How would you give yourself the best possible chance of figuring out if you are in a ‘Real’ reality, a ‘Matrix’ or a ‘Simulation’?
Well, it seems to me that to give yourself any real chance at all of making such a determination then you’d have to think about and collate what we already know about an assumed ‘real’ reality and then compare this to what would or could be possible in a ‘Matrix’ reality and also an entirely ‘simulated’ reality. We could then consider the different possibilities available within each and particularly so with respect to how these differences would impact the people populating those realities.
We could then consider different configurations and design possibilities for each of the ‘constructed’ realities and how under certain conditions the constructed realities could unavoidably impact either the external environment presentation or the perceptions and/or the experiences of the people.
You could then LOOK FOR THESE IN YOUR REALITY
In other words, you could start by considering different and specific constructed ‘reality’ conditions, configurations and project design priorities.
You could then spend time thinking about those possibilities until you could identify what would be possible under specific conditions and combinations of conditions within a Real reality, a Matrix reality and within a Simulation. Doing this would allow you to become aware of what would ONLY be possible in a Matrix or Simulation while excluding what was not possible (or extremely unlikely) in a Real reality.
For example, some pertinent starting questions relating to the above possibilities might be:
- What are the differences between a ‘Real’, ‘Matrix’ and/or a ‘Simulated’ reality from different conceptual perspectives such as:
- In technical nuts and bolts hardware and software terms.
- In terms of the designers using self aware, free thinking individuals rather than card board cut out, unconscious ‘representatives’ of people.
- In terms of the perceptions, senses and ‘state’ of the people in that reality AND their relationship to that reality.
- In terms of the possibilities available to the designers of that reality to directly influence any or all of the ‘residents’ of that reality.
- Detailing the above might then have us coming up with some ideas of how we might approach evaluating the differences we would expect to find relating to Real, Matrix or Simulation possibilities.
- With these starting points and spending time THINKING about them we might be able to use these differences to infer what to look for AND what NOT to look for in terms of observable clues that would give us an indication as to which type of reality we might be in.
- Which could lead to the possibility that for specific deduced possibilities relating to specific conditions we can look for and then positively identify observable clues.
- Identifying visible clues that would positively confirm that a specific ‘condition or possibility’ is very likely ‘operational’ would allow us to build up a base of evidence that we are in a Real reality, a Matrix or a Simulation.
For example one such operational possibility or ‘condition’ to consider would be the possibility to influence and or directly manage the population’s residents by invisible, impossible to detect means.
If you spend time THINKING about this then you’ll end up being forced to conclude that this is an extremely unlikely possibility if we are living in a real reality.
If you spend time considering a Matrix within which you are a real person wired into a virtual reality then your thoughts, thinking, evaluation and decisions would reflect your real body’s abilities, its mental condition and your accumulated experience and past understandings. It would be easier BUT still difficult to directly manage people in a Matrix although you’d be able to manage their external reality in limited ways (you could easily influence the results of scientific experiments involving rendered instruments in your environment (NMR machines for example).
In making such a comparison it doesn’t take much figuring out to realize that managing an entirely software defined simulated population of self aware free thinking people would not only be extremely likely it would be essential. This is because your self aware free thinking population would be extremely dangerous to your simulation project compared to card board cut out ‘representing’ people because they would be able to OPENLY think about things like this very possibility I’m pointing out here. Of course to even become aware of this ‘they’ll likely manage simulated as self aware population’ might be a little problematic ‘IF’ you are in a simulation that has IMPLEMENTED THIS STRATEGY because you’ll then find it difficult to even become aware of this possibility as well as other likely possibilities.
If you do become aware of this possibility then it likely won’t take you long figure out that if this possibility is actually ‘operational’ then there would likely be lots of observable clues presented of this being done in the population apart from the FACT that no one was able to THINK about this possibility in the first place.
What is the Quality of Information of Simulation Argument and Simulation Hypothesis Information Like?
Coincidentally all web pages presenting ‘simulation or Matrix’ possibilities are unbelievably dire.
None present realistic coherent, basic fundamental, foundation information such as:
- Realistic descriptions of what it would be like to be an entirely simulated copied person living out someone else’s life (I’ve done this here).
- That to render copied accurate people requires you to ‘recreate’ each persons timeline events and outcomes by MANUFACTURING causes (I’ve done this here).
None present any definitions of even vaguely important foundation concepts such as matrix, simulation, glitch, anomaly, structural anomaly/artefact, simplifying approximation. Even worse, no one appears to even be aware that such information is missing everywhere while at the same time authoritative web sites confidentially present completely false and entirely unreasoned information.
The entire content, orientation and more so the attitude of the majority of authoritative web pages presenting information focused around simulation hypothesis and simulation argument you could use as a showcase examples of the presentation of all the unreasoning, arguments, understandings, thinking lines and possibilities that you would EXPECT any competent simulation designer would sell their granny to have their simulated population adopt and propagate everywhere.
This is so obvious that it’s embarrassing to even have to point this out.
Coincidentally, if real people in a real reality started to think about realistic ‘are we in a simulation’ possibilities because they could foresee themselves as soon having the technological capabilities to construct their own then you would expect they’d be able to OPENLY speculate about ALL SUCH POSSIBILITIES. In fact you’d expect that them doing this would be natural and automatic, it would just happen.
The FACT that we have NO OPEN speculation or discussions covering all variations of possibilities relating to the basis of our reality would be a very strong clue ALL ON IT’S OWN that our population is NOT living in a real reality.
In this respect the complete absence of coherent, decent, accurate, realistic foundation information and basic ‘guideline’ and definitions relating to the most likely ‘earth as a simulation’ possibilities coupled with there being plenty of presentations presenting entirely false information and even worse presentations that try and persuade you that you are obviously an unintelligent idiot for spending even one moment of time considering earth as a simulation possibilities (an extreme example of this is here). All of this suggests ALL ON ITS OWN that we are not in a real reality here.
How Would You Approach Appraising the Quality of Information Related to Simulation Argument Possibilities?
This is in fact why I am writing the articles for this series. These are being written specifically to make you aware that:
- Realistic, basic information and definitions are absent or MISSING . . . and . . .
- To point out the information that ‘IS’ PRESENTED and propagated . . . IS . . .
- Often seriously misleading . . . or even . . .
- Entirely FALSE (there will be no anomalies) . . . or is . . .
- Focused on trying to persuade you that there is NOTHING to see here, NOTHING to ponder on and certainly nothing worth THINKING about . . .
- That much of the wrong information being presented and propagated could ONLY happen if the people making these presentations had themselves NOT spent much time THINKING about what they have written (because ‘IF’ they had they would not be writing what they did).
- To keep reinforcing and pointing out that ALL of the above is 100% what you’d expect ‘IF’ we are being managed and . . .
- Particularly because everything I point out will be what ANYONE could deduce a simulation designer would sell their granny to have presented and propagated to their simulated population.
Let me give you an example of propagated false and misleading information presented by assumed authoritative sources . . .
Occam’s Razor and the Simulation Argument, Alternate Reality Comparison Faulty Thinking Problem
The ‘Don’t anyone DARE to even start thinking about ANY simulation possibilities’ persuaders unbelievably even pull out the old Occam’s Razor card. This use of Occam’s Razor is a great example of how incoherent some peoples thinking abilities are because Occam’s Razor STANDS or FALLS on it’s use to make comparisons based on ‘all other things being equal‘ with respect to what is being compared.
As you have just read one brief example above showing that different realities offer completely different possibilities and opportunities then it should be obvious that to use Occam’s Razor when comparing realities whose basis is fundamentally different, such that the possibilities and opportunities that each offer are obviously NOT EQUAL is neither sensible nor even vaguely logical.
The assumption that you can assert ‘that all things being equal’ ARE EQUAL when you are weighing up the possibilities WITHIN a ‘real’ reality is perhaps sound BUT this assertion fails miserably if anyone is proposing a POSSIBILITY that ITSELF would redefine the foundation AND THE FUNDAMENTAL WORKINGS of their own entire reality.
In other words if the two alternatives being ‘weighed’ against each other each actually define the entire basis of reality DIFFERENTLY then all things are automatically NOT EQUAL by default. Like I have already said elsewhere you’ve completely false assertions, confidentially presented on what many will assume to be authoritative web pages.
In this instance:
- The obviously incorrect use of Occam’s Razor presented by people that . . .
- Obviously cannot think well enough to even be aware of the fallacies of their own arguments . . . while . . .
- We can easily deduce that the incorrect use of Occam’s Razor to reinforce a specific thinking line is exactly what a simulation designer would sell their granny to have presented and propagated in their simulation . . . while . . .
- This is further evidence that either peoples thinking, reasoning and evaluation abilities are being directly managed . . . OR . . .
- That perhaps people here whom consider themselves to be rational and objective are actually REALLY this cognitively frail?
So, if you DID become aware of this potential ‘manage the population’ possibility AND you are a researcher, scientist or decent THINKER then what would you ‘naturally’ do?