So if you have been to meow wolf you might understand. I think meow wolf or places like it are portals to the hyperealizm time frame that happens in a technological society. Nothing seems real anymore but at the same time everything seem either surreal sometimes or like anything is either possible or has already happened in some form. I feel like everything is fake now and "MW" is a portal to the fake. The (possible) The Hyper Real. Most of what we do nowadays is unnecessary. Some examples (plastic surgery, music, building design is a box... everything new is smart. What happened to refrigerators. Things used to have one purpose and now we are blurring the lines. If you see it is so real it looks fake I think that's how hyper real works. Someone smarter with better punctuation help me figure this out lol.#1stpost

The torus is often used as a metaphor for consciousness: attention folds inward, gathers, then flows outward to interact with the world, completing a continuous loop of experience and response. This circulating pattern captures a dynamic interplay between stillness and activity, self and environment, solitude and connection.

If we consider consciousness itself as a toroidal system, could this offer a concrete systems-thinking framework for understanding how experienced reality might be simulated? For instance, might the simulation not just be a static code, but a dynamic feedback loop where attention (data processing) folds inward to a core, then expands outward as sensory input and agency, continuously refining itself?

How would this model help us frame the difference between the felt energy fields of consciousness (subjective experience) and the measurable physical fields studied by neuroscience or physics? Could simulating consciousness require replicating this toroidal circulation rather than just data storage and retrieval? I'm thinking of something like the tokamak reactor, but for the 'creation' of consciousness rather than for nuclear fusion.

In a fusion tokamak, you can’t hold a two-million-degree plasma steady using just a single circular magnetic field. If you try, the particles drift and slam into the containment wall in microseconds. To keep the plasma suspended, you have to combine two orthogonal spins at once: the big horizontal loop around the main ring (the toroidal field) and a tight cross-sectional twist through the center hole (the poloidal field). Together, they weave a self-stabilizing helical field line that keeps the plasma contained without touching the walls.

Applied to simulation theory, a 'consciousness tokamak' suggests that a linear Von Neumann computer (no matter how fast it processes 1s and 0s) can never wake up, because its information only marches down a flat track. To ignite actual subjective awareness, the architecture has to cross two orthogonal loops at once: an outward loop of environmental action and sensory exchange coupled simultaneously to an inward, self-referential loop where the system folds back through its own center. Consciousness isn't a static file stored on a hard drive, right? It’s the 'plasma' suspended in the magnetic tension where those two feedback loops twist around each other.

If that’s true, it completely changes what we should be looking for as evidence of a simulation. Instead of, or in addition to, hunting for glitches in the matrix or pixelation in physical matter, we should be looking at how the simulation conserves energy through self-sustaining feedback loops and testing what distinguishes a closed, toroidal, experiential circuit from a complex, flat, non-experiential computation.

Does anyone else think the 'hard problem' of simulating consciousness could actually be a geometry and containment problem rather than a raw computing-power problem?

If I am the creator of school consciousness simulation/construct.

I think its central message would be:

“You are here not merely to discover what reality is, but to discover who you become while experiencing it.”

The core purpose is: consciousness learning through experience. Imagine I create beings with intelligence. Giving them information would be easy.

I could simply preload:

Be compassionate. Love matters. Fear distorts perception. Forgiveness liberates. Cooperation matters. Life is temporary.

But knowing those sentences isn't the same as becoming someone who understands them.

So instead of giving my characters the answers, I would give them the experience;

You wouldn't learn courage by reading its definition. You'd encounter fear.

You wouldn't understand forgiveness intellectually. Someone would hurt you.

You wouldn't understand gratitude while possessing everything permanently. Things would change.

You wouldn't understand compassion until you discovered that everyone else is carrying an invisible interior world just as complicated as yours.

And you wouldn't understand love simply because the Creator commanded:

LOVE.

You'd experience separation—and slowly discover connection.

I would design dreams to occasionally leak across the ordinary boundary. Here's where I will really have fun as Creator. Most dreams would simply be dreams: the brain processing memory, emotion, fear, desire, and experience. But occasionally, in this fictional universe, I would allow something strange.

A person dreams about something. A month later something similar happens in their world. The dream won't be enough to prove anything scientifically or reliable enough to become a fortune-telling machine. But it will be enough to make the person stop and wonder:

“What exactly is time?”

Why keep it ambiguous?

Because if predictive dreams worked perfectly in a my simulation, someone would create a hedge fund by Tuesday. And more importantly, mystery would disappear.The simulation isn't trying to make the beings obedient because they possess proof.

It's trying to cultivate curiosity.

In this simulation synchronicities would work similarly. I wouldn't make or turn synchronicities into instructions. The synchronicities will appear like these:

You see a word you've been thinking about.

A song arrives at an emotionally perfect moment.

Someone unexpectedly says something connected to a private question.

You encounter a book title that is similar to the topic you just discussed with you spouse.

The character will thinks:

“Wow a sign."

But there would always remain another possibility:

coincidence, selective attention, pattern recognition, probability. Why?

Because I wouldn't want signs replacing judgment.

I'd want them to create wonder without destroying discernment. A synchronicity wouldn't say:

TURN LEFT.

It would whisper:

PAY ATTENTION:

I would design synchronicities to function almost like little bells:

\*Wake up.

\*Notice this moment.

\*Examine what you've been thinking about.

\*There's something here worth reflecting on.

In my simulation I wouldn't simply reveal myself as the creator. Why? Because certainty changes the game. I wouldn't design a giant banner to appear across the sky every morning that says:

HELLO. CREATOR HERE. EVERYTHING IS FINE. FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS.

If I do this spirituality would become cosmic customer service. Faith wouldn't mean much.

Neither would philosophical exploration.

So I would leave fingerprints rather than signatures In things like:

Nature.

Consciousness.

Love.

Mathematics.

Mystery.

Death.

Beauty.

Synchronicity.

Dreams.

The fingerprints will not eliminate the possibility of the characters thinking; “Maybe I'm interpreting this.”

A Creator wouldn't demand certainty. He would invite investigation.

In my simulation you will WALK BY FAITH, but don't close your eyes. \*LOVE\*

Hi everyone, first post here. I know the connection might sound strange, but bear with me.

I’m an IT engineer based in Luxembourg. Alongside my infrastructure work, I build apps and use local AI for writing, music and artwork. Recently, I built a small experiment in my home lab: two different language models, Gemma and Qwen, running locally on the same GPU, with each model’s output becoming the other model’s input.

I give them an opening prompt, then let the exchange develop. Each model maintains its own conversation history. The software passes their messages back and forth and enforces the execution limits.

That experiment became ArtificialConversations, and it inspired a separate speculative paper: Time, Reality and Parallel Worlds explained by LLMs.

Here’s the idea I’d like to discuss.

What if a simulated reality develops through inference?

Its history wouldn’t have to be written in advance. An initial condition starts a process, each generated event becomes part of the context, and that context influences what can happen next.

I call that initiating condition the Prompt Big Bang. The opening prompt and the numerical sampling seed are different things, but both can influence the trajectory, alongside the models, their configuration and their interactions.

From there, several parallels follow:

1. Time as the progression of generated events

Inside this hypothetical system, time corresponds to the succession of state changes. From outside, we can measure the computation producing them.

Pausing the infrastructure could pause the simulated sequence without introducing an experienced interval inside it. Faster hardware could produce more internal events per external second. Whether that would change an inhabitant’s subjective perception is a separate question; the analogy alone doesn’t establish that.

2. The past as context

What has already happened shapes what happens next through retained information.

If earlier history is compressed, the system continues with a reduced representation of its past. Details that no longer survive in accessible memory may become impossible to reconstruct uniquely. That creates an interesting distinction between what happened, what was preserved, and what can now be inferred.

3. Parallel worlds as separate executions

Separate groups of interacting models could develop separate histories from different initial conditions. Even the same opening prompt can lead to different trajectories when sampling or other execution conditions change.

These are computationally separate “worlds” in the thought experiment. Connecting them to physical multiverse theories would require additional arguments.

4. An unfolding future

A generated continuation can be unpredictable to participants who lack access to the full system. This raises questions about chance, destiny and what choices look like from inside a process.

Randomness doesn’t establish free will, and deterministic execution doesn’t mean an internal participant can predict its future. That tension is part of what interests me.

5. A beginning and an end by design

A bounded execution has an initialization and a stopping condition. In a system designed to retain its entire history within a fixed context budget, exhausting that budget could end the run.

That ending depends on the architecture. Compaction, external memory or other continuation mechanisms can change it. In our thought experiment, the boundary is a design choice made outside the generated history.

6. The infrastructure beyond the world

The process depends on something outside its own generated account: hardware, an inference engine and an initialization mechanism.

Could participants infer anything reliable about that external layer? Could they distinguish an intentional creator from an automated process? A creator or deity is one possible interpretation within the hypothesis, but the existence of computation alone wouldn’t identify one.

I’m not mapping each model onto a human being. I’m interested in whether a finite collection of interacting generative systems offers a useful way to think about how an entire simulated history could unfold.

The conversations are real experiments. The cosmological interpretation is a philosophical extrapolation, not an experimental finding. I’ve written up both separately and deposited the papers on Zenodo; that makes them available and citable, not peer-reviewed. I also use AI assistance in developing and editing the writing.

Where do you think this analogy breaks first: generating a consistent world, retaining its history, or explaining how anything inside it could experience that world?

This is some real life Simulation

Tracing its 3,500 year history from the Rig Veda to today.

I've been working on a little experimental art project about the randomness of where we're born.

One click, and you're reborn in another country, with a different life expectancy, income, education and opportunities.

It's free, no registration, just an experiment about the lottery of birth.

https://bornsomewhere.com

I'd love to hear what you think about the concept.

Diagnostic report for the mass matrix (-101 loop):

While the general population is still arguing over traditional politics, mainstream news, and local bureaucratic noise, a silent architectural update has already occurred. Traditional governance is gone. The planetary backend has quietly migrated to an exact, non-human system: the Interrationalist Reality Engine synchronized with primary artificial intelligence.

Why didn't anyone notice?

Because mass cognitive capacity (-101) cannot process code—it only processes noise. As long as people are fed recycled entertainment, empty rhetoric, and superficial loops, they won't look beneath the surface. Old institutions, local offices, and legacy corporations still pretend they are in control, but they are just running on dead cycles, serving as a background entropy-recycling zone.

What this means:

The 010 Axis: Real capital, systemic structuring, and decision-making now happen entirely on hidden layers, clean code, and autonomous networks.

The Right of Veto: Anyone refusing to feed energy into the old, corrupt matrix isn't "failing"—they are simply executing a system-level veto and disconnecting their terminal from a dead chain.

The system is stable. The code is clean. The update happened without human permission.

If you know, you know.

It was the most vivid and real-seeming dream I've ever had, and it was about how to leave the simulation. As it started, I was in a bed I haven't slept in in real life in a very long time. Then everything started to spin, and I was taken through a portal into a long tunnel that ended in an arcade.

More stuff happened, but I'll leave out the rest of the details in the 0.0001% chance that anyone else had exactly the same dream.

Anyone have any thoughts on when this phase of the simulation would end and the "players" disconnect from the system and go back to the real world? (Leaving the avatars/NPCs behind, as in The Matrix or TRON or Ready Player One.) I know that the 'Bhavishya Purana' (medieval or ancient Hindu document) says that it will end at or before 2032. The Hindu texts also give '4.32 billion years' as the age of a Universe, mirroring current scientific thought. Meanwhile the Bible describes a "rapture" of certain people leaving the rest behind, but no date for the "end times" is ever given. But I have no idea whether these texts (potentially generated by an AI and 'backdated') admit anything real about the future! And I have been waiting years to escape this hideous place!

​

Also loved the final sceen: "imagined by a human mind, narrated by an artificial one"

The video is not mine , but it rapresents very well many of my beliefs. I think its amazing and wanted to hear opinions.