The first is the notion, supported by a number of bona fide scientists, that the state of reality in which we function is actually a computer-generated simulation. The second is another notion, supported by an overwhelming amount of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, that some fundamental part of us survives the death of the body and is later reborn into a different body.
It seems to me that in order to reconcile these two, apparently credible, concepts, one of two conditions would have to be met:
1. The part of us which survives the death of the body – call it consciousness or the soul as you wish – would have to have its source outside the simulation, either in the base reality or somewhere even beyond that. That raises a question: would the surviving entity return (be reincarnated) to the same simulation, a different simulation, the base reality, or some other environment such as an alternate dimension?
2. The energetic particles which make up the consciousness/soul would leave the simulation on the death of the simulated body, but remain in the computer program generating the simulation. They would later be re-used – either separately or en bloc – to function in another simulated body.
I think I would prefer the latter, partly because it offers a new slant on the term ‘the ghost in the machine.’ Then again, the former hypothesis allows the concept that the base reality is what we call ‘God’ or ‘the Universe’ in its figurative sense.
Am I boring anybody?
No comments:
Post a Comment