Simulation Hypothesis Evidence 4: It Would Be Easy to Directly Manage Simulated People To NOT Consider Realistic ‘Simulation’ Possibilities – LIKE THIS POSSIBILITY

"Simulation Evidence Compilation Pages: This Article Series Provides a Summary of the Evidence I've Compiled using Knowledge of Operational Simulations to Speculate on the Compromises FORCED on the designers when Simulating Self Aware People"

 
We have had a simulation argument for over a decade giving us a good reason to ‘ponder’ simulation possibilities.

However, despite having the simulation argument as a prompt to facilitate speculation about ‘earth as a simulation’ possibilities no DECENT speculation and absolutely no decent thinking of these possibilities has emerged in the last decade.

Where is the Basic, Realistic Earth as a Simulation Speculation Based on Operational Simulations We Have NOW?

Has anyone else noticed (and perhaps become suspicious) that all ‘earth as a simulation’ speculation has become ‘fixated’ around the logical arguments presented that were the basis for the simulation argument itself?

I’ve no problem at all with the logic and reasoning of the simulation argument itself as everything of the argument is sound.

However, what I find astounding is that people (many of whom would bizarrely consider themselves objective) have become lost in the argument logic RATHER than in THINKING about REALISTIC possibilities with respect to ourselves perhaps being in a simulation. Why would people become fixated’ on unrealistic very theoretical possibilities rather than more practical ones? How could this happen?

Basically, the argument ‘should’ have prompted REALISTIC speculation about the most LIKELY and more realistic simulation possibilities with respect to our own circumstances.

Unbelievably this hasn’t happened.

Even more unbelievably no one seems to have even NOTICED that this SHOULD have happened BUT DIDN’T either.

What I write below is what ‘someone’ should have laid out for SERIOUS, REALISTIC, RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE speculation as a foundation for discussions around the possibility that we are perhaps in a simulation.

This simple, basic foundation information should have been commonly presented in multiple places OVER A DECADE AGO . . .

  1. ‘IF’ we are in a simulation then it is very likely that it will have been put together by our future selves. As such any simulation project we are in would LIKELY emerge out of our experience of, expertise and understandings of operational ‘serious’ simulations that are in use now. In which case you should study the simulations we have now to understand WHY you’d simulate an entire population of self aware conscious people AND more importantly to understand what problems you’d have simulating self aware, free thinking people on an entire world with a realistic cosmic backdrop.
  2. What are we using simulations for? Well we are using simulations to improve our understandings AND specifically for the most part down two different lines . . .
    1. To allow ourselves to make predictions by simulating accurately defined systems (weather forecasts for example).
    2. We also use VERY ACCURATE simulations to determine how to make specific changes to achieve specific outcomes in the original system being simulated.
  3. As 99.999% of ‘simulations’ AS WE KNOW THEM TO BE are about accurately COPYING some system then you’d imagine that this being the MOST LIKELY possibility, that someone ‘somewhere’ would have done some remedial THINKING and checked out this possibility. Sadly this hasn’t happened.
  4. ‘IF’ we are in a simulation then it is HIGHLY likely that we are copied people living out someone else’s life in a copied environment.
  5. Simulations are hugely EXPENSIVE not just for the hardware and designers and programmers and running costs BUT it’s the ACCURATE DATA COLLECTION that is the killer. This is why we collect data from all around the global AND we have satellites collecting data in attempts to help us to predict reliable weather forecasts.
  6. Because simulations are expensive then you absolutely don’t simulate anything in your simulation that is NOT absolutely necessary to achieve the objectives of the simulation AND you would absolutely NOT simulate self aware, free thinking, conscious people because . . .
    1. To do this will be unbelievably expensive just to figure out how to simulate self aware, free thinking people never mind to collect all your environmental data of EVERYTHING because you’ll have to make sure it’s good enough to fool them by at least attempting to make it reasonably accurate. You would ‘HAVE’ to make your environment reasonably accurate ‘IF’ you are simulating people ACCURATELY because accurate copies of people will have EMBEDDED expectations relating to the original environment of the person they are simulating. I should remind anyone reading this that is likely already beginning to whinge and whine on about ethics that we are apparently living on a world where making money has a much higher priority than and actually overrides ETHICAL considerations AND if we are in a simulation then we are likely accurately simulating the people that built our simulation AND their ethics (thus ends any feeble ethical argument).
    2. Worse than the expense to design, build and run a simulation of this sophistication would be the very expensive and very difficult to collect seriously accurate data that you would absolutely need to very accurately simulate COPIES of your self aware peoples lives. The original population being self aware and free thinking they’ll likely OBJECT to this data collection. In which case how would you persuade a population to have every last thing about themselves vacuumed up 24/7/52 because this is what you would need to do to simulate the original population accurately. How would you persuade the original population to put up with this degree of privacy invasion AND even more importantly how would you hide this data collection when it starts happening in your simulation? How would you do that?
  7. However, ‘IF’ you absolutely HAVE TO simulate self aware, free thinking people in a simulation then you have a serious problem because these people ‘should’ be able to freely think about themselves AND their environment AND at some point someone will THINK of simulation possibilities AND when this happens ‘IF’ they are allowed to openly THINK about REALISTIC, simple, basic simulation possibilities then your project is dead because they’ll figure out in about 5 minutes that you absolutely cannot simulate copied people for a simulation project WITHOUT having impossible to hide structural anomaly evidence IN PLAIN SIGHT. For example:
    1. Copied people living someone else’s life will exhibit specific and eminently deducible behaviours and responses that a hypothetical real population wouldn’t. These behaviours and responses have already been identified here as confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance (For more on these areas then read this page here as an introduction). Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance turn out to just be the most obvious. Deeper thinking reveals that quite a few other anomalous experiences are also likely to be exhibited under very specific and deducible conditions. These anomalous experiences are not only define-able they are then also measurable. Those that I’ve already figured out (five at the moment) are all described on this page here, coincidentally there is evidence of all of these specific anomalous experiences in our population here.
    2. Another very obvious structural anomaly will be the massive data collection that will be needed to accurately simulate your population. This data collection will be impossible to visually hide so it will be kept hidden by direct management of awareness, thinking and evaluating abilities. Hence we have such a data collection happening here NOW and no one has correlated this data collection with ‘simulation’ possibilities as I describe on this page here and the one following.
  8. So, when they figure out the structural anomalies (first described on this page here) then 10 minutes later . . . OH DEAR, OH DEAR, OH DEAR . . . they’ll KNOW that they are in a simulation.
  9. Because of the above, then ‘IF’ you are attempting to get away with simulating self aware, free thinking people in a simulation project with defined and important objectives then you will absolutely manage your simulated populations awareness, their thinking AND their evaluating abilities AND you will also aggressively, as well as surgically manage your simulated academics and scientists with respect to all material related to earth as a simulation possibilities AND with respect to all anomalies.
  10. Directly managing your entire simulated population is a no brainer. Unfortunately in an entirely managed simulated population with this cheap and seriously likely possibility implemented the last thing they will be able to THINK about is the very possibility I’m describing here because NOT HAVING YOUR SIMULATED POPULATION considering this possibility is the only way your shiny and very expensive simulation project stands any chance of NOT BEING REVEALED FOR WHAT IT IS.

The ‘fact’ that pretty much every single ‘simulation’ focused page I write here presents stupidly easy to deduce observable evidence that no one else has even been able to become aware of ‘IS’ EVIDENCE that you reading this and everyone else here are being directly managed with respect to earth as a simulation specific information possibilities.

If we are NOT being directly managed then EVERYTHING I write on the simulation pages on this site (all of which is stupidly obvious) would have already been written within months of the simulation argument being published.

Simulation Evidence: That NO ONE even considered the most obvious possibility:

“That a simulated as self ware, free thinking population could or would be directly managed is actually contributing evidence that THIS IS OPERATIONAL”

As I have said on other pages here it’s taken me years of THINKING before I could figure out just some of the seriously obvious simple things.

How much extra would it COST to aggressively manage your simulated population?

This page here: How a Simulated Copied Person’s Life CAUSES are Calculated to Lead to Specific Already Pre-Defined describes how for a simulation project simulating copied people accurately the software has to track future events AND manipulate the individual, their interactions AND the environment to create the causes that are required to lead people to the outcomes that are defined in their script.

Because no one has even started to THINK realistically such that they’ve not done what I present on that page then no one is aware that to implement full, complete and absolute management would likely add virtually no extra cost to the simulation project. This is because all of the routines required to simulate copied people that are all, already written already function to manage every aspect of themselves in attempts to keep people aligned to their scripted life.

So, the FACT that this stupidly obvious, cheap as chips possibility that you can guarantee will be implemented ‘IF’ you are living in someone’s simulation project attempting to render self aware free thinking people hasn’t already been thought of and written about anywhere apart from here is evidence that this very likely possibility is operational here.

What else would be evidence of this possibility being operational?

What else would be evidence apart from you reading this being made to be so feeble minded just because you are trying to THINK of what could be evidence BUT cannot?

Here is an easier line to THINK about . . .

“‘IF’ you were a simulation designer AND you did implement this ‘make the population feeble minded with respect to all ‘worrying’ earth as a simulation possibilities’ then what would you expect to happen with respect to all written presentations related to ‘earth as a simulation’ possibilities?”

Attempt to have a think about this AND collect evidence of this possibility BEFORE reading the next page . . .

One Comment

  1. Hasani Baron

    Hi Clive. All of the pages you’ve written explains reincarnation in an even MORE expansive terms.
    ” The software has to track future events AND manipulate the individual, their interactions AND the environment to create the causes that are required to lead people to the outcomes that are defined in their script.”

    The above sentence portion in the last paragraph pounds the nail right on the head in my view. It is sad that the population (most of them) are unknowledgeable and powerless that they would refuse to expand their perceptual views and abilities.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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