"Earth as a Simulation Series I: How the New Age movements spiritual sayings are 'correct' for a COPIED population where everyone is 'accurately' living SOMEONE ELSE's LIFE. How 'Confirmation Bias & Cognitive Dissonance' are the deducible 'Fixed Behaviours' a copied population will present BUT, wont figure out because 'software' defined people can easily be managed."
Main Page Headings List
- Why are all 'Simulation Argument' Speculation Pages Missing Basic Foundation Information?
- Why are 'Simulation Argument' Speculation Pages Missing Information About 'Simulations'?
- Why are 'Simulation Argument' Pages Missing Definitions of 'Simulations'?
- Why are 'Simulation Argument' Speculation Pages APPALLING in QUALITY, An Embarrassment?
Why are all ‘Simulation Argument’ Speculation Pages Missing Basic Foundation Information?
Well, imagined ‘experts’ never define what a glitch or an anomaly would be ‘IF’ we are in some sort of computer simulation (apparently either everyone already knows this, or it’s written ‘somewhere’ but they use invisible writing OR the final possibility is that this information is TOP SECRET).
They NEVER define or give examples of what a potential simulation ‘Glitch’ might be . . . (apparently either everyone already knows this, or it’s written ‘somewhere’ but they use invisible writing OR the final possibility is that this information is TOP SECRET).
They NEVER define or give examples of what could cause a potential simulation ‘Anomaly’ . . . (apparently either everyone already knows this, or it’s written ‘somewhere’ but they use invisible writing OR the final possibility is that this information is TOP SECRET).
Why are ‘Simulation Argument’ Speculation Pages Missing Information About ‘Simulations’?
As a result of the above we find ourselves unbelievably pretty much in a situation where everyone uses the term glitch as the default term for ANYTHING that might possibly ACTUALLY be an anomaly . . .
Yes, we are in an amazing information age where an unbelievable effort is made to DEFINE and categorize everything except apparently for ANYTHING even slightly related to ‘earth simulation’ possibilities. THINKING about these areas is so unbelievably retarded than no one even notices the lack of definitions or basic foundation information.
Even the very people that rely on carefully defining EVERYTHING to provide a coherent THINKING and reasoning foundation give an incredibly good impression of being seriously feeble minded for all ‘earth as a simulation’ presentations that I’ve personally encountered.
Why are ‘Simulation Argument’ Pages Missing Definitions of ‘Simulations’?
And . . . on the world where absolutely everyone is ‘made to be completely feeble minded’ . . . not one alleged academic, NOT one alleged rational, objective, reasoned THINKING person . . .
HAS BEEN ABLE TO THINK WELL ENOUGH . . .
. . . OR LONG ENOUGH . . .
TO FIGURE OUT THAT THERE WILL ABSOLUTELY BE
‘IF’ we are in a Simulation Project
How much THINKING would it take before it would sink in reading these pages that ‘IF’ anyone, ANYONE, as in JUST ONE PERSON managed to THINK enough to figure out decent definitions AND write enough to understand in DETAIL what it would mean to be a software defined copied person in a simulation project then they’d likely figure out that what is observed and described as confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is exactly what you’d expect a simulated population to exhibit.
Then if anyone got this far they they’d likely wonder why as this is all so stupidly simple that they themselves took ages THINKING about these possibilities before they figured this out AND why ‘observably’ NO ONE else ANYWHERE has apparently been able to figure this out either?
Why are ‘Simulation Argument’ Speculation Pages APPALLING in QUALITY, An Embarrassment?
If they get this far then they might just realise that to manage your simulated residents to appear as THICK as two very, VERY short planks for specific information THINKING lines would be STUPIDLY easy to implement.
It took me 6 months of THINKING about ‘earth as a simulation’ possibilities BEFORE I started to become aware that confirmation bias was SUSPICIOUS. It still took me another full YEAR of THINKING before I could figure out what I write on many of these pages AND somewhat longer before I could lay it out in stupidly simple point by point reasoning detail needed to explain the REAL ORIGINS of confirmation bias.
As someone that in the distant past wrote professional quality statistical analysis software that was sold internationally, and whom also worked for years as a medical research scientist (scientific papers here) AND whom also worked as a manager of a central resources research facility then I estimate that writing the cognitive managing software would add at most about 2% extra in terms of both TIME & COST to the entire earth simulation project we are living in.
In other words the cost of directly cognitively managing an entirely simulated population would be unbelievably cheap.
This being done is perhaps the only way one can ‘rationally; explain the observable cognitive FRAILTIES of ‘experts’ as in our academics and scientists . . .
Obviously if these personal management strategies were implemented then they would result in seriously OBSERVABLE evidence as in AS A START that no one even NOTICES that basic foundation information on ALL EARTH SIMULATION WORRYING web pages which you’d need before you could even START THINKING about these possibilities IS MISSING FROM EVERYWHERE (apart from here (they are below)).
No on is EVEN AWARE ENOUGH IN A BASIC SENSE to even notice what is missing.
NO ONE NOTICES that there are no decent definitions of ANYTHING even on so called ‘expert’ pages ANYWHERE.
All of this missing information is OF COURSE also contributing EVIDENCE that we are in a simulation because the only way this could happen is if invisible, undetectable software was managing everyone AND particularly academics.
Click the right >> link below for the next page in this series . .
What is a ‘Glitch’?
A Glitch is defined as being a TRANSIENT ‘error’, it’s implied as being serious AND seriously noticeable and perhaps even catastrophic. Examples of ‘glitch’ possibilities include:
- The power supply to your simulation hardware failing.
- The processing power (bit size, clock rate, memory and data buffering capacity, parallel processing capacity) not being sufficient under all ‘operational’ conditions such that the processing engine fails to calculate everything in time to ACCURATELY and seamlessly render the ‘next’ simulation ‘frame’ to some, many or all of the simulated residents.
However, it is expected that the designers of a Matrix or a Simulation (if they are competent) would have engineered their project to be glitch free. For the examples I describe above this would equate to the designers:
- Implementing triple redundancy in backup generators to take care of power outage possibilities and . . .
- Of them implementing ‘simplifying approximations’ to keep processing engine overheads well within super safe ‘operational’ limits.
What is an ‘Anomaly’?
An ‘anomaly’ is an unexpected ‘out of context’ reality presentation that is not individually foreseeable by the designers. Anomalies are the by-product of hardware and/or software architecture and interactions as well as of commonly used techniques such as buffering or caching of commonly accessed data.
Anomalies can also arise due to multiple and complex software components interacting in ways that have not or that cannot be anticipated. The simulation designers would expect these types of unforeseen anomalies to be visibly present BUT they wouldn’t be able to anticipate them individually.
As such, you’d expect anomalies BUT they would likely be rare and if they do occur they are likely to be personally experienced.
I give an example of myself experiencing a software anomaly on this page here.
About 10 years ago now (mid 2004) I had been trying to plan the layout out of some documentation related to exploring ‘subtle’ realities and of identifying subtle causes of my own and others personal issues while also trying to figure out how best to present all of this information. Unfortunately I was having a problem doing this as I just couldn’t seem to get a coherent picture of how to explain or fit certain things together conceptually.
In fact when I tried to do this my head would go ‘fuzzy’, blank and ‘mentally’ I’d find myself drifting off . . .
As, I was used to ‘checking’ if there was anything ‘subtle’ responsible for causing any of my personal issues then I eventually decided to check to see if I could identify anything ‘messing with my head’ which might be contributing to cause these ‘head blanking’ symptoms and hence make it difficult for me to write my explanations of subtle realities and all the subtle items I’d already identified as contributing to all sorts of things.
So, I did what I normally do and started to try to perceive and then identify any ‘subtle’ interferences that might be contributing to my blank, ‘fuzzy’ head, cannot figure things out properly issue.
Difficulties or blocks to planning or envisioning for the future
To help you engage with and to appreciate this example I will set the scene of my (potentially simulated) environment . . .
From where I sit and spend time thinking and musing while lounging on my sofa my view includes a window right in front of myself. Through the window I can see the upper half of the building opposite and the details on the roof. On the lower roof area there is always a ladder leaning against the upper wall which is how the owners gain access to the upper roof area above. Obviously this entire scene is static, it doesn’t change and in fact it hasn’t changed for many months. Because the window is in my direct line of sight from where I sit and am reclined lounging back for hours each day then I am aware of all the fine details of everything within this scene. The ladder was in the middle of this scene and so was ALWAYS something I couldn’t avoid noticing in fine detail.
I was sitting with this window view in clear sight while thinking about what I wanted to write. You could say that I was trying to envision something, I was trying to put together or ‘visualise’ an ordered structure and lay out for my ‘subtle items’ documentation.
It was while sitting like this that I decided to ‘check’ for any subtle ‘interferences’ that might be contributing to make it difficult for me to even think about never mind to actually be able to write about these subtle topics. So, I started checking. Doing this then had me orientating all of my senses and perceptions to identify and to engage with whatever I could detect of subtle originated items. As I do this I drop my head and you could say that my ‘vision’ re-orientates to a version of inner vision that presents me with ‘subtle’ domains and this you could say temporarily overlays my normal ‘physical’ vision.
As there turned out to be different combinations of subtle ‘interferences’ and one ‘big’ item in particular impacting my ability to ‘think’ about all the different aspects of the ‘subtle’ with respect to cataloging identified subtle crap and of how they negatively impact physically visible issues then I re-orientated myself to engage with these and to get rid of them, I then got rid of them and I then re-orientated to my normal external visual view. I likely spent 10 to 15 seconds in this internal space disengaged from the normal external physical view that include my window.
The effect of clearing the ‘subtle’ crap messing with my general thinking and larger ‘envisioning’ ability resulted in an immediate, completely unexpected and bizarre very visible external change.
The ladder that I saw everyday and in fact everything through the window was suddenly closer and much bigger. It was as if a switch had been flicked to engage a X2 zoom function when looking through a camera lens. It was as if the building opposite had been physically moved 10 meters closer. All the building details including the detail of the ladder literally doubled such that I could now see things in finer detail that I had been unable to make out before. The ladder and the building appeared to be twice the size they had been, yet of course my sitting position had not moved nor the buildings.
Now, let me make this very clear.
The detail in my room was the same as it had been, everything in the room was the same ‘visual’ size as it had been. The window frame and glass transparent space ‘surround’ was the same size as it had been. In other words the window space itself WASN’T LARGER. So, the entire original scene through the window was still within the same ‘visual’ glass space area HOWEVER, everything within the visual ‘glass’ space impossibly appeared to be twice as big as it had been. The scene area or size WASN’T reduced, absolutely everything that was in the scene before was still in the scene BUT now, in visual terms it was twice as big while everything within the room was the same size as it had been.
This to put it bluntly is IMPOSSIBLE. My vision for items at a distance i.e. everything I could see through the window was now twice the size and so everything through the window appeared as if it was twice as close compared to everything NOT within the visual window glass space.
You could say that whatever subtle interferences that I got rid of had been making everything I saw at a distance seem twice as far away as they actually were (it would be more correct to say that they had appeared to be twice as far away as they could have been).
It was seriously frightening to experience such a dramatic change to something considered constant and immutable both in terms of my eye sight and our reality. It actually took me a couple of days before I stopped feeling seriously uneasy and disturbed because of this incident. In terms of how ‘vision’ is supposed to work this is completely impossible?
Now you could just dismiss this as impossible, and that’s fine if you want to stay stuck to the fairy tale of us being in a real reality. Particularly as I’m told that this two times visual scale shift through a window of a fixed size is quite possible if we are in a simulation and the window spaces are being rendered with respect to ‘outside’ details separately to what is rendered within the room space itself.
As I’ve already mentioned quite a few times it’s possible that you will have unexpected interactions between different software components and in this case the unexpected interactions likely happened between the software dealing with symbolic presentations in this case representing me trying to ‘envision’ large scale data sets and data interconnections including perhaps ‘envisioning’ the future documentation being written and also the software handling the effects of all the subtle crap impacting ourselves and how getting rid of subtle crap that has a direct magical ‘symbolic’ influence on my ‘distant’ vision resulted in the rendering software outputting a noticeably absolutely impossible visual presentation.
I was extremely lucky to experience this bizarre complex simulation software interaction ‘glitch’ or ‘anomaly’ or would this be an ‘artefact’?
If I’d not been sitting looking at that window I’d not have noticed this change as it happened. If I been sitting somewhere else, made a cup of tea and then sat and looked out of the window, then I might not have correlated getting rid of the subtle ‘interferences’ as being related to possible symbolic ‘visual’ presentations. I’d likely notice that I could ‘somehow’ see more detail and that ‘something’ or ‘somethings’ perhaps looked bigger BUT I’d have missed the immediate before and after, cause to effect correlation.
I put this example up on one of my web sites quite a few years ago. (Search for: healingexample.com Blocks to envisioning or planing ahead effectively).
If you read this example then you’ll notice that I managed to figure out the ‘symbolic’ aspect of this event BUT not the ‘simulated reality’ contribution.
What is an ‘Artefact’?
What I personally call a simulation ‘artefact’ is a designer expected ‘out of context’ reality presentation. I am personally calling them artefacts because one of the observable examples of one of the artefact originating possibilities that I describe below is that no one will be allowed to THINK about artefact possibilities in the first place. As this is observably the case (because no one has so far managed to visibly describe even one of these (as far as I can tell)), then as their discoverer I’m choosing to use the word ‘artefact’ to make it clear that they are NOT equivalent to anomalies (they are much more cognitively ‘slippery’ for a start).
Artefacts will ALWAYS be ‘visible to the simulated residents’. Artefacts are entirely ‘expected’ by the designers because they are a known ‘side effect’ of either simulations in general as well as of specific simulation designer ‘operational’ decisions that all result in there being differences in your simulation compared to the real reality it is a copy of and/OR different compared to what your accurately simulated population is EXPECTING.
Let me give you examples of two different artefact originating possibilities . . .
1. Copied, Duplicated, Very ACCURATE People ARTEFACT Possibilities:
If you are in someone’s simulation project then as I’ve already described on a previous page you will be an ACCURATE copy of someone else. If you are an accurate copy then you won’t actually have free will, you will feel as if you do have free will because the real person you are simulating will have HAD ‘genuine’ real freewill AND as an accurate copy you will feel about freewill AS THEY DID. However, in a simulation the main aspects of yourself, the main features of your life and the main decisions you make will be fixed because this is necessary to MAINTAIN the accuracy in a simulation. This ‘we don’t REALLY have freewill’ is observable here and has been confirmed by research and is described as confirmation bias.
2. Decisions to Maximize the Simulation Projects Objectives ARTEFACT Possibilities:
In a ‘simulation’ project then as your PROJECT is the entire reason as to why you’ve gone to the trouble of putting your simulation together in the first place then decisions to MAXIMIZE the chances of achieving your project objectives will take PRIORITY over AND will significantly influence the operational running of your simulation.
This all boils down to compromises being made AND in MANY cases (if you THINK about these possibilities for a while) then you will realize that these too will likely result in VISIBLE artefacts as the outcome of these compromises.
For example, it doesn’t take much THINKING (less than a year) before you become aware that a seriously obvious and very, VERY, LIKELY possibility would be that the simulation designers would directly cognitively manage your simulated as self aware and free thinking residents (if the designers were competent then they would do this).
At the very least they’d have to be managed to prevent them from realizing that as ‘all the people here are presenting fixed and robot like confirmation bias effects’ then this is fundamental evidence that we are in a simulation.
Interestingly, the outcome of directly managing the population to prevent them from THINKING about obvious ‘simulation’ possibilities will ITSELF result in readily OBSERVABLE and OBVIOUS clues. Unfortunately, the residents in being directly managed to NOT think about such an obvious possibility as well as to NOT even notice ANY of the obvious clues all visibly offering observable evidence that this particular possibility is LIVE and operational would be the SECOND clue that this possibility is in fact ‘OPERATIONAL’.
It is seriously, SERIOUSLY LIKELY that a simulation emulating conscious, free thinking residents would also ‘cognitively’ manage these residents AND, ‘IF’ these population management efforts are ‘operational’, then this being done will ABSOLUTELY result in many, MANY observable artefacts.
One of the clues that these management efforts are in fact likely operational will be that basic, foundation information will just not be presented anywhere.