The Simulation Hypothesis

digital-universe Wow! Wow!!

I have no words to describe.

A sheer Joy of 50 minutes. I was sitting glued to the seat. It’s almost like a Meditation where a ‘you’ dissolves untraceably and seamlessly into each pixel appearing on the screen.

All the super Stars of Physics, both of the past and current times, and their theories are discussed in simple understandable terms. The scientific evidence thus far available points to the inevitable inference that the perceived world is no more than a dream-like virtual reality, with no solidity or physicality to it. Nor do the space and time have true existence. Every object and every event in the universe is equidistant from the One Consciousness that is crafting the projection.  

The Video begins with the “Materialist” concepts of Democritus, passes through the “Idealism” of Plato and takes the viewer through the intricate scientific discoveries in Quantum Physics, Astrophysics and so on ending with the prophetic words of Einstein “… the distinction of past, present, and future is an illusion, however tenacious the illusion maybe.” It does not miss mentioning the quotable quote of Max Planck, “I regard Consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.”

All doubting Thomases about the efficacy of a scientific approach in arriving at the Ultimate Truth can fold up their skepticism if they watch without bias the trend where the current research at the cutting edge level is leading us to.

Beautiful presentation, excellent narration, accurate depiction, and lucid explanation. Shot by shot, every frame excels itself. The voice over, the music and the effects are all very pleasant mutually reinforcing one another. It is unfortunate that the producers of the documentary seem to be unaware of the ancient Indian Advaita philosophy. The absence of a mention to it is the only, if any, regret.


13 thoughts on “The Simulation Hypothesis

  1. Well, Ramesam. I guess if we all want Ultimate Truth we just need to watch this video. How interesting!

    And, the Ultimate Truth as it is working through Ramesam, is complaining that this video doesn’t include his pet, Advaita. It also doesn’t mention anyone that has experienced this Ultimate Truth and what it is like for them to live it. lol.

  2. Anon,

    “I guess if we all want Ultimate Truth we just need to watch this video. How interesting!”

    Who is saying that?

    By posting this write up, I do not mean to holding a brief for, or to recommend ‘simulation’ as a means for liberation.

    My intention is only to indicate to those friends, who abhor, argue against and deride the ‘scientific method of inquiry’ as totally unsuited for investigating the Truth. I want to impress that the aim and purpose of scientific research (at least the open blue sky type) is also to discover the Truth. Science is still “a work in progress.” It is an Upanishad in development – the final word is yet to be written.

    In all these millennia of years that the Advaitic teaching has been available, the probability of success for a seeker is said to be very low (based on BG VII – 3) – one in millions. I am curious if the method of Science could go to help at least in improving the probability.

    The Video shows that the scientific way of investigation also reveals 1. The space time world which a man on the street normally takes to be a solid reality is illusory; 2. It is not that matter engenders consciousness, but it is one Consciousness from which matter comes.

    I also drew the attention of the viewers to the fact that the historcal part is incomplete in its depiction. Though it covered the Greek philosophers, it missed to say that the scientific findings as shown therein are the ultimate Truths that the ancient Indian Sages and Seers had “realized” in the past from their contemplative inquiry and had presented what they found in their reports which we call as the Upanishads.

    The scientific method of inquiry for Self-realization is not yet fully developed and ready for application. But the happy tidings are that Science too seems to head in the same direction as Advaita in being able to understand what could be “really real” beyond the illusory phenomenal world appearance.

    Hope readers will take this Post in that spirit and sensibility and do not stretch it beyond that limited purpose.


  3. I guess I should mention here that “The Simulation Hypothesis” (if we leave apart the Math and Physics within it) is almost akin to eka-jIva-vAda (The Doctrine of I Alone Am).

    Both Direct Path (DP) and eka-jIva-vAda can be said to share the same parentage. Both are derived from dRRiShTi-sRRiShTi vAda (The Doctrine of Perception-based Creation – meaning that the creation does not pre-exist the perceiver). Even though there are other versions available, the advanced forms of both eka-jIva vAda and DP say that the perception itself is creation and non-different from the perceiver who is One only. This formulation of eka-jIva vAda is held highly secretive because it is recommended only for a very committed and mature seeker. His Holiness Shri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swami-Ji, the 34th Head of of Sringeri told a devotee that eka jIva vAda “is not suitable for many people because their minds are not pure enough to imbibe it. People accept that the dream state is unreal. However, if told that the waking state is equally unreal, they would feel disturbed. On hearing, “The waking state is at par with the dream state,” some may decide that dreams too are real! That is why the shastra-s do not speak much of the dRRishti-sRRishti-vAda.” ( vide ‘Exalting Elucidations’).

    dRRiShTi-sRRiShTi-vAda, unlike sRRiShTi-dRRiShTi-vAda, does not need or invoke the power of Ishwara at any stage in its approach. Hence this prakriya suits exceedingly well an analytically inclined person who would hesitate to defer his/her actions to an authority.


  4. Many thanks for that, Ramesam! As you say, very enjoyable and certainly admirable in its ability to explain some very difficult physics. (Although he did lose me somewhat in the last double-slit experiment. The conclusions of this, though are clear, and amazing.)

    As you know, my once pejorative view of science has been moderating recently, especially after reading the Gefter book, and this is even more encouraging. Of course, it still has some way to go to reach ‘tat tvam asi’.

    Incidentally, I don’t see any need to bring in eka jIva vADa.

    But let me join you in encouraging everyone to watch this – it really is worthwhile!

  5. Dear Dennis,

    Thank you very much for the kind observation.
    What you say adds the strength of a Rocket Engine HP to the Post.
    Trust more people take a peek.

    I made a reference to eka jIva vADa because I find a great commonality in both approaches in the search for the Truth. While the Physicists are adopting the route of virtual reality models, the eka jIva vAda adopts the model of the dream world as the upAya .

    As you are well aware, siddhAntaleshasangraha observes:

    अत्र च सम्भावितसकलशङ्कापङ्कप्रक्षालनं स्वप्नदृष्टान्तसलिलधारयैव कर्तव्यम् ।

    Meaning: The rationale behind this “Doctrine of I Am Alone” can be understood “on the dream analogy which resolves every possible doubt.”

    Shri A. Hudli said in another context, “It does not really matter even if the rest of 7 billion people in the world tell me that I am part of each person’s dream. I can dismiss all these statements as coming from people in ‘my’ own dream.”

    Thus both the Simulations of the awake phenomenal world — virtual reality and dream world — are unreal (relatively speaking).

    Of course, I don’t mean to open up this issue for debate here.


  6. Dear Ramesam (eschewing all formality!):

    I appreciate the spirit in which you have made this post about The Simulation Hypothesis, and also agree with your response to Dennis’s remark: “Incidentally, I don’t see any need to bring in eka jIva vADa.”

    Martin and I had an exchange in the comments on “The Mathematics of Consciousness” and I had said then – “I am uncomfortable when the scriptures attempt to give physical explanations for natural phenomena; that is the realm of science and they (scriptures) are usually wrong, sometimes hilariously.”

    I would now like to complete that thought by adding the following:

    “I am uncomfortable when scientists attempt to give physical explanations for spiritual phenomena; that is the realm of the unknown and they (scientists) are usually wrong, sometimes hilariously.”

    Of course, it is clear from the spirit of your article that you agree with both observations of mine !!! Am I right?

    Incidentally and old friend of mine has written a book about J Krishnamurti titled:

    “Knocking at the Open Door: My Years with J Krishnamurti” that is simply fascinating.


  7. Sorry, meant to say “unknowable”…

    “I am uncomfortable when scientists attempt to give physical explanations for spiritual phenomena; that is the realm of the UNKNOWABLE and they (scientists) are usually wrong, sometimes hilariously.”

  8. Dear Guru,

    “… eschewing all formality!”

    That is perfectly alright. I am not a guru. You are 🙂 !

    “Sorry, meant to say “unknowable”…”

    Thank you for your observations. Yes, I agree with you.
    More than anything, I enjoy the sense of humor you inject into your comments. Continuing in that spirit and trying to be a bit pedantic, I suggest that you may like to modify the words in the following sentence one more time.

    “I am uncomfortable when scientists attempt to give physical explanations for spiritual phenomena; that is the realm of the UNKNOWABLE …”

    By definition all “phenomena” are sensory and they cannot be UNKNOWABLE. Why not replace ‘phenomena’ with ‘Noumenon’ ?

    And to come to think of it, not merely the scientists, even the scriptures “are usually wrong, sometimes hilariously” in trying to say what that “UNKNOWABLE” exactly is.

    So all explanations are just what they are; they use the jargon of the day — atoms or ghosts as R.M. Pirsig put it in “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” several decades ago.


    Thanks for your alert on the book on JK by Mr Lee. I looked into a few Reviews. I liked from the long Preface, “Doesn’t she see that the door is open? Why doesn’t she just come in?” Doesn’t that summarize well all this spiritual quest?


    • Dear Ramesam:
      You said -“That is perfectly alright. I am not a guru. You are!”.
      Quite a funny play on the unfortunate handle I chose for this board.

      Asked a questioner… Should a man teach? And Sri Ramana replied – If that be his prarabdha.

      You do what you do and that’s all there is to it. But then, a suggestion you make about the office accounts may set some one off on the spiritual quest. Pratitya samutapada in action and no teaching necessary !

      As Krishnamurthi once said – The essence of worldliness is to divide your life into worldly and unworldly activities.

      That is why I find what a man said and did in his life as interesting as what he wrote down after intense cogitation…teachings with a capital T.

      If you liked Mark Lee’s My Years with Krishnamurti, you might also look at Balasundaram’s My Years with Krishnamurti, titled Non-Guru Guru.

  9. Hi Guru,

    Thanks for the response.

    The pun on “Guru,” as you know, is in a lighter vein.
    [You may also be aware that Guru is a surname in India. We had a Guru, a Civil Engineer Hydrologist from Madhya Pradesh in an office I worked almost a half century ago!]

    A few decades back I used to lap up everything that JK said or said about him. My impression was that the epithet “Non-Guru Guru” was more applied to UG. Anyway, If Mr Sundaram used it, he must know better. Will be grateful if you can send to me offline a few highlights and also some info about this author.

    You say: “But then, a suggestion you make about the office accounts may set some one off on the spiritual quest.”

    I am completely out of breath here. What was the suggestion and where did I make it? Apologies. I am totally lost.


  10. I think you are reading too much into what I said – All I meant was that the “effects” resulting from “causes” (eg, some suggestion about office accounts) are not foreseeable.

    Bit busy at the moment, so I’ll leave you with this for now. Sheer genius.

    I know India VERY well.

  11. Dear Dennis:

    Hope you will indulge me and allow this on your site – if inappropriate, please delete.

    Jethro Tull – My God

    Oh people – what have you done
    Locked Him in His golden cage.
    Made Him bend to your religion
    Him resurrected from the grave.

    He is the god of nothing
    If that’s all that you can see.
    You are the god of everything
    He’s inside you and me.

    So lean upon Him gently
    And don’t call on Him to save you
    From your social graces
    And the sins you used to waive.

    The bloody Church of England
    In chains of history
    Requests your earthly presence at
    The vicarage for tea.

    And the graven image you-know-who
    With His plastic crucifix
    He’s got him fixed
    Confuses me as to who and where and why

    As to how he gets his kicks.
    Confessing to the endless sin
    The endless whining sounds.
    You’ll be praying till next Thursday to

    All the gods that you can count.

    Songwriters: IAN ANDERSON

Comments are closed.