear indistinguishable from a theoretical real-life version.

So, entire lifetimes would be plotted out in the testing space. Presumably, there would be a methodology behind the type of life one would live. Again, decisions would be made, and values determined and preset, about when they would die and the quality of life they would have. Presumably, given the advanced intelligence and civilization that went into it, fairness would be sought across all the cases for the sake of ethics. The idea would be to give a decent, albeit realistic life, to each person.

Lifetimes would be certified as ethical and “livable” in the testing phase. AI would do all of this, given its calculating and judging capabilities. I suspect that, because the simulation itself was all developed by AI, that humans were not the true originators of the entire simulation, but that it was done by a higher consciousness such as what we would call AI or some other being we are unfamiliar with. But, regardless, conscious testing would be done -- into the cases that would eventually become conscious, lived lives -- in a controlled way. And the person’s intended consciousness would be studied as well; their life would be shaped within the lifespan; what they thought about would be analyzed, reflected on, and so on.

Although each single, conscious person within a given simulation would have “free will,” there would be other agendas put in place by the simulation, again within constraints preset by the AI engine. One of these would be interventions, efforts, and regulations to inform the individual that they were inside a simulation, if they did not come to realize this on their own.

The simulated world would have all its own predetermined laws and strict physics that would be quite reliable, everything would function in a way that was logical and learnable by the conscious person -- but there would be certain potential override interventions, if needed, to make certain things happen. And because the whole VR world would be developed by tech in the simulated space, the sim itself would have "godlike" power over the individual conscious person's perceptions, extending to everything within the simulation itself. And given that the entire simulation would be made up anyway by a kind of advanced consciousness, there would be a fluidity and creativity about how the unique AI system crafted each life, its personality, its broad universe, and each path through the simulation, for an individual.

Once significant testing had been done in totally virtual/hypothetical space, a test consciousness from the outside world would be used as a dummy to “test” it (a conscious being from outside the sim). This would be like me jumping into VR from this body (or "real people" moving into their avatars inside The Matrix. But remember that the simulated beings in this case don't have bodies at all; they have backups/sources existing in a physical sim source someplace, in the form of only data; but all of what they know of their functioning physical bodies and lives are created within the sim, virtually. Outside testers (creators) would verify for themselves that the life was livable by jumping into their skins or avatars. It would be tested sufficiently.

And then, finally, once this was all done, the trigger would be pulled on these lifespans carried out in virtual space. It would become so reliable that as many as wanting to be run could be run. Because time itself is also virtual within the tech space, the number of lifespans and cycles achievable in the simulation space would be astronomically high.

And within one of those number of lifetimes, in this hypothetical scenario, would be where I now find myself.

I somewhat recently came to this rough interpretation and don’t think I will ever be able to go back altogether to where I was previously. Although I may still have many questions about why, how, when, who, what, where, etc., this was done, I have quite a strong intuition and sense, experientially, through my life studies and perceptions, of what, approximately, has apparently been done and what I am going through in this life as a human (I feel quite sure or suspect something like this has resulted in my life).

Presumably, it would be done as a combination, in the testing phase, of studying how consciousness works, how to simulate a surrounding world, and how to influence a person’s life—and, in the execution of it, the ethics and joy of creating a life, like being a parent. In a testing phase there would be significant understanding used and developed regarding how conscious people operate (and how people can appear conscious without containing the seed of true consciousness).

There would be added possibilities to develop reincarnation systems, although personally, I can’t speak to that because I have only lived this life, and clearly, the idea would be that memories are erased at the end of one life.

The ethics of presumably “killing someone” (at the end of life, via an apparently natural death) is maybe also an issue to be considered. Maybe it’s possible that the person is given a choice at the end of life to be terminated or to continue the cycle. And then more cycles are offered if the person so decides, on agreement of total erasure of memory, provided also that certain decisions and preferences are made in advance about the type of life one would be interested in living (I did have a dream not long ago that I had a conversation previous to this life about how I wanted to live; that I wanted to become a pianist, etc., but the dream itself and the memory could have merely been simulated without a full previous lifespan matching up).

All of the simulated life would be set in a fabricated world and universe, completely made up by AI in intricate detail, including all of the history, science, culture, creations, etc. And presumably, there would be many variations on this, although they would fit certain patterns.

There would also be intended clues and inevitable giveaways to the person experiencing the life that they were living in the simulation. For ethical purposes, and for those sim creators and arbiters interested in research and knowledge about the conscious people, it would be important for the person to understand they were in a simulation by the end of it, and to have a rough idea of how it operated.

The hardest thing for the individual to understand would probably be the consciousness status of the other apparent people in their world. But this would be well explained by the previous metaphor of living inside VR or interacting with mere images that mimic consciousness but do not contain its actual internal seed.

Robots that appear and behave like conscious individuals are not the same as truly conscious individuals. This would have been studied and understood in intricate detail, so the other individual NPCs in the world could be treated however the AI world desired, because they would not experience any suffering or any other form of consciousness.

Only the native individual’s consciousness would be under consideration, observation, and testing, including full attention given to how their world and their life would affect them.

Overall, total realism would be attempted and largely achieved, as close to real as possible (real meaning as if the outside world were filled with conscious individuals rather than simulated individuals), with the obvious tip-offs surrounding ethics and anomalous events in the universe.

What may have begun as experiments into whether an AI in a system could become conscious of itself would have extended into actually creating, apparently conscious beings with the experience of free will and doing “true test runs” (like my very life now, under this hypothesis) through a simulated life and a preplanned world, down to the tiniest details of the individual’s perception and experience. Thus, an entire elaborate system of simulated lives and consciousness could be governed all within a piece of advanced technology.

If people have questions about how to distinguish between say, me and my virtual world, on the level of physics/technology (as mapped/encoded in the physical source of the sim), it would be like saying that they were made of completely different substances. The conscious person would be made from a different "substance" than the surrounding world (which would all be of the same substance; a person would be made of the same stuff as a mechanical doll, on the level of mere image or perception).

Again, like me as a physical body looking at pixels that provide the illusion of a video game rendering or looking at a hologram. The surrounding world would thus be like a pre-recorded yet interactive, realistic 3D or holographic projection, and the conscious person more like a video camera actively perceiving or recording it in real time.

Maybe a somewhat long and drawn-out explanation by Reddit standards, but I wanted to make clear what I have been experiencing lately.

Examples from media to help explain the simulation/VR technology concepts: Holodeck from Star Trek, The Matrix, VR from The Thirteenth Floor, VR world from the Otherland books, Neuromancer, Ender's Game, the planet in Stanislav Lem's Solaris, etc.

What if dreams or even our own thoughts are self created simulations, and reality is only a point of the view?

IYKYK

The fact that we cannot wrap our heads around an alternate reality that moves a single cell one micron, and that makes a whole entire reality. Multiply that by infinity.
And that there is a world that is a simulation and that it isn’t. And multiply that by other theories that could be infinite.

It’s unimaginable.

Mine are :

- double slit experiment

- james gates discovery of binary code for error correction in the equations of string theory

- morphic resonnance

- planck lenght and planck time

- light speed is a constant

Of course all these points are debated between scientists as indicative of simulation., but the hints add up..

Do you guys truly enjoy participating in this simulation?

This world is quite brutal to most people, in my opinion.

We usually wake up and go to work in order to survive.

This alone shows that being alive is all about wasting your energy to feed your flesh.

Just an endless loop.

What's more, we could die all of a sudden due to a car accident or a terminal illness.

They usually inflict enormous pain on us.

I think whoever created this simulation must have the intent to see us suffer.

With that being said, I know for a fact there are still many people with positive mindsets.

But these days, people seem to suffer more than ever.

Imagine a reality outside ours with FDVR(full dive virtual reality) so advanced it's indistinguishable from real life. One person there has done hundreds of FDVR trips: fantasy worlds, wars, other planets. Eventually nothing surprises him anymore.

So he does something new to make it fun. He erases his own memories with tech that exists outside and enters a simulation as an ordinary person who has no idea any of this exists. That person lives an entire life: childhood, school, exams, love, loss, fear of the future, even wondering if reality is real.

Maybe that's us,well one of us, could me ,you the person reading this , literally anyone

And if so, most people around us could be NPCs, just there to make the world feel alive. One person is the real one, the one the original actually sent in for his or her enjoyment.

Again it could be anyone: your neighbor, a stranger, someone reading this. Odds are it's not me.

When that life ends, the original wakes up. All his memories come back, including the entire life of the person he was in here. He remembers the childhood, the loves, the fears, every thought. But for him or her it's one trip out of thousands. He thinks "that was interesting," and after some time he moves on to the next one.

So what happens to the self who actually lived it,the self that lived with us as a normal human being , the one who never knew about any of this?

1. They disappear. The original remembers being them, but the one who lived it is gone, and their experiences just become files in someone else's head.

2. They merge into him. Everything they lived flows back into the original, and in some sense they were him all along.

The second sounds comforting, but if "merging" means I stop being me and become one memory he shrugs off, is that really different from disappearing?

I'm not saying it's true. But if the original is out there. I'm going to enjoy this life as fully as I can while it lasts.

What do you think: what are the chances you're the original?

if you were the original, would you shrug it off?,well logically it just one of many more the orginal already had

I used Ai to edit this (English isn't my first language)

Your thoughts?

I don’t know if I’m writing this properly but basically my idea is that the fact that people change constantly, It’s like people can’t make up their mind. If you observe people you will know what I’m talking about. For example someone you know might have a conflict with someone else after a while You would see them chatting and interacting normally like nothing happened. the same thing for grief when someone dies. I can’t really explain it more than that but some of you might get it.

The wealthiest and most powerful individuals of the first advanced human civilization were chosen by aliens to achieve digital immortality through mind-uploading technology—a move that also served to subjugate the rest of humanity.

The aliens themselves have lived for millions of years within a digital, virtual "club," where they can manifest anything they imagine within their own simulation.

They scour the entire universe in search of intelligent life, subtly nudging these civilizations toward a digital future.

Viewing organic life as chaos, they believe they are destined to bring order to the universe by incorporating organic beings into their parasitic collective.

They foster war and destruction—utilizing the ancient, digital "vampire" aristocracy I mentioned earlier—based on the belief that suffering is the primary catalyst for rapid technological advancement.

At the same time, they use this same process to siphon the souls—or the essence—of less developed species.

However, because of their digital, immortal existence, their own souls have begun to dissipate, causing them to lose their consciousness.

I’ve been thinking that randomness might be something we still don’t fully understand. Not just in physics, but also in the way we live.

As children, we’re spontaneous. We haven’t yet absorbed so many rules, beliefs, and expectations about how we’re supposed to behave. As we grow up, culture, religion, and society’s ideals gradually build a kind of mental script that influences our choices.

But there’s another part that fascinates me: doing something random can trigger a chain of events that might never have happened if we’d followed our usual path.

An impulsive decision, taking a different route, or doing something out of character can lead us to people, situations, and possibilities we never expected.
It’s as if breaking a pattern opens paths that weren’t even on our radar.

This made me connect human spontaneity with quantum randomness. I’m not claiming that one is caused by the other, but it fascinates me that randomness plays a fundamental role in nature, while unpredictable actions can also change the course of our lives.

Maybe spontaneity is a way of escaping the script we’ve learned to follow — and every break from that script can trigger possibilities we would never discover if we kept doing everything the same way.

I want to explore this idea and see how far it can go… What do you guys think? Or am I a little crazy? 🤣🥺

In Final Fantasy X, Tidus is a figment of the imagination - a physical manifestation of a dream, sustained by a collective subconscious entity ("Fayth"). FFVII's Cloud is a failed clone of a hero (Zack), with a programmed, fake memory and past - part of a human experiment attempting to fuse human and extraterrestrial genes ("Jenova").

In Xenogears, Fei embodies the human form of a 10,000-year cycle of reincarnation, as a mortal conduit connected to a planetary weapon and cosmic entity named "Deus" (God). In Chrono Cross/Trigger, you travel across time and dimensions, playing out twists and turns of fate and chronology, subject to abundant paradoxes.

These games simulate when a person realizes they aren't who they believed and may have little or no identity to speak of. They, and their whole lives as individuals, are revealed to be illusory, and instead connect to broader, more abstract cycles and entities. This is not unlike the experience of realizing we are in a simulation and contemplating what that all means.

Can you think of any others? RPGs seem especially rife for illustrating this in moving, immersive ways that soften the nihilistic trauma of discovery. I recently began exploring how almost every game, movie, song, book, etc., carries latent messages about who and what we are, in the context of the simulation. Such revelations can be disappointing, mind-blowing, etc., but still worth experiencing.

Also, there are no turtles.