Is There a Simulation for a Thought Experiment of Who Should Steer What Desirable? by Gyenge Valeria

Dear Joe!

I'm not a rival for you truly. Thanks for taking time of reading my essay and for our comments conversation.

Best for you,

Valeria

Dear Anselm!

Thank you for your comment.

(I don't understand German unfortunately, but I translated it)

Kind regards,

Valeria

Dear Vladimir!

Thank you for reading my essay and your profound admiration.

I will be looking after and examination of your essay too, and the given links.

I wish, all of us being in success achieving the real goal behind for which this essay contest invited us taking our mutual effort in sharing our thoughts in this very essential and crucial moment in the NOW!

Kind regards,

Valeria

Dear Ajay!

Thank you fro reading my essay.

Actually, you truly do not understand my message.

In a nut shell: I distinguish two states about the 'Reality'. I suppose there is an 'Original reality' as an unconditionally given existence, may be called 'Natural order of things'. This reality contains the stratum of all living being both material (crystals, plants, animals) also non-material kinds may be called energy, information, consciousness, thoughts etc. At the apex of existence, I suppose there is an - original naturally arranged and cosmic Man- theologians label GOD-Man. WHO is composed of all both material and non-material inside and outside of his environment. This Man as the sum total of originally not created Nature can live his life either he knows about how all inside and outside him should work. This state may be called the - non-causality - going on its own course, a non intentionally steered evolution. However, owing to this Man also has an unconditionally given inherent capability for thinking, so he is always propelled to know about his inner and outer environment. That is the phase of his self-recognition. The latter - we should call CREATION - during which one would make simulations separately running from his natural living, somehow both may be synchronized, even one can research himself with real-time. The everlasting questions is - what to do with the knowledge one gains during his self scrutiny I supposed, and suggested a model how one (on solipsistic simulation way) could do researches with very himself, and how else ones might be involved unintentionally. Even, I gave a kind of else simulation technology where a team might be involved. I pointed out those simulation technologies not necessarily based on contemporary computer technology, and of what basics for our present us is not yet completely apprehended, but our recent technologies should exceed the original conception.

You are right in that, "...we see reality differently from each other and everyone else...". However did you ever think; - You may be seeing a reality by your present focus which is a holographic projection of One who is actually researching about himself in several kind of roles and even information, thoughts, energy configurations, simultaneously being been some sort of material, genetic assortment and assemblage, a very separate real you even so a thread part of same self? I'd liken this watching several movies in a theater where there is only producer and actor in several roles and behind scenes, and his goal to decide - Whether what is worth to steer intentionally and how? Don't you put this question sometimes in your present personal life too?

Did you see Matrix? Did you see, how Star Trek Holodeck can work?

In my essay, I did not state anything being a truth! I only, examined a thought experiment, giving a probability question it is worth considering.

I've not read over yet your essay but reading the abstract it seems me you advocates scientific development. So, I suppose you may be interesting further reading over some links regarding this possible creational technologies.

The first one can give strong scientific answers to: As how many-worlds of thoughts real(M) alternate and can even so interconnect cyclically giving rebirth and reinterpreting the thoughts regarding to same theme but looking for a different but possible coherent view.

What is the multiverse, and what is its significance?

Lord Martin Rees: 'We May Be Living Inside A Computer Simulation' - Wait, What?

Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?

Historical Simulations and the Future of the Historical Narrative

Historical Simulations - Motivational, Ethical and Legal Issues

All is basically for to understand how the thinking process is working, and how it can express itself through a substantial medium being been both solid, material, physical, genetically coded, stored in a body and simultaneously living non-material, non-physical as the latter attributed to consciousness.

The real question and MESSAGE however behind being put for my essay - Whether is the unconditional naturally given body implicating consciousness at manifold levels enough for us to grasp our everlasting existence or we need expand it toward for getting or creating a 'better us' resulting which consequences or risk? Which kind of technologies are applied for it or need to be? And who and why implement those with which kind of responsibility? Just that are under question, but not in far future or past, much rather all thoughts and several of manifestations both are realistically living in just right in time and space simultaneously in the now.

Kind regards,

Valeria

Dear Aaron!

Thank you for your comment. It is not clear for me from your present post put here, whether you have already read my essay, or not. I've not read your essay yet, but this post draws that to my attention, especially because you write your essay "..analyses the logic of the concept of a future-viewing machine, and then applies the insights gained to suggest some of the ways that such a technology could positively impact the future..". I'm really interesting about it. So, I'm about to read your essay.

I can agree with your given rating scale, albeit it was given in the essay contest rules "..to rate the entries by the degree to which they are relevant and interesting, as more specifically described below, with 1/3 weight given to relevancy and 2/3 weight given to interest).

Personally, I'm not interested to negotiate for any rating policies and self-motivation getting and giving ratings. I rated so much essay which was a minimum requirement and perhaps some more I kept relevant.

I keep, much more important to consider those messages and mutually shared thoughts by this possibility (without any regard whether one is a physicist and FQXi member), what the several (each, but impossible to read over all of them) well-formulated essays and conversations express, and which we can read here regarding to a very crucial theme, not less than steering - OUR FATE! My truly only hope is, all of the messages those can convey will gain ground and a hearing at such a board-council level, who truly dispose of the satisfactory decision making without any self-interest! Not for giving financial help for anyone, but for truly resolving the problems. I feel the stake greater than negotiating for ratings at this NOW moment!

High regards,

Valeria

Dear Mike!

Thank you taking effort for reading my essay.

Do you mean, you are trying to translate my essay from English to ? language, but the translator can not translate because my written English grammar errors?

Regarding to your question, my answer is you understand the point well.

Kind regards,

Valeria

Dear Petio!

Thank you for your respect and invitation to take part of your group. I'm glad to accept.

I have similar approach as you write. Furthermore, I'd been engaged on dealing with 'divine mysteries' too, however in the meantime I've turned my attention focusing on how those might be closely describable by contemporary theoretical physics.

I will read your essay, and I will give my email written on your given page.

I'm awaiting for your ebooks and where this group will be available.

High regards,

Valeria

Dear Mike!

1. Thank you for your explanation about my English. Yes, that is not my native language, but I never use translators. Sometimes I make errors, (mainly using singular and plural, mixing tenses) when I'm just thinking in English not in Hungarian, due to the two languages has many grammar differences and interpretation of meanings. (I mentioned that lengthy on Joe Fisher's page, because it was relevant giving him an explanation about my understanding of the meaning of his Reality Once - how much differences could be because of the two languages.)

My essay moreover is written on same English what I'm using in dialogue. But, that is true and I accept your criticism:

- The title is truly a bit periphrastic, but that is advisedly construed so. (See below)

- The abstract truly doesn't regard to what the body content mentions. The latter is because there was only 9 pages given, but my matter in my mind about the theme was much more. So, I thought to shrunk the most important messages to the abstract and the thought-leading parts to the body.

- My essay body content also was not quite unfolding to properly connect with the matter of abstract. I truly think missing the crown of the physics of thought or at least its reconciliation with a re-considered philosophy being the utmost underlying ideological framework describing nature, society, and generally the most principal all-pervasive laws of the thinking process, what our contemporary theoretical physics almost quite well is trying to figure out. However, in connection with the message of your essay I can also agree, surely there is a need for a grounded consensus as being been ordinary humans (light speed limited ones :) to concur all of our knowledge describable with much simpler terms being been understandable, comprehensible for anyone. (For example as the notion philosophy exerts a [Latin-Greek: 'Philo' = (in composition) partake in, savant 'Sophia' = wisdom of life]

2. Regarding to your questions:

At first, I do not think we have been already 'artificial creatures' in the strong sense, but we would become in the near future by our own made creational technologies overcoming our natural boundaries. However, I think we may be in a situation at present what we cannot yet fully understand and figure out - more concretely phrased: WHAT IS CREATED WHAT IS NOT! WHO DOES TRULY CREATE WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY! So we are yet in a constant doubt about our God-like capabilities: Who we really are, from where we come. My essay title was quite advisedly written so complicated. But, the title tries to mean in brief what the essay body unfolds: Whether someone(s) (probably quite natural humans, but with an advanced knowledge about the Nature and its interrelation with thoughts about it) had already created 'a special kind of original simulation' which is factually a thought (or thinking/learning trial how to steer what is desirable) experiment, a consciousness (i.e. subtle energy bodies) engineering (what our present theoretical physics can already almost well describe), and that presently not yet understood ' original simulation' is able transform one(s)' (as his/their self likeness) and our genes (also involved due to an unfortunate mixing) from/into an until naturally gained body forms through a process of reincarnation (the latter has been until an unscientific term). That is the question of my essay whether need they - who need to understand being been their own fragmented or gathered likeness by this process - overcome themselves and us creating artificial bodies?

(Read more about above my given answer to Ajay Bhatla)

And see my answer here given to your question put for me on your essay page:

"2.4 You warn we might in future develop artificial beings more intelligent than we, but less moral. They'd undermine the steering practice by rejecting the moral theory and instead enslaving us, or destroying us. Do I understand you?

Why would they reject the moral theory? What possible reason could they give?"

There may be much. However, it seems almost sure that the artificial beings come into existence by human creation at first. There may be humans rejecting the moral theory using artificial means for supremacy purposes. As a consequence their creatures as their artificial likeness may also reject the moral laws not only for enslaving or destroying us, but eventually themselves. (See: Terminator film series, and I also suggest to watch Eureka TV series mainly season 5. The latter is more closed to our present human understanding.)

I hope you could better understand messages written in my essay.

Kind regards,

Valeria

Dear Margriet!

Thank you for your very thoughtful and being agreeable to my views comment.

I will read your works with admiration.

Kind regards,

Valeria

Dear Mike!

Thank you for adding me to your review list.

All the best for you, too. Bye - Valeria

Dear Don!

Thank you for your respect and a high score given me supposedly by you.

Unfortunately, the 9 pages for this essay were not quite enough to properly unfold that matter what I wished to draw to our attention.

I lack, and think we are tending to put the crown of the physics of thought or at least its reconciliation with a re-considered philosophy being the utmost underlying ideological framework describing nature, society, and generally the most principal all-pervasive laws of the thinking process, what our contemporary theoretical physics almost quite well is trying to figure out.

I keep, - thoughts - are the utmost capability for the MAN! The thought is energy and information (on many structured levels, even our emotions, deep senses are as much thoughts we are able to consciously formulate into being been intellectually aware, we should say a man is composed of his thoughts and his way for living in healthy organism and organization keeping his thoughts both intellectually and emotionally balanced. ) which allows us to create, to materialize around us our ideas, desires, will etc., independently from the existence exists in any kind of form we can conceive about it. The thoughts are both local and non-local and exist neither in time and space and as much as the existence exists. So, the comprehension and examining of our thoughts are what makes us to be a higher order being.

I'm not a physicist at all, however I can deem from what the contemporary physics tries to speak of.

I hold, neither the spirit or mind nor its vehicle (i.e. the genetically arranged material physical one) through which the consciousness can express itself are more important. Neither is over each other but may be balanced. We would already understand much putting our thoughts into a contemporary right context of theoretical physics of space time and time space frameworks as experienced/researched memory patterns lived out in several fragment parts of same self or selves involved, and as far as unfolding M-theory tries to explain as an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime are identified as 7 higher-dimensions plus the 4 common dimensions (11D st = 7 hd 4D)(The latter phrasing needs some correction yet, I feel so)

What I drew in my illustration is one's thoughts development during several incarnations (the latter is unscientific term yet,) of which memories are folded into light bodies which are factually wave-fields. The so called actual genetic make-up i.e. one's physical, biologically arranged body (see: The Body Electric - Electromagnetism and a foundation of Life by Robert O. Becker M.D, Gary Selden) need to fit to express what his actual (Levels of Energy - An introduction to spectral consciousness by Frederick E. Dodson) can read as one's approachable memories held in those wave-fields e.g. Light bodies.

In connection with the message of your essay ( I' haven't read over yet with perusal only its abstract) I can agree preliminarily, surely there is a need for a proper education system to concur all of our knowledge and 'how to use our thoughts' describable with much simpler terms being been understandable, comprehensible for anyone. (i.e. the notion philosophy exerts a [Latin-Greek: 'Philo' = (in composition) partake in, savant 'Sophia' = wisdom of life])

Kind regards,

Valeria