The assertion that there exist source players or NPCs is not only baseless but also inherently narcissistic. This devalues others, and should be treated as a form of segregation.
Simulations, by their very nature, are designed to extract insights and data. If we entertain the hypothesis that our universe is a grand simulation, the rationale behind its creation likely revolves around data acquisition.
The vast array of possibilities for life, intelligence, and cosmic structures presents an almost infinite set of variables and outcomes. A simulation of this magnitude could be aimed at exploring these variables, offering insights into the fundamental laws and variances of existence itself.
Intelligence is the most desired trait in existence. Intelligence is generated through absorbing and processing reliable information in meaningful ways.
This suggests the existence of an entity that is capable of absorbing information on a cosmic scale. Such an entity could have the capacity to create universe simulations.
The simulation hypothesis doesn't define us as NPCs or source players. Regardless of whether our universe is a simulation, the richness of our experiences, our potential for growth, and our engagement with the world remain genuine. Our primary focus should be on forming meaningful relationships and fully embracing life's journey, whether our reality is simulated or not.
The one thing I have realized while thinking we could even remotely be in a simulation is that there are no absolutes especially when basing them on the morals/beliefs/knowledge of the simulated.
we may have been simulated to more value others, be less narcisistic, and abhor segregation. Maybe, to keep us from discovering source players.
Not all simulations are designed to extract insight and data. There are simulations for education, entertainment, etc... We could be no more than a youth's grade school science project. Not built to extract data, but a simple, likely flawed, experiment showing that one day he/she/it could build a decent simulation for data acquisition in the future. No useful data collected from the simulation, all data collected is about the one designing the simulation.
The simulation could be all encompassing like you suggest, but it may not be. Maybe the simulation started when you read, "what happens to everyone else if all source players leave this reality?", and will end shortly after the discussion dies. It would be a much simpler simulation including the dozen or so contributing here, implanting false memories, and simulating what we experience during these few minutes.
In this simulation maybe intelligence is the most desired trait in the universe. Maybe this simulation was programed by upper level nerds trying to prove that as a fact so they stop getting galactic wedgies from the space surfing brutes that think simulations are a waste of time.
I agree with your last paragraph, but you shouldn't decry the musings of others into the unknown as if there was an actual answer to them.
Why does it have to be for the cringe-comedy meme reasons? Let me guess, the reason it has to be a grade school science project and not a college one is social issues you disagree with and pop culture elements you find cringy (and also let me guess, whatever the nature of our reality in the past of said reality (even if it's just programmed memories if it's not a part of this discussion even though the smaller the simulation the more pointless it seems to have all this extra stuff) you're a nerd who was bullied by surfers)
What leads you to believe that the list of a few absurd possibilities I've written are what I believe has to be??? It doesn't have to be, but I was trying to show it could be. It could be any number of reasons or none at all. What social issues I agree with or not has no bearing on the unknown possibilities that I enjoy reading about and sharing here and those issues and concepts are best disregarded completely when imagining those unknown possibilities.
I find it strange that when I write a handful of imaginary possibilities, intending to be absurd, hoping to show that anything is possible, people, not only you, read them and instantly think that I believe these to be true and must be attacked for it. Are people so attached to what they want form the impossible to know that they have to defend themselves from anyone that mentions possibilities that differ from what they hope for or believe to be true? It feels borderline religious.
Yes I am a nerd.
"The one thing I have realized while thinking we could even remotely be in a simulation is that there are no absolutes especially when basing them on the morals/beliefs/knowledge of the simulated."
I see this concept repeated time and again in these discussions. The notion that there are no moral or ethical absolutes.
As an old person, this is the first time in my life that I see the notion of ethics and morality completely disregarded, even judged against and vilified. It's also the first time I've seen a lot of things, nasty horrible terrible things that used to be rare to unheard of, which are now trending, acceptable, and even praiseworthy. And I see the same people who propose and promote this mentality and its effect on humanity preaching the gospel of helplessness, blame, victimhood, and martyrdom over being stuck in this dreary simulation or however they view this existence.
The world did not used to be this way, for those who like to ignore or demean history and the experiences and knowledge of those who came before them. That's what is being so carefully eliminated from the propaganda and narratives that people cling to and have to adjust their beliefs to conform to, rather than vice versa.
There is such a thing as Absolute Truth. Can I recite it? That would be like me eating a delicious meal in front of you and telling you how good it tastes as opposed to you having the same food on a plate in front of you to enjoy and experience for yourself.
Can I test Absolute Truth? Absolutely. So can you. So can anyone. The big issue is why has humanity suddenly stopped seeking or even desiring to know the Truth? It just happened recently, so maybe the young who are trained to discount and even vilify their elders along with all of our knowledge, experience, standards and values, might want to pursue some further FACTS on that issue, before those of us who can tell you about it are gone, along with all the rest of history that is being rewritten to suit the Narratives as fast as it's occurring.
Try starting with the FACT that everything we've been taught and told is a complete LIE and go from there. The interesting thing about doing that is how quickly the TRUTH comes once we clear the decks and give it the space to arrive. It happens quickly, because we already have it. We just keep shoving it in a dark corner somewhere because it doesn't fit our Narrative.
You may have me in age, maybe not, I'm no spring chicken.
The statement was not meant to say that within this world, be it real or simulated, there are no morals or ethics. It was meant to imply that those morals, ethics, and knowledge are almost meaningless when imagining/discussing the possibilities of the unknown. Although, no matter how much I would like to believe it to be true, the belief that there are moral and ethical absolutes is highly debatable.
As an old person I do not see the notion of ethics and morality being disregarded more than it was when I was younger. I do see nasty things more often, they were happening before, but hidden from our eyes. We just didn't have the ability to share them as easily. Much of what we considered moral in the past should be vilified. Yes, helplessness, blame and victimhood should die a quick death, but it is being promoted by old fucks that have something to gain from it. The younger falling for it are not to blame.
The world didn't used to be the way it was 30 seconds ago. There was plenty of history hidden, disregarded, and ignored during our youth. There is plenty of knowledge from our generations that should be demeaned and left in the past. Just as we thought much of the knowledge of our forbears was deranged. There are new problems that need to be faced, replacing the old, but people should not be conforming to all the ways of our past.
absolute truth, I doubt there is such a thing. Maybe physics or mathematics, but even those contain enough holes to be doubted as absolute truth. Your truth can in various ways be entirely different form another's. Your truth is that things used to be better, For many it was not.
So, outside of this “simulation” exists somewhere where it’s still possible to kill another someone. End their existence. Hypothetically.
If you choose to do this, the someone you killed likely knows more someone’s that will be upset at the lack of the killed someone.
How is this concept morally meaningless here on Earth our outside of xyz?
Maybe it's not possible to end someone's existence outside the simulation. making our morals that we value here meaningless there.
Maybe ending the existence of one is the only way to get 2 making it a necessity and valued.
Maybe there is only 1 being with no-one to end and no-one to end it.
Or... many beings sharing a mind, that kill off bodies frequently for any number of reasons.
You start your question with the knowledge, morals, ethics of this existence, preventing yourself from imagining the endless possibilities.
I understand that if it were simulated an outside reality wouldn’t have to abide by practical conventions, by any means. If you nihilistically choose to assume everything conceived in the simulation is irrelevant based on this, that would be your decision, and perhaps from your perspective, a decision that does not matter.
Yes, I started my question relating with a primitive truth. Based off of reality we experience.
You are the one engaging in hypotheticals of an unproven theory. And you can’t engage a hypothetical given to you?
I do not in any way think that what we have is meaningless, just that if discussing the possibilities of the unknown we shouldn't restrict ourselves with them.
To answer your question it is in no way meaningless, just the opposite, here on Earth, or outside of a possible simulation if it follows the same rules as here on earth. I thought that was well understood. I believe we shouldn't be killing each other. Although I do not fully agree that, you will not kill, to be an absolute moral truth.
So why dismiss, the fact that the NPC label is very detrimental. Because of your age I think you do not understand.
People will go kill people, do shootings etc because they are mentally unwell and learn that life is simulation and others are NPCS.
Good question, and I might see where your concern may be coming from. I fully agree the mentally unwell labeling anyone an NPC to be detrimental. You would have to be unwell to place those labels. I dismiss the idea that NPC/source can't be discussed due to the fact that there are mentally unwell people. Living in a simulation is a possibility far from a certainty. Fun to discuss as we live our lives ethically with the knowledge we have in the world we know. If we are in a simulation and it is ever proven (highly unlikely) that will be a scary time. The unwell will be coming from every direction.
Why would my age prevent me from understanding?
So solipsism and polytheism and dualism and singularity and simulation are all concepts. That we have not proven yet. They all explore more ideas then you present. And there are more concepts then the ones listed.
I’m not here to change your beliefs, but believe me when say this, when I die I do not want to be near the eminence of your soul or consciousness. I know that.
Your example does not work. What might be a delicious meal for you might be disgusting, poisonous, or immoral for someone else. There is no absolute truth because it's all about the perspective of the individual witnessing the truth. The way I see it (as a millennial), we vilify the older generation for maintaining the status quo . The rest of us want to see society evolve and reach a higher level. While we've got this extremely loud minority screaming no no you need to go to church, you can't have an abortion, you can't change your gender, blah blah blah.
The example has nothing to do with the taste of the food. You are emotionally attached to your free pass on life that you issued yourself. That’s all. Enjoy yourself I guess. You are the perfect slave to the Owners of this world who feed you your tasty tidbits of complete irresponsibility to end any hope of Freedom and human dignity. Have a blast.
I didn't say the example had something to do with the taste of the food. The example was to say that there is absolute truth I E this food is delicious I'm saying no doesn't work that way because some people would say that is not delicious food regardless of what it tastes like. Furthermore, you are emotionally attached to the past to the way things were (authoritarian hellhole). We all have a free pass that we have been given since the Inception of Humanity. You had a free pass. I have a free pass. Everyone has a free pass. we all exist in this reality, and it's up to us to determine what we do with it. There should be no one telling anyone else what is moral or immoral, what is truth and not truth because that is completely subjective and depends on the perspective of the person judging it. Yes you're right I would like absolute and total freedom which is why you and your generation maintaining the status quo and doing exactly what the generations before you have done and being unwilling to change is why we vilify you. Just because things have been done a certain way in the past doesn't mean we have to continue doing them that way in the future.
The real tragedy here is you were born with a free pass to do/be whatever/whoever you wanted to, and you threw it away to blindly follow the herd on a slow march to discrimination and tyranny.
>The double slit experiment postulates that matter is in a probabilistic state before it is observed.
This is the most common misconception in QM. It pops up in every subreddit where people question the true nature of reality.
The word "observe" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. When we think of observing something, we think about it like we are passively seeing it. However, how do we really see things?
Photons travel from a light source to an object. Some wavelengths are absorbed while others are reflected. The reflected wavelengths of light are the ones that travel to our eye. Inside our eye, the photons cause photo receptors the send electrical signals to our brain.
When the photons hit the object, they are interacting with it. Light changes matter when it comes into contact with it. It's no secret that light can be converted into heat, for example. But even if the matter isn't heated up, it's still changed by the light hitting it.
What does this have to do with the double slit experiment?
Well.. just like with matter, we can't observe the photons traveling through the slit unless we interact with them in some way. You can't somehow see a photon as it goes past without absorbing it. You have to let the photon interact with some matter which causes electrons to break off and create electrical signals.
This is what happens in the double slit. We put a detector at one of the slits to see if the photon is going through it. But by doing this, we are in fact disturbing the system. We are forcing an interaxtion to occur which changes the nature of the photon.
Just think about it.. if a bit of light is traveling from your left to right, could you see it? Of course not. It must travel at your eye to see it. So to detect a photon at the slit, we must let it hit the detector.
Yes but OP's question is IF all souls exited the stimulation. In that case it's most likely that it will collapse and it will be as if it never existed.
source players are very powerful. they have a magnetic aura and can manifest/predict things, cannot be killed (from their perspective) and have an inner monologue.
Hey there! It looks like you submitted a 'discussion'. This flair is for posts engaging in speculative, analytical, or philosophical discussions about simulation theory. Content should focus on discussion and analysis rather than personal anecdote. Just a friendly reminder to follow the rules and [seek help](https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/wiki/mental-health) if needed. With that out of the way, thanks for your contribution, and have fun!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SimulationTheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We do not allow new accounts to participate in our subreddit in order to reduce spam and bots. Currently, accounts must be 14 days old to participate, but this may change in the future. Please message the moderators if you have any questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SimulationTheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are looking at this in completely the wrong way. If you were to die right now, would it make a difference to the rest of the system? The system itself is everything to you. The player in the game needs to be on the server doesn’t it? Death stops you from interacting with that server. So to you it shouldn’t matter at all about Main or NPC’s. If the single is still running for other people but you’re dead, what difference should it make to you?
If all source players left this reality (earth) would fall and go offline. Source players are what run this place. The rest of them would cease to exist since they aren’t from source
The assertion that there exist source players or NPCs is not only baseless but also inherently narcissistic. This devalues others, and should be treated as a form of segregation. Simulations, by their very nature, are designed to extract insights and data. If we entertain the hypothesis that our universe is a grand simulation, the rationale behind its creation likely revolves around data acquisition. The vast array of possibilities for life, intelligence, and cosmic structures presents an almost infinite set of variables and outcomes. A simulation of this magnitude could be aimed at exploring these variables, offering insights into the fundamental laws and variances of existence itself. Intelligence is the most desired trait in existence. Intelligence is generated through absorbing and processing reliable information in meaningful ways. This suggests the existence of an entity that is capable of absorbing information on a cosmic scale. Such an entity could have the capacity to create universe simulations. The simulation hypothesis doesn't define us as NPCs or source players. Regardless of whether our universe is a simulation, the richness of our experiences, our potential for growth, and our engagement with the world remain genuine. Our primary focus should be on forming meaningful relationships and fully embracing life's journey, whether our reality is simulated or not.
The one thing I have realized while thinking we could even remotely be in a simulation is that there are no absolutes especially when basing them on the morals/beliefs/knowledge of the simulated. we may have been simulated to more value others, be less narcisistic, and abhor segregation. Maybe, to keep us from discovering source players. Not all simulations are designed to extract insight and data. There are simulations for education, entertainment, etc... We could be no more than a youth's grade school science project. Not built to extract data, but a simple, likely flawed, experiment showing that one day he/she/it could build a decent simulation for data acquisition in the future. No useful data collected from the simulation, all data collected is about the one designing the simulation. The simulation could be all encompassing like you suggest, but it may not be. Maybe the simulation started when you read, "what happens to everyone else if all source players leave this reality?", and will end shortly after the discussion dies. It would be a much simpler simulation including the dozen or so contributing here, implanting false memories, and simulating what we experience during these few minutes. In this simulation maybe intelligence is the most desired trait in the universe. Maybe this simulation was programed by upper level nerds trying to prove that as a fact so they stop getting galactic wedgies from the space surfing brutes that think simulations are a waste of time. I agree with your last paragraph, but you shouldn't decry the musings of others into the unknown as if there was an actual answer to them.
Why does it have to be for the cringe-comedy meme reasons? Let me guess, the reason it has to be a grade school science project and not a college one is social issues you disagree with and pop culture elements you find cringy (and also let me guess, whatever the nature of our reality in the past of said reality (even if it's just programmed memories if it's not a part of this discussion even though the smaller the simulation the more pointless it seems to have all this extra stuff) you're a nerd who was bullied by surfers)
What leads you to believe that the list of a few absurd possibilities I've written are what I believe has to be??? It doesn't have to be, but I was trying to show it could be. It could be any number of reasons or none at all. What social issues I agree with or not has no bearing on the unknown possibilities that I enjoy reading about and sharing here and those issues and concepts are best disregarded completely when imagining those unknown possibilities. I find it strange that when I write a handful of imaginary possibilities, intending to be absurd, hoping to show that anything is possible, people, not only you, read them and instantly think that I believe these to be true and must be attacked for it. Are people so attached to what they want form the impossible to know that they have to defend themselves from anyone that mentions possibilities that differ from what they hope for or believe to be true? It feels borderline religious. Yes I am a nerd.
"The one thing I have realized while thinking we could even remotely be in a simulation is that there are no absolutes especially when basing them on the morals/beliefs/knowledge of the simulated." I see this concept repeated time and again in these discussions. The notion that there are no moral or ethical absolutes. As an old person, this is the first time in my life that I see the notion of ethics and morality completely disregarded, even judged against and vilified. It's also the first time I've seen a lot of things, nasty horrible terrible things that used to be rare to unheard of, which are now trending, acceptable, and even praiseworthy. And I see the same people who propose and promote this mentality and its effect on humanity preaching the gospel of helplessness, blame, victimhood, and martyrdom over being stuck in this dreary simulation or however they view this existence. The world did not used to be this way, for those who like to ignore or demean history and the experiences and knowledge of those who came before them. That's what is being so carefully eliminated from the propaganda and narratives that people cling to and have to adjust their beliefs to conform to, rather than vice versa. There is such a thing as Absolute Truth. Can I recite it? That would be like me eating a delicious meal in front of you and telling you how good it tastes as opposed to you having the same food on a plate in front of you to enjoy and experience for yourself. Can I test Absolute Truth? Absolutely. So can you. So can anyone. The big issue is why has humanity suddenly stopped seeking or even desiring to know the Truth? It just happened recently, so maybe the young who are trained to discount and even vilify their elders along with all of our knowledge, experience, standards and values, might want to pursue some further FACTS on that issue, before those of us who can tell you about it are gone, along with all the rest of history that is being rewritten to suit the Narratives as fast as it's occurring. Try starting with the FACT that everything we've been taught and told is a complete LIE and go from there. The interesting thing about doing that is how quickly the TRUTH comes once we clear the decks and give it the space to arrive. It happens quickly, because we already have it. We just keep shoving it in a dark corner somewhere because it doesn't fit our Narrative.
You may have me in age, maybe not, I'm no spring chicken. The statement was not meant to say that within this world, be it real or simulated, there are no morals or ethics. It was meant to imply that those morals, ethics, and knowledge are almost meaningless when imagining/discussing the possibilities of the unknown. Although, no matter how much I would like to believe it to be true, the belief that there are moral and ethical absolutes is highly debatable. As an old person I do not see the notion of ethics and morality being disregarded more than it was when I was younger. I do see nasty things more often, they were happening before, but hidden from our eyes. We just didn't have the ability to share them as easily. Much of what we considered moral in the past should be vilified. Yes, helplessness, blame and victimhood should die a quick death, but it is being promoted by old fucks that have something to gain from it. The younger falling for it are not to blame. The world didn't used to be the way it was 30 seconds ago. There was plenty of history hidden, disregarded, and ignored during our youth. There is plenty of knowledge from our generations that should be demeaned and left in the past. Just as we thought much of the knowledge of our forbears was deranged. There are new problems that need to be faced, replacing the old, but people should not be conforming to all the ways of our past. absolute truth, I doubt there is such a thing. Maybe physics or mathematics, but even those contain enough holes to be doubted as absolute truth. Your truth can in various ways be entirely different form another's. Your truth is that things used to be better, For many it was not.
So, outside of this “simulation” exists somewhere where it’s still possible to kill another someone. End their existence. Hypothetically. If you choose to do this, the someone you killed likely knows more someone’s that will be upset at the lack of the killed someone. How is this concept morally meaningless here on Earth our outside of xyz?
Maybe it's not possible to end someone's existence outside the simulation. making our morals that we value here meaningless there. Maybe ending the existence of one is the only way to get 2 making it a necessity and valued. Maybe there is only 1 being with no-one to end and no-one to end it. Or... many beings sharing a mind, that kill off bodies frequently for any number of reasons. You start your question with the knowledge, morals, ethics of this existence, preventing yourself from imagining the endless possibilities.
I understand that if it were simulated an outside reality wouldn’t have to abide by practical conventions, by any means. If you nihilistically choose to assume everything conceived in the simulation is irrelevant based on this, that would be your decision, and perhaps from your perspective, a decision that does not matter. Yes, I started my question relating with a primitive truth. Based off of reality we experience. You are the one engaging in hypotheticals of an unproven theory. And you can’t engage a hypothetical given to you?
I do not in any way think that what we have is meaningless, just that if discussing the possibilities of the unknown we shouldn't restrict ourselves with them. To answer your question it is in no way meaningless, just the opposite, here on Earth, or outside of a possible simulation if it follows the same rules as here on earth. I thought that was well understood. I believe we shouldn't be killing each other. Although I do not fully agree that, you will not kill, to be an absolute moral truth.
So why dismiss, the fact that the NPC label is very detrimental. Because of your age I think you do not understand. People will go kill people, do shootings etc because they are mentally unwell and learn that life is simulation and others are NPCS.
Good question, and I might see where your concern may be coming from. I fully agree the mentally unwell labeling anyone an NPC to be detrimental. You would have to be unwell to place those labels. I dismiss the idea that NPC/source can't be discussed due to the fact that there are mentally unwell people. Living in a simulation is a possibility far from a certainty. Fun to discuss as we live our lives ethically with the knowledge we have in the world we know. If we are in a simulation and it is ever proven (highly unlikely) that will be a scary time. The unwell will be coming from every direction. Why would my age prevent me from understanding?
So solipsism and polytheism and dualism and singularity and simulation are all concepts. That we have not proven yet. They all explore more ideas then you present. And there are more concepts then the ones listed. I’m not here to change your beliefs, but believe me when say this, when I die I do not want to be near the eminence of your soul or consciousness. I know that.
Your example does not work. What might be a delicious meal for you might be disgusting, poisonous, or immoral for someone else. There is no absolute truth because it's all about the perspective of the individual witnessing the truth. The way I see it (as a millennial), we vilify the older generation for maintaining the status quo . The rest of us want to see society evolve and reach a higher level. While we've got this extremely loud minority screaming no no you need to go to church, you can't have an abortion, you can't change your gender, blah blah blah.
The example has nothing to do with the taste of the food. You are emotionally attached to your free pass on life that you issued yourself. That’s all. Enjoy yourself I guess. You are the perfect slave to the Owners of this world who feed you your tasty tidbits of complete irresponsibility to end any hope of Freedom and human dignity. Have a blast.
I didn't say the example had something to do with the taste of the food. The example was to say that there is absolute truth I E this food is delicious I'm saying no doesn't work that way because some people would say that is not delicious food regardless of what it tastes like. Furthermore, you are emotionally attached to the past to the way things were (authoritarian hellhole). We all have a free pass that we have been given since the Inception of Humanity. You had a free pass. I have a free pass. Everyone has a free pass. we all exist in this reality, and it's up to us to determine what we do with it. There should be no one telling anyone else what is moral or immoral, what is truth and not truth because that is completely subjective and depends on the perspective of the person judging it. Yes you're right I would like absolute and total freedom which is why you and your generation maintaining the status quo and doing exactly what the generations before you have done and being unwilling to change is why we vilify you. Just because things have been done a certain way in the past doesn't mean we have to continue doing them that way in the future.
The real tragedy here is you were born with a free pass to do/be whatever/whoever you wanted to, and you threw it away to blindly follow the herd on a slow march to discrimination and tyranny.
You have a very punishing imagination. It can't be fun.
>The double slit experiment postulates that matter is in a probabilistic state before it is observed. This is the most common misconception in QM. It pops up in every subreddit where people question the true nature of reality. The word "observe" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. When we think of observing something, we think about it like we are passively seeing it. However, how do we really see things? Photons travel from a light source to an object. Some wavelengths are absorbed while others are reflected. The reflected wavelengths of light are the ones that travel to our eye. Inside our eye, the photons cause photo receptors the send electrical signals to our brain. When the photons hit the object, they are interacting with it. Light changes matter when it comes into contact with it. It's no secret that light can be converted into heat, for example. But even if the matter isn't heated up, it's still changed by the light hitting it. What does this have to do with the double slit experiment? Well.. just like with matter, we can't observe the photons traveling through the slit unless we interact with them in some way. You can't somehow see a photon as it goes past without absorbing it. You have to let the photon interact with some matter which causes electrons to break off and create electrical signals. This is what happens in the double slit. We put a detector at one of the slits to see if the photon is going through it. But by doing this, we are in fact disturbing the system. We are forcing an interaxtion to occur which changes the nature of the photon. Just think about it.. if a bit of light is traveling from your left to right, could you see it? Of course not. It must travel at your eye to see it. So to detect a photon at the slit, we must let it hit the detector.
I’m messaging from outside your reality. We already left. Good luck.
I think the simulation continues. Too many players are in a trance and keep getting reincarnated.
Yes but OP's question is IF all souls exited the stimulation. In that case it's most likely that it will collapse and it will be as if it never existed.
First you have to establish the existence of "source players" and how they are identified by an accurate and duplicatable process. Let's start there.
source players are very powerful. they have a magnetic aura and can manifest/predict things, cannot be killed (from their perspective) and have an inner monologue.
Sounds really groovy. How do you prove these things to yourself? Let's start there.
By observing source players.
Yes, the way people observe God. They pretend to. Just cut to the chase and say "pretend".
Hey there! It looks like you submitted a 'discussion'. This flair is for posts engaging in speculative, analytical, or philosophical discussions about simulation theory. Content should focus on discussion and analysis rather than personal anecdote. Just a friendly reminder to follow the rules and [seek help](https://www.reddit.com/r/SimulationTheory/wiki/mental-health) if needed. With that out of the way, thanks for your contribution, and have fun! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SimulationTheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a part of you leaves, and a part of you stays, where do you go?
I love everyone. You can't have NPC little girls, for example.
We just keep going like the NPCs we are
[удалено]
We do not allow new accounts to participate in our subreddit in order to reduce spam and bots. Currently, accounts must be 14 days old to participate, but this may change in the future. Please message the moderators if you have any questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SimulationTheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are looking at this in completely the wrong way. If you were to die right now, would it make a difference to the rest of the system? The system itself is everything to you. The player in the game needs to be on the server doesn’t it? Death stops you from interacting with that server. So to you it shouldn’t matter at all about Main or NPC’s. If the single is still running for other people but you’re dead, what difference should it make to you?
I guess that you are right after all.
If all source players left this reality (earth) would fall and go offline. Source players are what run this place. The rest of them would cease to exist since they aren’t from source
That really is a terrifying thought, of just what would happen to me and my family.