Simulation Theory and The Theory that Nothing Exists

[attofishpi]

"We exist within a reality simulation which itself was created by Creator(s) who also exist in a reality simulation which itself was created by a Creator who has always existed and does not come from 'nowhere/nothing' - as in - that is the Original Creator and the Original Creator does not have the memory of once not existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing, and in that, Nothing does not exist as far as The Original Creator is concerned."

Is this your construct for reality:-
1. Primary Reality.
2. Simulation of Primary Reality.
3. Simulation of Simulation of Primary Reality.
4. ...and perhaps this could go on Ad infinitum.

Yes? - if no, please deconstruct which point(s) I am not quite getting.

This creator you say 'does NOT have the memory of once NOT existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing.....'

Skepdick pointed out, one cannot have a memory of none existence - you, me, none of us indeed have memories of nothingness.

...just testing the water thus far.

[VVilliam]

"We exist within a reality simulation which itself was created by Creator(s) who also exist in a reality simulation which itself was created by a Creator who has always existed and does not come from 'nowhere/nothing' - as in - that is the Original Creator and the Original Creator does not have the memory of once not existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing, and in that, Nothing does not exist as far as The Original Creator is concerned."

Is this your construct for reality:-
1. Primary Reality.
2. Simulation of Primary Reality.
3. Simulation of Simulation of Primary Reality.
4. ...and perhaps this could go on Ad infinitum.

Yes? - if no, please deconstruct which point(s) I am not quite getting.

This creator you say 'does NOT have the memory of once NOT existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing.....'

Skepdick pointed out, one cannot have a memory of none existence - you, me, none of us indeed have memories of nothingness.

...just testing the water thus far.

The idea of nothing existing because we know about nothing [having experienced it]...was brought up so I went with that as a possible reason for why some might believe that nothing exists. It is in that context that I expanded on the idea leading back through our simulated reality, (2nd) to a possible simulated reality directly responsibly for creating our simulated reality, (1st) and a First Source Reality [not simulated] directly responsible for creating the 1st simulated reality.

We are best not to become too semantic about metaphor. If you can get the gist of what is being said and can offer something better in the way of metaphor than 'memory', please do.

"None existence" as far as that goes, is not of itself evidence that nothing exists.

[Skepdick]

You forget the OP subject and premise:
"We exist within a reality simulation which itself was created by Creator(s) who also exist in a reality simulation which itself was created by a Creator who has always existed and does not come from 'nowhere/nothing' - as in - that is the Original Creator and the Original Creator does not have the memory of once not existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing, and in that, Nothing does not exist as far as The Original Creator is concerned."

In that premise, both Theories are compatible with one another."

In the sense that "beginning of memories" applies to 'that which has a beginning' [and in relation with the nature of this simulation] we are born into something which was around before us...we do not remember being in it throughout, so we have no memory - we are 'blank slate' and this place where we appear to 'come from' represents 'nothing' in as far as we are concerned.

We do not know if we existed before we were born into this...but simulation theory implies that this could be the case. We just don't remember. [perhaps something about the simulation forced the amnesia, but regardless - the 'nothing' we think exists, has to do with that event....[from nothing to something]

You are just tripping up over causality/uncaused cause.

Are you familiar with the Mind-projection fallacy?

Either the universe is recursive (e.g simulation) or the human mind is recursive (because language is recursive/self-referential) - there's no easy way to tell which is which.

The notions of "before" and "after" - the notions of "cause" and "effect" - they only exist in a framework of uni-directional time, which is addressed by linear logic which localises time.

Does the original creator know he is the original creator? Recursion!

[VVilliam]

You forget the OP subject and premise:
"We exist within a reality simulation which itself was created by Creator(s) who also exist in a reality simulation which itself was created by a Creator who has always existed and does not come from 'nowhere/nothing' - as in - that is the Original Creator and the Original Creator does not have the memory of once not existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing, and in that, Nothing does not exist as far as The Original Creator is concerned."

In that premise, both Theories are compatible with one another."

In the sense that "beginning of memories" applies to 'that which has a beginning' [and in relation with the nature of this simulation] we are born into something which was around before us...we do not remember being in it throughout, so we have no memory - we are 'blank slate' and this place where we appear to 'come from' represents 'nothing' in as far as we are concerned.

We do not know if we existed before we were born into this...but simulation theory implies that this could be the case. We just don't remember. [perhaps something about the simulation forced the amnesia, but regardless - the 'nothing' we think exists, has to do with that event....[from nothing to something]

Are you familiar with the Mind-projection fallacy?

I wasn't but am now.

Your comment appears to be a distraction from the OP subject and premise. Do you have anything to say about that? It is unclear by your post as to where you stand in relation to the ideas we exist within a simulated reality and that nothing exists.

[attofishpi]

"We exist within a reality simulation which itself was created by Creator(s) who also exist in a reality simulation which itself was created by a Creator who has always existed and does not come from 'nowhere/nothing' - as in - that is the Original Creator and the Original Creator does not have the memory of once not existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing, and in that, Nothing does not exist as far as The Original Creator is concerned."

Is this your construct for reality:-
1. Primary Reality.
2. Simulation of Primary Reality.
3. Simulation of Simulation of Primary Reality.
4. ...and perhaps this could go on Ad infinitum.

Yes? - if no, please deconstruct which point(s) I am not quite getting.

This creator you say 'does NOT have the memory of once NOT existing - iow - does not have a memory of nothing existing.....'

Skepdick pointed out, one cannot have a memory of none existence - you, me, none of us indeed have memories of nothingness.

...just testing the water thus far.

The idea of nothing existing because we know about nothing [having experienced it]...was brought up so I went with that as a possible reason for why some might believe that nothing exists. It is in that context that I expanded on the idea leading back through our simulated reality, (2nd) to a possible simulated reality directly responsibly for creating our simulated reality, (1st) and a First Source Reality [not simulated] directly responsible for creating the 1st simulated reality.

We are best not to become too semantic about metaphor. If you can get the gist of what is being said and can offer something better in the way of metaphor than 'memory', please do.

To be honest I am seeing a lot of contradictory statements. It appears that you are gleaning for recursion, but for recursion to exist something had to exist.

If you want to get on the problem of infinite regression for the primary reality, that I believe we are in, and yet has a creator, then sure I can attempt to address something.
I have little reason to argue against the plausibility that we are in a simulation, aside from one fact.

...and, please understand that the originating system, will typically own the sub-system (time=events && events=time).

[Skepdick]

I wasn't but am now.

Your comment appears to be a distraction from the OP subject and premise. Do you have anything to say about that? It is unclear by your post as to where you stand in relation to the ideas we exist within a simulated reality and that nothing exists.

My comment is stated with laser-point precision (as best as I know how). The gist of which is that I have no idea how you are using the word "nothing".

The expression "nothing exists" can be semantically interpreted in a number of ways (read: there are different philosophical views on ontology)

Interpretation 1: "Nothing" as a diametrically opposite concept of "existence". In this interpretation "nothing exists" can be seen as an oxymoron.

Interpretation 2: That which exists (which is EVERYTHING) is the referent to which you assign the label "nothing". In this interpretation "nothing" and "existence" are used synonymously. Said differently the referent for "nothing" is "existence itself".

Interpretation 3: There is some phenomenon within existence itself which you are calling as "nothing". In this interpretation nothing exists within existence.

Alternatively (and especially if we live in a computer simulation) the label "nothing" is a Null pointer. If we exist in a simulated reality then AT LEAST the simulation exists.

My position on this is simple: Either the structure of the universe is computational or the structure of the instrument we use to understand the universe with is computational: our minds.

I can't tell if "recursion" is a property of my mind; or the universe; or both. But I do know that recursion is computation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory

[Eodnhoj7]

How does this connect with the Theory the Nothing Exists?

Nothing is not a thing in itself but a relationship between parts. For example an empty cup points to the relationship between a liquid and a cup. The emptiness is an absence of a specific relation, ie that which lacks something. In this case the liquid in the cup. Void is not a thing on itself thus is self negating. Only being exists.

So you agree then "Nothing does not exist".

Only being exists, nothing is a statement of relation. Void voids itself as being.

The void voids itself and is expressed only as being. This being in turn is voided into multiple beings resulting in the relationship between parts thus necessitating being as have a dynamic state where it moves itself through itself through void. For example the liquid can only be poured into the cup if the cup is empty, the emptiness allows for the relationship between water and cup, and their subsequent movements to occur.

You call 'emptiness' 'nothing'?

Indeed, I ask for examples of 'nothing existing' and I am handed an empty cup. But I know the cup is not empty. The water replaces the oxygen which filled the cup prior to the water being poured into it.

The cup is empty of one relation, that of a liquid. Emptiness is a statement of relation.

Simultaneously this void acts as the intrinsic curvature which allows for the cup and water to have distinct properties. Looking at water in a cup, one can see the distinct curvature of both the cup and the water as intrinsically empty yet it is the boundary line which allows for this aforementioned distinction. Another example of this is the line between the half full cup and the air, the line maintains the definite properties between the air and water yet is intrinsically empty.

Yet we know from doing the science that what appears 'empty' is in fact not empty at all. The boundaries allow us our illusions...

False, the line which shows the distinction between the air and water in the cup is in fact empty. The curvature which shows the distinction between phenomenon is not composed of water or air.

Void, as the relationship between parts, is both the emptiness of a specific phenomena and is the curvature which allows for definition. How this applies through a theory where all is a simulation, or an illusion, is that being in its totality is directed through itself as itself through the void. The imaginary, or rather illusive nature of reality, reflects void acting much like a barrier. This barrier is the multiplicity of phenomena which in turn acts as a means of approximation in a manner where the "whole" or the "all" is only observed in parts. This absence of a perceivable, yet existing, whole is the masking of the "One" through the "Many".

In this light, First Source Consciousness is Its own reality and always has been [being]. "The Void" is not "nothing" but rather a thing created for a purpose. Effectively [and through layering] FSC created the void in order to inject an aspect of its wholeness into said void, creating "Many".

The First Source was never created. The Many were, through the initial Void.

Such being the case..."Nothing" really does not exist.

Yes. Void voids itself as being. Being is voided into multiple being. Void thus acts as a barrier through the "many".

[VVilliam]

Yet we know from doing the science that what appears 'empty' is in fact not empty at all. The boundaries allow us our illusions...

False, the line which shows the distinction between the air and water in the cup is in fact empty. The curvature which shows the distinction between phenomenon is not composed of water or air.

I think the line you speak of [as truth] is made due to the two things being together. It produces an illusion of a line,which one can then say - as you have - 'the difference [line] exists and is empty"

You appear to be using the word "empty" rather than "nothing" in order to somehow demonstrate the idea that nothing exists, is true.

[VVilliam]

Your comment appears to be a distraction from the OP subject and premise. Do you have anything to say about that? It is unclear by your post as to where you stand in relation to the ideas we exist within a simulated reality and that nothing exists.

My comment is stated with laser-point precision (as best as I know how). The gist of which is that I have no idea how you are using the word "nothing".

Then that is perhaps the better place to start. I find that if I do not understand a comment, it is best to ask for clarity before proceeding with my own.

The expression "nothing exists" can be semantically interpreted in a number of ways (read: there are different philosophical views on ontology)

Interpretation 1: "Nothing" as a diametrically opposite concept of "existence". In this interpretation "nothing exists" can be seen as an oxymoron.

We agree. We can put that one to bed and turn the light out.

Interpretation 2: That which exists (which is EVERYTHING) is the referent to which you assign the label "nothing". In this interpretation "nothing" and "existence" are used synonymously. Said differently the referent for "nothing" is "existence itself".

Interpretation 3: There is some phenomenon within existence itself which you are calling as "nothing". In this interpretation nothing exists within existence.

I am not arguing for the existence of nothing. I am arguing that nothing does not exist. Those who think nothing does exist, can provide their interpretation as to what 'nothing' is, related to their argument that this 'nothing' exists.

Alternatively (and especially if we live in a computer simulation) the label "nothing" is a Null pointer. If we exist in a simulated reality then AT LEAST the simulation exists.

In relation to that and the idea that "nothing" represents a blank-state such as what we experienced emerging out of and into this experience of being human [on a planet, in a Galaxy, in a universe] the 'null pointer' is represented as the beginning point [entry] - sometimes referred to as the "Big Bang".

My position on this is simple: Either the structure of the universe is computational or the structure of the instrument we use to understand the universe with is computational: our minds.

My understanding of it is that everything within the simulation except for consciousness, is part of the structure of the simulation.
The [loose] question then becomes "Are our minds part of the simulation or part of consciousness?"

(I am okay considering that it is possible that [our] consciousness is created through the overall workings of the simulation if the algorithm involved in the process was designed to become self aware [be conscious] )

I can't tell if "recursion" is a property of my mind; or the universe; or both. But I do know that recursion is computation.

I would see such as more evidence the we exist within a simulation.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yet we know from doing the science that what appears 'empty' is in fact not empty at all. The boundaries allow us our illusions...

The boundaries are means of distinctions and in themselves are empty

False, the line which shows the distinction between the air and water in the cup is in fact empty. The curvature which shows the distinction between phenomenon is not composed of water or air.

I think the line you speak of [as truth] is made due to the two things being together. It produces an illusion of a line,which one can then say - as you have - 'the difference [line] exists and is empty"

You appear to be using the word "empty" rather than "nothing" in order to somehow demonstrate the idea that nothing exists, is true.

The line in itself is void, this line both connects the phenomenon and observes them as distinct. It is the boundary through which phenomenon exist as distinct and connected through relation.

Void is the multiplicity of being moving through itself as itself.

[VVilliam]

Yet we know from doing the science that what appears 'empty' is in fact not empty at all. The boundaries allow us our illusions...

The boundaries are means of distinctions and in themselves are empty

False, the line which shows the distinction between the air and water in the cup is in fact empty. The curvature which shows the distinction between phenomenon is not composed of water or air.

I think the line you speak of [as truth] is made due to the two things being together. It produces an illusion of a line,which one can then say - as you have - 'the difference [line] exists and is empty"

You appear to be using the word "empty" rather than "nothing" in order to somehow demonstrate the idea that nothing exists, is true.

The line in itself is void, this line both connects the phenomenon and observes them as distinct. It is the boundary through which phenomenon exist as distinct and connected through relation.

Void is the multiplicity of being moving through itself as itself.

The question I have is, are you arguing for the existence of nothing [nothing actually exists]?

[Eodnhoj7]

Yet we know from doing the science that what appears 'empty' is in fact not empty at all. The boundaries allow us our illusions...

The boundaries are means of distinctions and in themselves are empty



I think the line you speak of [as truth] is made due to the two things being together. It produces an illusion of a line,which one can then say - as you have - 'the difference [line] exists and is empty"

You appear to be using the word "empty" rather than "nothing" in order to somehow demonstrate the idea that nothing exists, is true.

The line in itself is void, this line both connects the phenomenon and observes them as distinct. It is the boundary through which phenomenon exist as distinct and connected through relation.

Void is the multiplicity of being moving through itself as itself.

The question I have is, are you arguing for the existence of nothing [nothing actually exists]?

I am arguing only being exists, void is a statement of relationships.

[VVilliam]

The question I have is, are you arguing for the existence of nothing [nothing actually exists]?

I am arguing only being exists, void is a statement of relationships.

Then, unless you are also arguing that 'being is nothing', you are saying you agree that nothing does not exist. Would that be a fair comment?

[Eodnhoj7]

The question I have is, are you arguing for the existence of nothing [nothing actually exists]?

I am arguing only being exists, void is a statement of relationships.

Then, unless you are also arguing that 'being is nothing', you are saying you agree that nothing does not exist. Would that be a fair comment?

Void is voided as being, ie there is no nothing. Void is a statement of relations between parts as void is only observed as the relationship of parts.

[VVilliam]

I am arguing only being exists, void is a statement of relationships.

Then, unless you are also arguing that 'being is nothing', you are saying you agree that nothing does not exist. Would that be a fair comment?

Void is voided as being, ie there is no nothing. Void is a statement of relations between parts as void is only observed as the relationship of parts.

there is no nothing

Okay.

Thanks