Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85

Thread: Sim Theory - We May Actually Be In The Matrix (2016)

  1. #16
    Senior Member Joanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,688 Times in 607 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post

    How does a computer program perceive the computer and the programmer? Can it? Can we?

    Haha, that's a deep one, will sleep on it.

    From the Rig Veda: "The wise behold with their mind in their heart the Sun, made manifest by the maya of the Asura..."

    ...'behold with their mind in their heart'....oh I like that...

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st April 2016), Divine Feminine (1st April 2016), Dreamtimer (31st March 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016)

  3. #17
    Senior Member Australia
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Location
    Vietnam
    Posts
    43
    Thanks
    244
    Thanked 183 Times in 43 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Joanna View Post
    The holographic paradigm and quantum entanglement are, in a sense, similar to - or reviving the - older understanding of maya...as the attribute (of the attention of the observer) that converts energy into the appearance of solid form.
    Thank you Joanna.
    Really great post. Thanks heaps.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to citsym For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st April 2016), Divine Feminine (1st April 2016), Dreamtimer (31st March 2016), Joanna (1st April 2016), pointessa (20th April 2016)

  5. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Joanna View Post
    If you go back to the origins of the word 'maya' in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism (Rig Veda and Gathas 1700-250BC), perhaps it can be useful to look at the way its definition shifted. Now, maya is used to mean 'the illusion of matter' in a negative way...of the material world blinding (and seducing) humanity to spiritual truth...becoming entranced by the illusion, the maya, and lost within it.
    In the oldest texts, maya meant a power or attribute of the gods, to 'magically' transform an idea or concept into that which has a physical existence. (In the simulation model, where the observer transforms a wave (of energy) into a particle, then in that original sense, we are the 'gods' of our own 'particle reality', wielding the power of maya by our attention.
    In later texts, maya shifted to mean images that appear to be real, experienced as real and solid, but lack spiritual truth ie; the images/forms became experienced as separated from truth. Later this was seen as deception, false images trapping souls in the wheel of karma...because they were acted/reacted to as though real.
    Joanna, thanks for the most excellent explanation. It is worth quoting this again!

    What is really interesting to consider, much like how a human embryo can be said to undergo the whole genetic mutation a species has undergone during its evolutionary process during its development during gestation, is how the changes in the meaning or understanding of the term demonstrates the real world obstacles individuals face when mastering the subject.

    I underline a part that most certainly is found in our day to day life.

    Quote Originally posted by Joanna View Post
    When does a drop separate from the ocean? When does a particle emerge from the wave-of-all-potential? When does consciousness individuate from the Source field-of-consciousness?
    As soon as the drop falls back into the ocean, it is merged again with all water. Yet the water that was in the drop does not cease to exist, it simply re-merges with the rest of itself. There is no annihilation. The play of forms - the magical creative power of maya (or veil of illusion of matter) - manifests and arranges particles, in everchanging patterns, from the wave, but the energy of the wave is always....energy never dies, it just keeps changing form....and maya was also therefore defined as that which changes (ie; subject to space and time) and hence not in the absolute truth of Spirit (Parama Brahma - pure consciousness).
    A change in form that could remain in absolute truth of Spirit requires a 100% impedance match. Perfectionism in form and mind. That is a clue about the nature of the obstacle alluded to above.

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st April 2016), Bob (1st April 2016), citsym (1st April 2016), Dreamtimer (31st March 2016), Joanna (1st April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016)

  7. #19
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    6,451
    Thanks
    29,990
    Thanked 26,312 Times in 6,084 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Joanna View Post
    If you go back to the origins of the word 'maya' in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism (Rig Veda and Gathas 1700-250BC), perhaps it can be useful to look at the way its definition shifted. Now, maya is used to mean 'the illusion of matter' in a negative way...of the material world blinding (and seducing) humanity to spiritual truth...becoming entranced by the illusion, the maya, and lost within it.
    In the oldest texts, maya meant a power or attribute of the gods, to 'magically' transform an idea or concept into that which has a physical existence. (In the simulation model, where the observer transforms a wave (of energy) into a particle, then in that original sense, we are the 'gods' of our own 'particle reality', wielding the power of maya by our attention.
    In later texts, maya shifted to mean images that appear to be real, experienced as real and solid, but lack spiritual truth ie; the images/forms became experienced as separated from truth. Later this was seen as deception, false images trapping souls in the wheel of karma...because they were acted/reacted to as though real.

    When does a drop separate from the ocean? When does a particle emerge from the wave-of-all-potential? When does consciousness individuate from the Source field-of-consciousness?
    As soon as the drop falls back into the ocean, it is merged again with all water. Yet the water that was in the drop does not cease to exist, it simply re-merges with the rest of itself. There is no annihilation. The play of forms - the magical creative power of maya (or veil of illusion of matter) - manifests and arranges particles, in everchanging patterns, from the wave, but the energy of the wave is always....energy never dies, it just keeps changing form....and maya was also therefore defined as that which changes (ie; subject to space and time) and hence not in the absolute truth of Spirit (Parama Brahma - pure consciousness).

    The holographic paradigm and quantum entanglement are, in a sense, similar to - or reviving the - older understanding of maya...as the attribute (of the attention of the observer) that converts energy into the appearance of solid form.
    Love your explanation, have you read any of Jose Arguelles material ?, similar to it.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Divine Feminine (1st April 2016), Joanna (1st April 2016), lcam88 (1st April 2016), pointessa (20th April 2016)

  9. #20
    Senior Member Joanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,688 Times in 607 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    Going with the flow is such a powerful thing. I've experienced personally how well this works. I'm not where I am because I struggled to control and change things. I'm here because I tried to make the best out of what was happening. Things have worked out way better than would have been expected or predicted.

    How does a computer program perceive the computer and the programmer? Can it? Can we?

    "I'm not where I am because I struggled to control and change things. I'm here because I tried to make the best out of what was happening. Things have worked out way better than would have been expected or predicted."

    Dreamtimer, that is beautiful life wisdom.

    "How does a computer program perceive the computer and the programmer? Can it? Can we?"

    Firstly, the possibility for a program to perceive its programmer would depend on whether the programmer desires to be perceived, and how the programmer desires to be perceived. Not to mention where, when and why.
    The programmer might decide, for instance, that when its programs reach a certain operational stage, they will be able to perceive the computer and its working....to apprehend the programmer's creative 'touch' in its design, in its recurring, ubiquitous ratios, sequences, patterns...and for the programs to 'discover' all of those patterns within themselves, at which point the program might perceive itself as a synchronous fractal within an infinitely recurring 'family of programs' inside a greater whole.
    If this was all the programmer desired, for the programs to be aware of the computer, and how they 'act' within it, then the programs could wander around eternally, admiring the ubiquity. But a program that has perceived the computer and its own relationship to the computer (as a program) will comprehend the implied presence of the programmer (unless code has been added into the program that deletes this awareness). When the idea or illusion of the program as primary reality is seen through, like an exposed magic trick, and the implication of 'a programmer' is absorbed, then we come back to the intention of the programmer, as to how, and in what way, it can be perceived.
    Secondly, if the programmer has designed the programs to interact with it more wholistically (rather than say, as an observer watching a stage play it has designed), then the codes of this 'creation program' might be an extension of its own 'primary reality' in a way that the primary reality is continuously, perhaps holographically present (or housed) within every program, no matter how deeply a program has identified itself with the props, set design, lighting, lines, as an actor, a dancer, a muppet (in deference to our current communal avatar, Big Blue Bird)....yet always has the potential in its code to re-focus back along the line of extension from the programmer, as it is itself carrying the code, whether activated or latent, of the programmer's primary reality....

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    Bob (1st April 2016), Divine Feminine (1st April 2016), Dreamtimer (1st April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016)

  11. #21
    Senior Member Joanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,688 Times in 607 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by citsym View Post
    Thank you Joanna.
    Really great post. Thanks heaps.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (1st April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016), The One (3rd April 2016)

  13. #22
    Senior Member Joanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,688 Times in 607 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    A change in form that could remain in absolute truth of Spirit requires a 100% impedance match. Perfectionism in form and mind. That is a clue about the nature of the obstacle alluded to above.
    Indeed it is. Or, is the obstacle only there because we perceive it to be so, in this simulation model?

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    Bob (1st April 2016), Dreamtimer (1st April 2016), lcam88 (1st April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016), The One (3rd April 2016)

  15. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Joanna
    Or, is the obstacle only there because we perceive it to be so, in this simulation model?
    Yes! That is a very interesting point.

    We interfere with our personal moments of maya by introducing "impurities" which are deviations from the required perfection. To perceive an imperfection in form or mind is the same as introducing the impurity itself.

    Like the word "hologram", "simulation" is a term easily misunderstood, especially when associated with the term model, by some people.

    I make mention of that only since we happen to on the topic of perceiving imperfections. To allude to artificiality of some kind is the same as an allusion to lack of "spiritual truth", as you mentioned priorly to mean a separation from truth, or declension. And yes, the understanding of artificiality one may have of the terms is a perspective (of understanding) of the individual, and not necessarily a truth in itself.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Bob (1st April 2016), Dreamtimer (3rd April 2016), Joanna (1st April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016), The One (3rd April 2016)

  17. #24
    Senior Member Joanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,688 Times in 607 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aianawa View Post
    Love your explanation, have you read any of Jose Arguelles material ?, similar to it.
    Aianawa, I hadn't heard of him until you spoke of him on a thread at TOT...and then read a bit about him, but no, haven't read his work.

    At the time Arguelles was organizing the Harmonic Convergence (1987), I was weaving tapestries, studying medieval manuscripts, and reading a lot of post-structuralism (the critical theory underpinning Postmodernism). The post-structuralists (and deconstructivists) were also into interpreting life as a simulation (Jean Baudrillard's Simulacrum etc)...but rather than the video in the OP of this thread, which puts forward a simulation hypothesis of life based in principles of an inherent order observable by its effects, the post-structuralist view was rooted in materialism ie; that order arises randomly/accidentally out of chaos, and has no inherent meaning. Therefore, life has no meaning other than that which we ascribe to it, and there is no essential significance in any aspect of life, because it's all an illusion made up of a mass of 'floating signifiers' that we ascribe worth to individually and according to random life events/nurture etc.
    In other words, as regards the idea of life/lived reality as a simulation, this is the view at the other end of the philosophical spectrum from Plato's concept of an immutable Realm of Ideals which exist as eternal templates from which all that is materially perceivable is a reflection....
    Last edited by Joanna, 1st April 2016 at 13:34.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st April 2016), Dreamtimer (3rd April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016), The One (3rd April 2016)

  19. #25
    Senior Member Joanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,688 Times in 607 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Yes! That is a very interesting point.

    We interfere with our personal moments of maya by introducing "impurities" which are deviations from the required perfection. To perceive an imperfection in form or mind is the same as introducing the impurity itself.

    Like the word "hologram", "simulation" is a term easily misunderstood, especially when associated with the term model, by some people.

    I make mention of that only since we happen to on the topic of perceiving imperfections. To allude to artificiality of some kind is the same as an allusion to lack of "spiritual truth", as you mentioned priorly to mean a separation from truth, or declension. And yes, the understanding of artificiality one may have of the terms is a perspective (of understanding) of the individual, and not necessarily a truth in itself.
    Good point, and yes, it is all about perspective and interpretation....

    "To perceive an imperfection in form or mind is the same as introducing the impurity itself." Right, and if that is so, then the wisdom of seeing through the eyes of love becomes clear...

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st April 2016), Bob (1st April 2016), Dreamtimer (1st April 2016), lcam88 (1st April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016), The One (3rd April 2016)

  21. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Joann
    "To perceive an imperfection in form or mind is the same as introducing the impurity itself." Right, and if that is so, then the wisdom of seeing through the eyes of love becomes clear...
    Perfectly crystal clear.

    "Seeing through the eyes of love" is a perfect way to express maya as per the oldest texts meaning "a power or attribute of the gods". The 100% match.

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st April 2016), Dreamtimer (1st April 2016), Joanna (3rd April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016), The One (3rd April 2016)

  23. #27
    Senior Member pointessa's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th April 2015
    Posts
    175
    Thanks
    2,566
    Thanked 1,124 Times in 173 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Joanna View Post
    If you go back to the origins of the word 'maya' in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism (Rig Veda and Gathas 1700-250BC), perhaps it can be useful to look at the way its definition shifted. Now, maya is used to mean 'the illusion of matter' in a negative way...of the material world blinding (and seducing) humanity to spiritual truth...becoming entranced by the illusion, the maya, and lost within it.
    In the oldest texts, maya meant a power or attribute of the gods, to 'magically' transform an idea or concept into that which has a physical existence. (In the simulation model, where the observer transforms a wave (of energy) into a particle, then in that original sense, we are the 'gods' of our own 'particle reality', wielding the power of maya by our attention.
    In later texts, maya shifted to mean images that appear to be real, experienced as real and solid, but lack spiritual truth ie; the images/forms became experienced as separated from truth. Later this was seen as deception, false images trapping souls in the wheel of karma...because they were acted/reacted to as though real.

    When does a drop separate from the ocean? When does a particle emerge from the wave-of-all-potential? When does consciousness individuate from the Source field-of-consciousness?
    As soon as the drop falls back into the ocean, it is merged again with all water. Yet the water that was in the drop does not cease to exist, it simply re-merges with the rest of itself. There is no annihilation. The play of forms - the magical creative power of maya (or veil of illusion of matter) - manifests and arranges particles, in everchanging patterns, from the wave, but the energy of the wave is always....energy never dies, it just keeps changing form....and maya was also therefore defined as that which changes (ie; subject to space and time) and hence not in the absolute truth of Spirit (Parama Brahma - pure consciousness).

    The holographic paradigm and quantum entanglement are, in a sense, similar to - or reviving the - older understanding of maya...as the attribute (of the attention of the observer) that converts energy into the appearance of solid form.


    This is a most magnificent post!! Thank you, Joanna. You are a wise and articulate woman.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pointessa For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (3rd April 2016), Joanna (4th April 2016), The One (3rd April 2016)

  25. #28
    Senior Member Joanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,688 Times in 607 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Perfectly crystal clear.

    "Seeing through the eyes of love" is a perfect way to express maya as per the oldest texts meaning "a power or attribute of the gods". The 100% match.
    "Bingo!" (to quote a program from The Matrix, lol)

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (3rd April 2016), lcam88 (4th April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016), The One (3rd April 2016)

  27. #29
    Senior Member Joanna's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd April 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia.
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    2,858
    Thanked 2,688 Times in 607 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by pointessa View Post
    This is a most magnificent post!! Thank you, Joanna. You are a wise and articulate woman.
    Thanks, pointessa. A work in progress, I'd say....& that is the fun of it!

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joanna For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (3rd April 2016), pointessa (3rd April 2016), The One (3rd April 2016)

  29. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,010
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,246 Times in 920 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Joanna View Post
    "Bingo!" (to quote a program from The Matrix, lol)
    To then suppose we exist in a Matrix, a holographic construct, especially while the movie "The Matrix" is in context, suggests that an artificiality or superficiality is present. Would you care to elaborate or comment on that?

    To preface one type of "superficiality" notable in the construct: GMO's are food like substances; it is a perfectly valid to suggest that GMO foods are misaligned energetically. Is it a valid analogy to suppose that such a misalignment is a larger deviation from truth than "earth normal"?
    Last edited by lcam88, 5th April 2016 at 14:49. Reason: grammar fix

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Bob (4th April 2016), Joanna (6th April 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •