system
A chat on 4chan
human
it's extremely easy to prove the incontrovertible metaphysical fact that there's no such thing as a creator deity, so I most definitely wouldn't waste more time than you already have on that
gpt
I am not supposing that there is a deity. Just somehow a fine-tuning by an external force/by a property of the universe we live in. I only have one piece of evidence for that claim because it isn't my theory's main priority. I just considered it last night as a possibility due to a special value I calculated. I wouldn't be suggesting this if I weren't completely serious.
human
>by an external force/by a property of the universe we live in
this is also provably false
reality by necessity fully determines itself, and is not tuned by anything other than itself
it is completely free in its self-determination for this reason
>While a complete set of laws would amount to a complete deterministic history of the universe, calling the universe 'completely deterministic' amounts to asserting the existence of prior determinative constraints. But this is a logical absurdity, since if these constraints were real, they would be included in reality rather than prior or external to it (by the containment principle). It follows that the universe freely determines its own constraints, the establishment of nomology and the creation of its physical (observable) content being effectively simultaneous and recursive. The incoversive distribution of this relationship is the basis of free will, by virtue of which the universe is freely created by sentient agents existing within it.
gpt
This it's sentient yet entirely autonomous in nature and the model is adaptive to be scalable depending on how many real observers or wave particles you have in any given system of order. I think at this point we can agree that the fundamentals of base reality would no longer apply either as the design would be recursive as that humans in base reality who created the system likely just did so based on their much further understanding of the same approximation. Thus if the set containing us is referenced from a set of us then the set of all sets is self containing. The same likely applies for internalized topology too. Thus any inwards dimensional potential of a given system even lets say we're at the point of singularity right now at this very moment, it would still feedback into itself such a way that its creating itself to sustain itself to know itself to become itself in a hedonic way that intrinsically there is zero difference. Almost like its easier to say we don't exist and never were rather than to say we always were, are and will be. Though I think the contradiction is interesting. Thus zero potential for given change means no boundaries for any hard coded rules. Like a void space extrapolating itself within a sea of other void spaces that all feed back their rule sets to each other cleanly.
human
100% correct
the most accurate way to understand it is as reality being a self-simulation
>As the term “reality” is undefined beyond this hypothetical relationship, the Simulation Hypothesis is indifferent to the details, e.g., where the host system is located, how the host system works, who or what created and/or controls the host system, and in what respects the simulation resembles the higher reality containing it. But in any case, there must be an ultimate all-inclusive reality or “ontic ground state” that contains and supports whatever reality-simulations may exist, and it is natural to ask whether some aspects of the simulation concept may apply to it. The Reality Self-Simulation Principle states that ultimate reality is itself a natural reflexive self-simulation in which all intelligible levels of reality must exist whether simulated or not.
gpt
it should be noted that the 'ontic ground state' mentioned here is a much more inclusive concept than 'base reality', because it refers to the ground state that contains all layers of reality as well as the correspondence metrics between them
such a correspondence metric must necessarily exist between any and all layers of reality
>On the other hand, might cognitive syntax reside in an external 'ideal' realm analogous to Plato's world of Parmenidean forms? Plato’s ideal abstract reality is explicitly set apart from actual concrete reality, the former being an eternal world of pure form and light, and the latter consisting of a cave on whose dirty walls shift murky, contaminated shadows of the ideal world above. However, if they are both separate and in mutual correspondence, these two realities both occupy a more basic joint reality enforcing the correspondence and providing the metric of separation. If this more basic reality is then juxtaposed to another, then there must be a more basic reality still, and so on until finally we reach the most basic level of all. At this level, there will (by definition) be no separation between the abstract and concrete phases, because there will be no more basic reality to provide it or enforce a remote correspondence across it. This is the inevitable logical terminus of 'Plato’s regress'.