Are we living in an Artificial Reality? The ‘Matrix’ or a Simulation?

This page is the start of a series of pages on ‘the nature of reality’.

Let me make it very clear at a start, I’ve many pages here giving an ‘unarguable’ body of evidence that we are entirely software defined people living in an entirely simulated reality.

As luck would have it we are also simulating people living in a ‘Matrix’ style reality, in other words we are simulating subtle people interfaced to physical animal forms. Coincidentally, there is also an amazing abundance of evidence of this too. All it takes is some concerted thinking to put all of the pieces together . . .

So, this is an pre-amble introduction page leading into pages that will present LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of evidence that we ‘ARE’ simulating people from an asexual androgynous subtle being population all interfaced to physical animal forms . . .

Given the ‘interest’ and the degree of ‘Speculation’ in the ‘Matrix’ reality possibility it’s embarrassing that no one has been able to present even starting basics . . .


Recently there has been some renewed interest that we are ‘perhaps’ living within ‘A Simulation’, ‘The Matrix’ and or ‘A Matrix-Style’ computer simulation.

The below are some recent web page titles related to Elon Musk recently indicating that it’s ‘possible’ that we are living within a simulation . . .

  1. Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO ‘One-in-billions’ chance humans not in computer simulation
  2. Elon Musk Says We’re Probably Living in “The Matrix”
  3. Elon Musk: Humanity ‘Probably’ Living in a Matrix-Style Computer Simulation
  4. Elon Musk believes we are probably characters in some advanced civilization’s video game

Did you notice the wide range of ‘incompatible’ descriptions presented in the above title list?

For example ‘characters in some advanced civilization’s video game’ implies that we would be entirely software defined people living in an entirely software defined reality, while a ‘Matrix’ Style Reality is of a ‘reality’ that is of real people interfaced to a remote software defined avatar body living within a software defined ‘virtual’ environment (remember the ‘Matrix’ trilogy of films that presented this very definitively).

In other words these web originated title descriptions actually use and mix up terms that are characteristic of two entirely different artificial reality types.

This is odd in itself, BUT, a second oddity is that the writers don’t seem to even be aware in the slightest that they are actually mixing up the characteristics of two completely different artificial reality types either.

A third and even more bizarre ‘oddity’ is that despite that the ‘mixing up’ of the characteristics of two entirely different ‘artificial’ reality types is quite common on pretty much every web page speculating on these possibilities, I’ve never seen anyone point this out either.

In other words no one actually appears to be able to become aware that neither themselves nor anyone else has much of a clue about what ‘exactly’ it is that they are speculatively on or discussing in a fundamental sense.

Are ‘YOU’, yes, YOU reading this ‘aware’ that there ‘are’ two common and commonly known about artificial reality types that are actually different from each other? Are you?

  1. Can you recall and or describe any of the basic characteristics of the two commonly known about reality types? Can you describe any of the basic differences there are between these two artificial reality types?
  2. Can you describe how either of these reality types are different to a ‘real’ reality?

Perhaps it would be useful to pose the following as a direct EXPLICIT question:

“What are the ‘fundamental’ characteristics of ‘A Simulation’ and ‘The Matrix’ as ‘types’ of ‘Reality’ AND how are they different from each other AND, more importantly how are they each different from a ‘real’ reality?”

I am ‘explicitly’ asking the above because:

  1. It appears as if not one person seems to be aware of the characteristics of or even any simplistic basics about either of the two specific artificial reality types that are commonly referred to . . . and worse . . .
  2. Because of the above no one seems to understand or even be aware that there are very important and ‘distinct’ differences between the common artificial reality types . . .
  3. The outcome of this global presentation of ‘observable’ systemic ignorance is that we have not one person using the foundation characteristics or the commonly know about basics of the two ‘indirectly’ referred to ‘artificial’ realities as the basis for absolutely any ‘rational and or coherent’ discussions . . . with the observable outcome being . . .
  4. That there is absolutely no awareness of the possibility, never mind any speculation or discussion as to whether either of the two commonly known about artificial ‘reality’ types ‘could’ result in the presentation of ‘clues’ that would not only be ‘visible’ to the population living within these BUT ‘clues’ which could be deduced (by anyone in the population) if they use ‘commonly’ known about basics that are characteristic of these artificial realities as a ‘conceptual’ starting point for some coherent, ‘reasoned’ speculative thinking?

In other words, if the two commonly referred to artificial reality types actually had their characteristics described such that someone (or in fact anyone) could then spending time thinking about these, then would it be possible that they could become aware that:

“there would be deducible differences leading to deducible ‘observable/visible’ artefacts/clues being presented to the populations of either one or the other or even both of the two commonly ‘alluded’ to artificial realities and particularly clues that you could also deduce you would absolutely not expect to have presented within a ‘hypothetical’ real reality?”

Coincidentally, to have any chance in the slightest to even begin to ‘appraise’ the above, the first thing that needs to be done is to define the basic characteristics of the two ‘commonest’ and most commonly referred to artificial reality types so that you/we then have some basic understandings of not only how these reality types differ from each other BUT also how they each differ from a ‘real’ reality . . .

A REAL REALITY:

Within which everything arises and unfolds according to natural laws and these natural laws remain fixed through time. For example complex life forms emerge over long spans of time, consciousness arises with complexity, each conscious person is born, they may mate and have offspring and then they die.

ARTIFICIAL-REALITY-1: A ‘Matrix Reality’ . . .

Within which real people (perhaps lying in a sealed pod ‘somewhere’) are each interfaced to a second remote body (an avatar). In other words for a ‘Matrix Reality’ each ‘real’ person would actually have two bodies, each present within a different environment and these two bodies would have to be connected to each other by interfacing of some type. For this arrangement it is highly likely that both the remote avatar AND the external environment would be entirely software defined. This arrangement would make it possible to directly influence the external software defined reality presentation as well as many aspects of the remote body either because the remote body is software defined or because the interfacing ‘signals / data channels’ connecting the two bodies could be monitored and or adjusted by the designers (depending on the agenda and or the objectives of this ‘arrangement’) or the data transfer between the two bodies could be compromised by a third party. It would also be possible to gradually change by hidden, difficult to detect means the characteristics of the external reality AND also any remote software defined avatar over time.

For this arrangement it can easily be deduced that having a body (and for an entire population MANY bodies) lying immobile somewhere would likely result in the ‘real’ bodies degrading through inactivity and or because of evolving bacterial, viral and or other infection agents spreading through this population. Despite that such problems would ‘essentially’ be invisible to the remote avatar population they would still be impacted by these. In other words an interfaced avatar population would ‘likely’ present at least some ‘phantom’ symptoms and particularly symptoms that would perhaps be described as ‘psychosomatic’ i.e. symptoms with no identifiable ‘physical’ cause because they originate within the invisible remote body.

ARTIFICIAL-REALITY-2: A ‘Simulation Project’ . . .

Within which every single minute, infinitesimal aspect of each person AND, ALL OF THE ENORMOUS NUMBERS OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THESE is entirely software defined AND each person is an accurate copy of someone else living out someone else’s characteristics, behaviours as well as someone else’s entire pre-defined life. PLUS, under circumstances where the project is about achieving a very specific objective (this is the most likely possibility because this is what we use simulations for here). In this instance each individual’s self awareness, thinking and evaluating abilities will be dependent on both the accuracy of cognitive, awareness, mental and memory functioning software as well as the software that defines (and also protects) the aims, objectives and agendas of the simulation project itself, which coincidentally it can be deduced won’t in the slightest be keen on having anyone in the simulated population becoming ‘absolutely’ aware that they are actually REALLY entirely software defined people living within someone’s ‘copied reality’ simulation project. As part of this ‘configuration’, it would not only be possible to change the rules and characteristics of the external reality as well as the software defined person over time BUT depending on the agenda of the simulation project it is actually highly likely that one or the other or even both would be altered through time. It would be even easier to change by hidden, difficult to detect means anything of any of the simulated people and or the external reality both in any ‘moment’ and over time.

ARTIFICIAL-REALITY-3:

Finally, for ‘completeness’ sake I’ll describe an extremely unlikely 3rd artificial reality possibility which is that we’d be an entirely software defined free living population. In other words, we would ‘not’ be a copy of someone else living out a pre-defined duplicated life. However, because this third possibility ‘could’ be implemented without the presentation of anomalies then it would be extremely difficult to determine if you are living in this configuration of reality. As such it wouldn’t be worth spending ‘serious’ time considering this possibility except perhaps from a philosophical point of view.


Are you ‘aware’ that you can only start to ‘rationally and coherently’ speculate upon absolutely ANY possibility ‘IF’ you have available the ‘commonly’ known about basics and the foundation characteristics of ‘whatever it is’ that you are actually ‘attempting’ to speculate upon?

Are you aware that not one web page discussion that is speculating about the possibility that we may be living in an artificial reality actually defines what it is that they are actually discussing? AND no one even notices that this is the case . . .

The above is absolutely true and correct, such that DESPITE that academia and science are built on a foundation of accumulated knowledge which is then used as the basic foundation material to speculate on possibilities beyond what is already established, even on academic and science orientated web sites speculating on simulation, simulated reality, simulation argument and or ‘The Matrix’ reality possibilities these sites also don’t ever present any foundation or common knowledge information about the reality types they are discussing either.

For example, Prof. N. Bostroms simulation-argument.com web site which is exclusively discussing entirely software defined people living within an entirely software defined reality actually presents an entire page called ‘Why Make a Matrix? And Why You Might Be In One’. In other words he presents an entire page discussing ARTIFICIAL-REALITY-1 while forgetting to mention that this specific artificial reality is of real people interfaced to a software defined avatar / artificial reality. This page is ‘exceptionally’ odd, because his simulation argument is entirely based on the ARTIFICIAL-REALITY-3 possibility. Prof. Bostrom not only doesn’t define what he’s writing, discussing and or talking about, he actually doesn’t seem to be aware in the slightest that he is continually mixing information that relates to three artificial reality types, or that each ‘actually’ have very important characteristics that are different from each other.

However, the simulation-argument.com web site is NOT UNUSUAL in this respect. Absolutely all academic and science sites discussing these topic areas also never actually define what they are actually discussing, even more worrying is that they also don’t seem to notice this either AND people commenting on such sites also don’t seem to realise this because no one points this out either.

Why are absolutely all discussions about absolutely any artificial reality possibilities absolutely ALL ANOMALOUS?

Well, they are anomalous because ‘IF’ you do have definitions and basic information and YOU ‘DO’ spend time THINKING about possibilities based on these basics then it eventually becomes OBVIOUS that the artificial reality possibilities 1 & 2 that I defined and characterised above will definitively and absolutely result in the presentation of deducible artefacts / anomalies / clues that will also be directly visible and hence ‘observable’ to the population living within those artificial realities.

For example, an anomaly that anyone with access to the basic characteristics will eventually deduce to be ‘extremely’ likely AND which ‘coincidentally’ is also readily observable here is that despite the high interest in the ‘Matrix’ reality and simulation argument possibilities . . .

Not one person (apart from myself) has been able to become aware of never mind define and describe the basic, common, foundation characteristics of either of these commonly referred to artificial reality types in any ‘reasonable or realistic’ detail what so ever. I should also perhaps point out that a google search for ‘Matrix Reality’ returns 99 million+ web pages, so this basic information, the foundation descriptions and the characteristics of a ‘Matrix’ reality are essentially missing from 99+ million web pages!!!

‘Exactly’ how is it that the ARTIFICIAL-1 and ARTIFICIAL-2 reality possibilities have never ever actually had their fundamental basic characteristics WRITTEN OUT / DEFINED / DESCRIBED IN DETAIL in the slightest, ANYWHERE as I have done above?

How could a ‘hypothetical’ real reality be aware of and be DYNAMICALLY & INTELLIGENTLY RESPONSIVE to specific discussion topics? Could it? Would it?

What are the ‘chances’ of this happening by chance?

Specifically, it is so unbelievably and impossibly ‘ODD’ that no one, not one person ANYWHERE has even been allowed to present any of the basic characteristics and defining DETAILS OF EITHER OF THE 2 MOST LIKELY ALTERNATE ARTIFICIAL REALITY POSSIBILITIES that this is evidence ALL ON ITS OWN that one or the other or perhaps even a combination of both of these possibilities together are actually ‘extremely’ likely possibilities with respect to our own ‘reality’ circumstances.

How could an ‘alleged’ real reality not only DYNAMICALLY & INTELLIGENTLY define and manage discussions specifically focused around ‘are we in an artificial reality’ possibilities BUT be able to do this so well for over a DECADE such that not one person has even been able to become aware that such discussions are UTTERLY ANOMALOUS at least compared to discussions of absolutely any other ‘deducible as less worrying to any ‘artificial’ reality’ / way more ‘conventional’ topic?

DOES THIS MATCH WITH ‘ANYONE’S’ EXPECTATIONS

OF WHAT ‘SHOULD BE POSSIBLE’ OF A REAL REALITY?

So, can ‘you’, here and now, yes, ‘you’ reading this!!! Can you actually ‘think’ of any ‘OTHER’ consistent, anomalous experiences (consistent between people as well as through long spans of time) that would indicate:

  1. That your/our reality isn’t in the slightest real while coincidentally . . .
  2. With just a modest amount of ‘coherent’ and reasoned thinking such anomalous experiences can actually be deduced to be the logical outcome of the basic characteristics of the artificial reality types 1 or 2 that I have already described in reasonable detail above . . .
  3. Fundamental characteristics that, ‘coincidentally’ our population ‘unbelievably’ seems to have been unable to even become aware of never mind write down and this is despite that 10’s of millions of web pages purport to be discussing/speculating about these specific types of artificial reality . . .

Can you even think of just one consistent anomalous experience that has been consistent experienced here while also recorded as being experienced for a long time?

Can you?

I suggest that you spend time racking your brains here because we don’t just have one or two examples of these, we do in fact have 100’s of such experiences. Even worse, these experiences that are so common that it would be ‘impossible’ for you yourself here to NOT BE FAMILIAR with at least some of them . . . so it would be very, VERY suspicious if you completely failed to become aware of ANY AT ALL!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *