I’d like to start this page by pointing out that the originator of the simulation argument put forward that the most likely rational explanation to explain anomalies was that they are likely to be examples of human frailties rather than actual ‘real’ anomalies.
To the question . . .
“Would we see glitches in the Matrix?”
Professor Bostrom (originator of the earth simulation ‘argument’) states the following (one third of the way down his FAQ page here) . . .
“I don’t buy that. We should expect to hear such reports occasionally even if we are not in a simulation. Even if we are in a simulation, the most plausible explanation for such reports is not that they result from any real “glitch” but rather that they originate in the ordinary frailties of the human mind (hallucinations, psychiatric problems, visual illusions, self-deception, fraud, and so forth).”
A couple of pages back I asked if anyone knew of roughly how many anomalous research papers have actually been published on average in about a dozen of the top science journals over the last 50 years?
Personally Observed & Experienced Anomalies are Preferentially Categorized as Human Frailties Rather than as REAL Anomalies
I specifically asked this because you’d imagine that there would be virtually none BECAUSE we are confidently told that they’d be no anomalies. We are told this despite that I have presented multiple and easy reasoning lines on these pages here all very STRONGLY suggesting that this assertion can only be described as delusional because anyone stating this cannot have done any even basic homework. I say this because if they’d thought of what was involved in putting together such a simulation it becomes obvious that anyone thinking rationally and objectively would EXPECT anomalies to be presented.
So, does science identify, catalogue and HIGHLIGHT anomalies so that all researchers are aware of current anomalies? Anomalies meaning do they have research produced that confounds current ’embedded’ theories?
NOPE, they don’t . . .
Science as a whole doesn’t do this although one scientist PERSONALLY did do this. This was William Roger Corliss (1926 – 2011). Unfortunately dead now. An obituary page can be found here and another here.
I quote from the second . . .
“One of the most interesting and scientifically-important people I ever met was the independent scientist William R. Corliss. Since the 1970s, he was by far the world’s finest collector, categorizer, and ranker of scientific anomalies. He made himself the world’s greatest authority on things that don’t fit the paradigms of the times . . . Science always notices a lot of things, and it takes time to fit these pieces into the puzzle – sometimes months, sometimes centuries. Until they fit, the odder pieces are anomalies. Narrow-minded swallowers of paradigms-they-are-taught ignore them whenever possible, and pooh-pooh them when they’re brought up.”
From mostly a dozen top journals including: Nature, Science, Icarus, Weather . . . He spent 25 years cataloging science anomalies and documented 40,000 of them.
Science Doesn’t Keep Obvious Records of the Scale of Anomalies it Itself Finds
This page here lists all of his compiled catalogues of anomalies including a general source book of Scientific Anomalies and other Provocative Phenomena (6.000 entries).
He covers pretty much all main science subject areas and has catalogues for each of them. Any one that is interested in anomalies in specific subjects would be advised to get the appropriate handbook that he published. Anyone interested in anomalies in general could start by reading the pages of this online version of the Science Frontiers monthly newsletters. Over 130 volumes, and 2100 anomaly reports (about 16 anomalies per report average), they provides examples of scientific anomalies in the fields of archaeology, astronomy, biology, geology, geophysics, mathematics, psychology and physics. The links page of his public newsletters is here. One of his published books called: Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena is being discontinued from being offered in libraries and because of this they are available second hand very cheaply for example here (in the UK, for the states do a book search in the USA)). This is well worth getting just to give you some idea of the range of bizarre things that actually happen on our alleged real world.
I’m pretty sure that I wrote something like this on an earlier page in this series . . .
“Could there REALLY be MORE than 10000, which would indicate ‘OFF COURSE’ to such an amazing degree that DELUSIONAL FANTASY would be an eminently rational, very objective consideration?”
It doesn’t seem as if scientists in general are even aware of the scale of published science anomalies.
If you spend time reading through his public on-line monthly newsletters then you’ll notice the increasing ‘sarcastic humor’ when YET ANOTHER anomaly is found YET AGAIN for some very specific science areas. Yea, you either develop a sense of humor or you risk ending up in a padded room because it’s becomes obvious that the evidence is seriously overwhelming such that it is obvious that some of sciences most favourite current theories absolutely cannot be correct BUT no amount of evidence seems to make any difference . . .
Scientist States and Science Prefers to Focus on Regularities & Patterns Rather than any Annoying Contradictions
The ‘no amount of anomalous evidence is good enough’ syndrome isn’t surprising when you read of Professor Bostroms advice on the simulation argument web site on how to proceed ‘IF’ you even think you might be in a simulation . . .
” . . . our best method for getting around in our Matrix (if that is where we are) is to study the patterns we find in the world we experience. We would run experiments, discover regularities, build models, and extrapolate from past events. In other words, we would apply the scientific method and common sense in the same way as if we knew that we were not in a Matrix. To a first approximation, therefore, the answer to how you should live if you are in a Matrix is that you should live the same way as if you are not in a Matrix.”
Two things about the above . . .
- This is a page on the main simulation argument information focused web site which you’d imagine would be exclusively discussing SIMULATION ONLY possibilities. As I’ve had to correctly point out on an earlier page here a Matrix isn’t in the slightest equivalent to a simulation. So, why is a Matrix being discussed in the first place as if it is AND why are the differences between them NOT pointed out anywhere on this web site? Read these pages here for some realistic basic definitions and here for some discussion of the differences and of specific simulation ONLY possibilities that no one has even become aware of because apparently everyone is being made to forcibly THINK in REAL PEOPLE in a MATRIX terms . . .
- Secondly did you notice the emphasis on ‘discovering regularities’ as opposed to actually examining IRREGULARITIES which ‘IF’ you had reason to suspect that you were not in a naturally occurring and therefore obviously CONSISTENT REAL reality then emphasising and taking notice of the INCONSISTENCIES would be the rational and objective never mind a common sense route to take?
So, over the last few pages I’ve made you aware that itself science actually does identify enormous numbers of anomalies which in the majority of cases are selectively ignored AND which often are not presented because of a bizarre bias that has everyone focused on and PROMOTING the ‘regularities’. This happens DESPITE in some cases there being an abundance of evidence way more than suggesting that some of their favourite theories are unable in the slightest to explain CONSISTENTLY recorded anomalies.
Despite the enormous numbers of science anomalies, this, combined with the propagated ‘FALSEHOOD’ that if we are in a simulation there will be no anomalies might well account for the observed bizarreness of pretty much no one in science making any effort to evaluate any of the enormous numbers of science anomalies to find out if any could be accounted for if we are in a simulation AND we have some specific commonly used simplifying approximations applied to either ourselves OR our environment.
What Would a Simulation Designer Simulating Entirely Software Generated People’s Dream Solution be to have all the Anomalies Hidden in Plain Sight?
‘IF’ there is a chance of ourselves being in a simulation then the observed combination of:
- There will ABSOLUTELY be no anomalies if we are in a simulation . . . coupled with . . .
- All personal anomaly sightings should be primarily categorized as signs of human frailties . . .
- While the enormous numbers of science revealed anomalies that end up being generally ignored apparently on ‘it’s an irregularity’ grounds . . .
It seems that all angles are mysteriously covered to have the entire population not take notice of anomalies, not be taken notice of any that are personally reported while having most anomalies in science completely ignored AND out of the millions of scientists not one is allowed to evaluate any anomalies to see if they could be explained as being the product of the simulation designer applying a specific simplifying approximation possibility.
You’d imagine the above might prompt alleged rational and objective people to become suspicious of the FACT that our attitude towards and treatment of anomalies would correlate 100% with what any hypothetical earth as a simulation designer would cut off their right arm to have happening in their simulation project population.
Again, this bizarreness is HOW IT IS . . . and once again the assumption is that this pandemic level of bizarreness is what you are supposed to accept as normal for one of those mythical real worlds?