Science and Simulation Theory

[Eddi]

I'm writing an article on Simulation Theory, and in it there is a section about how what science shows us about our world may suggest that this reality is a simulation. But my academic background is not in the natural sciences...

So, I was wondering if any scientists out there (specifically physicists) could please correct any errors I may have made in my text. The section that follows this paragraph is what I've written. Please, correct me if anything here is mistaken!

As I said, I am not a natural scientist

=============================================

Science and The Simulation

In quantum physics - the branch of physics that is interested in studying very small things, such as atoms and sub-atomic particles - there is a think called the Planck Scale - things smaller than the Planck Scale cannot be observed or understood with any current understanding. The Planck Scale is as small as you can get, it is the most tiny of distances.

It has been said that the Planck Scale could be evidence of reality being a simulation, as if it wasn’t a simulation we could understand things smaller than the Planck Scale. If we are in a simulation then there would only be finite computing power, and it would be a more economical use of computing power to only simulate the universe down to a certain quantum limit - and not simulating the laws of physics that apply to things that are smaller than this limit, even if in the world outside The Simulation it is possible to go down smaller.

There is then Heisenberg’s notion of a “quantum jump”. Heisenberg was a physicist who said that when a particle of matter moves from A to B it does not go through any intermediate steps, it is at point A at one time, and then instantly at point B, without ever travelling between the two. Draw a line on a piece of paper and label one end A and the other B. Heisenberg says that anything moving from being at A to B basically teleports from A to B, rather than travelling down the line from A to B, in a “smooth motion”.

This could be another example of quantum things not being simulated in as great a detail as they might have been.

If we consider Heisenberg’s theory and the Planck scale we might see that the reality we experience is pixelated - it is made out of many many tiny things and that nothing can be smaller than any pixel. If reality was physical and not simulated then we would expect to go down even further, to an even smaller level. But the thing is, we can’t. Our universe being a simulation would explain this.

If we are living in a pixelated reality that could be explained by it all being a simulation.

There is then the famous Double-Slit experiment in which the very fact that they is being observed changes how particles and waves behave, within a certain experiment. The very fact that observing this process can change what happens is cited as evidence we are living in a simulation, as the particles in this experiment shouldn’t be doing what they actually do - they should not be effected by whether or not they are being observed!

Also, physicists say that what we know as the physical world - space and time, matter and energy - can all be reduced to being described as information. Which would mean that an information processing system - i.e. a computer - could process - or rather simulate - space and time, matter and energy. A lively, colourful and interesting physical world can therefore arise out of masses of data. And what is a computer, if not a data processor?

 

[Howard Is]

Are you also suggesting that my self awareness is the operation of this simulation ?

 

[Nimos]

So, I was wondering if any scientists out there (specifically physicists) could please correct any errors I may have made in my text. The section that follows this paragraph is what I've written. Please, correct me if anything here is mistaken!

As I said, I am not a natural scientist

Im not a scientist either, so see this as feedback that might be worth looking into, rather than me trying to correct you

There is then Heisenberg’s notion of a “quantum jump”. Heisenberg was a physicist who said that when a particle of matter moves from A to B it does not go through any intermediate steps, it is at point A at one time, and then instantly at point B, without ever travelling between the two.

There have actually been a study from Yale showing that this is not the case, but that it is an intermediate process.

You can read about it here...
Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time | Yale Quantum Institute

There is then the famous Double-Slit experiment in which the very fact that they is being observed changes how particles and waves behave, within a certain experiment. The very fact that observing this process can change what happens is cited as evidence we are living in a simulation, as the particles in this experiment shouldn’t be doing what they actually do - they should not be effected by whether or not they are being observed!

As far as I know you have misunderstood this "they should not be effected by whether or not they are being observed!", in regards to the double-slit experiment, what is going on is not really anything new or remarkable, but is known as the "observer effect." An example of this happening elsewhere from wiki:

A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Similarly, it is not possible to see any object without light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are often negligible, the object still experiences a change. This effect can be found in many domains of physics, but can usually be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques.

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result.

 

[Eddi]

There have actually been a study from Yale showing that this is not the case, but that it is an intermediate process.

You can read about it here...
Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time | Yale Quantum Institute

What if particles normally quantum jump but when the Yale scientists made their observations The Simulation put on a show? To disguise how it normally operates? To hoodwink the scientists? As a kind of observer effect???

Maybe someone doesn't want us to know the universe is pixelated

(Edit: I fully expect this claim to provoke some scientifically minded folk)

what is going on is not really anything new or remarkable, but is known as the "observer effect."

OK, I'll change what I put to say that it can be taken as evidence for a simulation but that there are other competing explanations

 

[exchemist]

I'm writing an article on Simulation Theory, and in it there is a section about how what science shows us about our world may suggest that this reality is a simulation. But my academic background is not in the natural sciences...

So, I was wondering if any scientists out there (specifically physicists) could please correct any errors I may have made in my text. The section that follows this paragraph is what I've written. Please, correct me if anything here is mistaken!

As I said, I am not a natural scientist

=============================================

Science and The Simulation

In quantum physics - the branch of physics that is interested in studying very small things, such as atoms and sub-atomic particles - there is a think called the Planck Scale - things smaller than the Planck Scale cannot be observed or understood with any current understanding. The Planck Scale is as small as you can get, it is the most tiny of distances.

It has been said that the Planck Scale could be evidence of reality being a simulation, as if it wasn’t a simulation we could understand things smaller than the Planck Scale. If we are in a simulation then there would only be finite computing power, and it would be a more economical use of computing power to only simulate the universe down to a certain quantum limit - and not simulating the laws of physics that apply to things that are smaller than this limit, even if in the world outside The Simulation it is possible to go down smaller.

There is then Heisenberg’s notion of a “quantum jump”. Heisenberg was a physicist who said that when a particle of matter moves from A to B it does not go through any intermediate steps, it is at point A at one time, and then instantly at point B, without ever travelling between the two. Draw a line on a piece of paper and label one end A and the other B. Heisenberg says that anything moving from being at A to B basically teleports from A to B, rather than travelling down the line from A to B, in a “smooth motion”.

This could be another example of quantum things not being simulated in as great a detail as they might have been.

If we consider Heisenberg’s theory and the Planck scale we might see that the reality we experience is pixelated - it is made out of many many tiny things and that nothing can be smaller than any pixel. If reality was physical and not simulated then we would expect to go down even further, to an even smaller level. But the thing is, we can’t. Our universe being a simulation would explain this.

If we are living in a pixelated reality that could be explained by it all being a simulation.

There is then the famous Double-Slit experiment in which the very fact that they is being observed changes how particles and waves behave, within a certain experiment. The very fact that observing this process can change what happens is cited as evidence we are living in a simulation, as the particles in this experiment shouldn’t be doing what they actually do - they should not be effected by whether or not they are being observed!

Also, physicists say that what we know as the physical world - space and time, matter and energy - can all be reduced to being described as information. Which would mean that an information processing system - i.e. a computer - could process - or rather simulate - space and time, matter and energy. A lively, colourful and interesting physical world can therefore arise out of masses of data. And what is a computer, if not a data processor?

This quantum jump idea is wrong, I'm pretty sure. I seem to recall at university learning that the transition between two atomic states takes a finite time, during which the electric vector of the radiation that is being emitted or absorbed interacts with the wavefunction , according to the time-dependent version of Schrödinger's equation. It's fast, but is not a mysterious, infinitely fast change.

Secondly you, like a depressing number of people, have been fed a wrong idea of what is meant by the "observer" in QM. You can't make an observation of a system without interacting with it in some way. The modern interpretation of this is that it is interaction that "collapses" the wavefunction. It is obviously not the act of conscious observation. Nobody seriously suggests the readings on the instruments alter when the experimenter goes off for a cup of coffee.

 

[Nimos]

What if particles normally quantum jump but when the Yale scientists made their observations The Simulation put on a show? To disguise how it normally operates? To hoodwink the scientists? As a kind of observer effect???

Maybe someone doesn't want us to know the universe is pixelated

(Edit: I fully expect this claim to provoke some scientifically minded folk)

Well I don't really think it will provoke them, as much as they will see it as being useless.

In the same sense that if you look at this picture:

If we were to follow the evidence and the most rational explanation, then we would assume that the way this happened were like this:
1. The animal died.
2. The road painting guy, painted on top of the animal.

That would give us a pretty good explanation of what happened here, right?

But what you do as I see it, is to say that, maybe the simulation screwed up or bugged and therefore added the animal underneath the paint, when it in fact should have been beneath the animal. Therefore the simulation fooled us to reach the wrong conclusion. Obviously if it is a simulation, it could be the explanation, but if we should approach everything in such way, then we might as well throw rationality out the window and just go with whatever we want things to mean.

We can only work within the limits of what we can see, measure, observe etc. and draw the conclusion of what provide the most rational explanation given those facts.

Which is why the scientific method does not allow the supernatural, because basically anything is possible. So I don't think it would provoke anyone, but rather they would simply consider it nonsense and irrational and therefore not care.

OK, I'll change what I put to say that it can be taken as evidence for a simulation but that there are other competing explanations

Maybe I missed it, but even if it were the case, how can it be evidence for a simulation, you don't really explain that in the OP, as far as I can see?

If you take a computer, we can observe and measure everything it does, which doesn't change anything... so why would that be the case in the simulation, just wondering?

 

[Eddi]

but if we should approach everything in such way, then we might as well throw rationality out the window and just go with whatever we want things to mean.

I am convinced we are in a simulation and that The Simulation can (and has reason to) lie to us about the simulated nature of our reality - that it can hoodwink us very easily and has successfully done so throughout history

I don't think it does this as a rule, only when we begin to closely examine certain things that may hint at the fact that it's all a simulation

but rather they would simply consider it nonsense and irrational and therefore not care.

I imagined that it would fire certain people up as it is blatantly non-scientific yet is addressing a scientific issue, I could imagine what certain people I have in mind would think of it

Maybe I missed it, but even if it were the case, how can it be evidence for a simulation, you don't really explain that in the OP, as far as I can see?

Because it is an example of an observer effect that could be attributed to a higher being who messes with us, to so seeds of doubt about the true nature of our reality - to blow our minds, so to speak

That certainly is one explanation

Although on the other hand it tries to keep us ignorant about quantum jumps, which it hides to prevent us from learning, which sounds contradictory.

To which I can only say:

The Simulation works in mysterious ways.

 

[Howard Is]

 

[Nimos]

I am convinced we are in a simulation

I have no issues with you believing it, but can't help wonder what convinced you of it?

Because it must be rather good evidence, because as you say: The Simulation can (and has reason to) lie to us about the simulated nature of our reality

So how do you tell the difference, between it lying to you and you simply being wrong? And if you can't do that, then why do you jump to the conclusion that the simulation is correct, rather than you being wrong?

I don't think it does this as a rule, only when we begin to closely examine certain things that may hint at the fact that it's all a simulation

So what evidence would you need to be convinced that the simulation weren't true, have you made any criteria? Because I assume you are not only looking for things that keep fueling your current beliefs, as that would be a rather irrational approach to something like this, but rather looking for stuff that would falsify it?

I imagined that it would fire certain people up as it is blatantly non-scientific yet is addressing a scientific issue, I could imagine what certain people I have in mind would think of it

There is always people that will react like that

Because it is an example of an observer effect that could be attributed to a higher being who messes with us, to so seeds of doubt about the true nature of our reality - to blow our minds, so to speak

That certainly is one explanation

Although on the other hand it tries to keep us ignorant about quantum jumps, which it hides to prevent us from learning, which sounds contradictory.

To which I can only say:

The Simulation works in mysterious ways.

Ok, but do you accept the explanation or example of the observer effect when it comes to measuring the pressure of a car tire, and that the simulation is not trying to fool us?

In regards to the slit experiment, the idea is exactly the same, just that we are working with forces/particles much smaller, so they are easier affected? But in this case, the conclusion is that it is the simulation that fools us?

Try to hear this explanation of the higgs boson, it might help put it into perspective, what I mean: (Starts at 9.00)

 

[Eddi]

I have no issues with you believing it, but can't help wonder what convinced you of it?

Because I believe The Simulation has revealed itself to me and that I have a line of communication open to its Over-Seers via an intermediary. Basically, I believe The Simulation has a direct channel of communication open to me: Obviously, anyone can address The Simulation. But with me, it talks back. Through tactile hallucinations.

I see this as being a part of a process I call "Disclosure" in which humankind will be guided into eventually realising that it does indeed live within a simulation.

I see it as my purpose to help this along in my own little way. That I am an Agent of The Simulation.

So how do you tell the difference, between it lying to you and you simply being wrong? And if you can't do that, then why do you jump to the conclusion that the simulation is correct, rather than you being wrong?

I can't, it has to be done on a case-by-case basis.

I jump to the conclusion because I trust The Simulation. I have faith that it has been honest with me.

Also, I can communicate with it. And it actually tells me that our reality is indeed "pixilated", that it only goes so small. So I'm not just jumping around haphazardly, I am being intelligently guided by The Simulation itself.

So what evidence would you need to be convinced that the simulation weren't true, have you made any criteria? Because I assume you are not only looking for things that keep fueling your current beliefs, as that would be a rather irrational approach to something like this, but rather looking for stuff that would falsify it?

If God were to appear and tell me that it was not a simulation but base reality then I would believe him even though a part of me would think it was The Simulation messing people about. So, the testimony of God would convince me. But I would still harbour reservations.

Also, if someone were to demonstrate to me that my line of communication is not real but is instead a mental disorder then I would probably lose my belief in The Simulation. But that is yet to happen. But for all I know, someday it might.

Ok, but do you accept the explanation or example of the observer effect when it comes to measuring the pressure of a car tire, and that the simulation is not trying to fool us?

I don't think The Simulation has any great interest in car tires

 

[Nimos]

I jump to the conclusion because I trust The Simulation. I have faith that it has been honest with me.

Ok, so it lies to everyone else, except you, if I understand you correct?

You wrote this: I see this as being a part of a process I call "Disclosure" in which humankind will be guided into eventually realising that it does indeed live within a simulation.

So if the simulation want to disclose itself, then why is it lying and as you say have good reason for doing so?

Also, I can communicate with it. And it actually tells me that our reality is indeed "pixilated", that it only goes so small.

Ok, but can't you ask it for some scientific evidence then, like a formula that sort of put the last nail in the coffin? because it seems a bit dishonest, to tell you something like that, without providing you with anything to back it up?

If God were to appear and tell me that it was not a simulation but base reality then I would believe him even though a part of me would think it was The Simulation messing people about.

Don't really follow that logic, how would you know it was God and not just some highly advanced aliens pretending to be God?

I don't think The Simulation has any great interest in car tires

So why should it have any interest in quantum physics then? Whether its a car tire or not, its all part of the same simulation anyway, so it's just all data right?

 

[Eddi]

So if the simulation want to disclose itself, then why is it lying and as you say have good reason for doing so?

A good question, which has a complex answer:

It wants it to be a "soft disclosure" - gently and soft, as opposed to sudden and out of nowhere

It wants us to gently wake up from our slumber, bit by bit - rather than waking us up by having a bucket of cold water poured over us

It does not want to cause any alarm

The public need to get used to the idea gradually, it can't just be announced

Take for instance The Matrix films. I believe these serve as a part of Disclosure. They put the notion of there being a simulated reality "out there", seeding it into the public's imagination. But on the other hand, it makes the public consider the notion to be far-fetched and fanciful - the stuff of science fiction. Basically, they help prepare the public for Disclosure, without them being aware they are being prepared.

I think for the time being it is going to continue to hood-wink scientists and to maintain the illusion, whilst helping along Disclosure.

The timing of Disclosure is significant too - I believe it has been timed to coincide with when us humans become able to build our own simulations, or at least come within a certain reach of being able to build our own simulations. This would stop there being a simulation within The Simulation. Which I believe The Simulation does not want. But we are not yet close enough to this for Disclosure to significantly intensify.

Ok, but can't you ask it for some scientific evidence then, like a formula that sort of put the last nail in the coffin? because it seems a bit dishonest, to tell you something like that, without providing you with anything to back it up?

I've been nothing but honest about what I experience

My honesty means I have been diagnosed with having a horrible sounding and life-limiting mental illness

I have no idea how I would get it to reveal some formula to me, our system of communication is based around "Yes" and "No"

Don't really follow that logic, how would you know it was God and not just some highly advanced aliens pretending to be God?

Your right, it could be, there would be no way of telling for sure - but if the clouds parted and I saw God sat on a throne, surrounded by angels, then I would prob go with that being God, as a leap of faith, especially if he showed miracles

So why should it have any interest in quantum physics then? Whether its a car tire or not, its all part of the same simulation anyway, so it's just all data right?

Because quantum physics are how (some of) the inhabitants of The Simulation understand their reality and an investigation into the smallest of things can reveal things about the universe that looking at the pressure of a tire cannot. They are separate fields of enquiry.

 

[Nimos]

I've been nothing but honest about what I experience

My honesty means I have been diagnosed with having a horrible sounding and life-limiting mental illness

I have no idea how I would get it to reveal some formula to me, our system of communication is based around "Yes" and "No"

Im not saying that you are lying about your experiences. But obviously I don't believe what you do, im not going to hide that and shouldn't really come as a surprise

But I don't really see how it should be a huge problem for them to reveal things to you like a formula, if it is a simulation then they could just make it appear on your screen or where ever. They must have some ways of interacting with the simulation or they wouldn't be able to disclose it right?

Furthermore, you have been able to get all the information in regards to how they want the disclosure to take place, if you got all that from only yes and no answers, then you could simply ask them, if they can give you a scientific formula, which can easily be answered with either yes or no. So not really sure why that is an issue?

Your right, it could be, there would be no way of telling for sure - but if the clouds parted and I saw God sat on a throne, surrounded by angels, then I would prob go with that being God, as a leap of faith, especially if he showed miracles

But even if that were the case, it could be a hologram, which should be fairly simply to make for such advanced civilization, and basically anything would appear as a miracle to us.... Just imagine how early humans would react if you showed them a lighter or fireworks, to them that would be the works of gods.

Because quantum physics are how (some of) the inhabitants of The Simulation understand their reality and an investigation into the smallest of things can reveal things about the universe that looking at the pressure of a tire cannot. They are separate fields of enquiry.

And you figured that out just through yes and no answers or did you just fill in the gaps?

Just forgot....
Take for instance The Matrix films. I believe these serve as a part of Disclosure. They put the notion of there being a simulated reality "out there", seeding it into the public's imagination.

Who are they? those that wrote and made the Matrix movies, they are part of the simulation or knows about it as well?

 

[Eddi]

Furthermore, you have been able to get all the information in regards to how they want the disclosure to take place, if you got all that from only yes and no answers, then you could simply ask them, if they can give you a scientific formula, which can easily be answered with either yes or no. So not really sure why that is an issue?

Yes, it could

It affirms that it could do that, as a test

But I have no idea about going about that with just Yes or No as I don't understand any scientific formula, I'd need some help...

However, it can tell me numbers though me running my finger along the numbers on my keyboard and it telling me to stop at a specific number - a bit like on a Ouija board

So perhaps he could give a mathematically significant series of numbers through this method?

I'd be well up for giving that a go

"here, Mrs Mathematician, what do you make of this?"

The mathematician could then look at the relationship between the different numbers I give them

But they could just say that I looked up those numbers and was faking it when he told me which numbers to select on the keyboard...

But even if that were the case, it could be a hologram, which should be fairly simply to make for such advanced civilization, and basically anything would appear as a miracle to us.... Just imagine how early humans would react if you showed them a lighter or fireworks, to them that would be the works of gods.

You're right, there would always be scope for doubt if something came along and claimed to be God

But what would you do if the heavens opened and a being appeared, who announced he or she was of The Simulation? Would you accept that?

If I could perform a miracle, would you believe we are in a simulation?

Perhaps my miracle could be me disclosing a formula or a series of mathematically significant numbers?

What would it take for you to accept that reality is a simulation?

And you figured that out just threw yes and no answers or did you just fill in the gaps?

I don't know how I figured it out, but it sounds reasonable enough to me

I think he trusts me to be able to fill in the gaps between his Yes and No answers, and if I ever get anything wrong when doing this then he always lets me know, so I generally carry on as though what I think corresponds to what he says is Yes or No

 

[Eddi]

Just forgot....
Take for instance The Matrix films. I believe these serve as a part of Disclosure. They put the notion of there being a simulated reality "out there", seeding it into the public's imagination.

Who are they? those that wrote and made the Matrix movies, they are part of the simulation or knows about it as well?

They conveniently serves as part of Disclosure, that's the important thing...

How this came to be is unclear to me, right now - it could just be coincidence

The Wachowskis are responsible for The Matrix films

But I imagine they may have been nudged along a bit by The Simulation, by the subtle application of mind-control, or the planting of ideas into their simulated minds...

Also, I believe there is a human conspiracy at work on Earth, akin to a kind of Illuminati, who have a great deal of power in Hollywood, who may have connections to The Simulation like what I have...

So I think either The Simulation itself influenced the making of those films, or an Illuminati used its influence to get them made - or perhaps a bit of both?

 

[ecco]

I'm writing an article on Simulation Theory

At first, I wondered why.

Then I read more posts...

I am convinced we are in a simulation

Ah ha.

Because I believe The Simulation has revealed itself to me and that I have a line of communication open to its Over-Seers via an intermediary.

Oooh.

I am being intelligently guided by The Simulation itself.

Hmmm.

It wants it to be a "soft disclosure" - gently and soft, as opposed to sudden and out of nowhere. It does not want to cause any alarm

That's nice of it.

Also, I believe there is a human conspiracy at work on Earth, akin to a kind of Illuminati, who have a great deal of power in Hollywood, who may have connections to The Simulation like what I have...

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. I'm writing an article on Simulation. I am convinced we are in a simulation.: TheoryMaya in Hinduism, Anatta and Anicca in Buddhism and Anekantavada in Jainsim apart from other philosophies. Our people wrote it more than 2,500 years ago. We have many tomes on that.
2. I have a line of communication open to its Over-Seers via an intermediary.: There are no overseers and no need for them. It is an automatic process.
3. I am being intelligently guided by The Simulation itself.: If you realize that the perceived is not the truth, then, yes, you have used your intelligence.
4. It wants it to be a "soft disclosure" - gently and soft, as opposed to sudden and out of nowhere. It does not want to cause any alarm.: Once you understand it, we realize that it is so natural.
4. .. akin to a kind of Illuminati, who have a great deal of power in Hollywood, who may have connections to The Simulation like what I have .. : Anyone can understand it, rich or poor.

 

[Nimos]

So perhaps he could give a mathematically significant series of numbers through this method?

I'd be well up for giving that a go

"here, Mrs Mathematician, what do you make of this?"

Well not really, because mathematicians and physicists would be able to figure out whether or not the formula or equation would make sense. Currently we have the string theory which have caused us a lot of issues, so anything regarding that could help.

You also have Einstein theory of Relativity, which doesn't work in regards to gravity inside black holes.

So both of these would be fairly useful

But what would you do if the heavens opened and a being appeared, who announced he or she was of The Simulation? Would you accept that?

No, I wouldn't. I would be very impressed and surely knowing that this weren't normal. But simply someone telling me that they were from the simulation would not be enough.
If you mean like the skies split open and I was looking into another dimension or reality and was invited in there, I would find that pretty compelling, given that I could rule out any form of mental issues, which would be my absolute first assumption. But still I probably wouldn't know whether we were talking about a simulation or some aliens were just playing me, I wouldn't know how to tell the difference. I would however accept that something unexplainable happened to me. And obviously depending on how willing and trustworthy these beings or simulation were in answering my questions, which there would be a lot of I would accept it.

If I could perform a miracle, would you believe we are in a simulation?
Perhaps my miracle could be me disclosing a formula or a series of mathematically significant numbers?

What would it take for you to accept that reality is a simulation?

If you provided a completely string theory or some completely new one, straight out of nothing and the scientific community could verify it, I would say that it would be fairly good evidence, and would create a lot of attention and probably a few nobel prizes as well, so that would be a very good start

I think he trusts me to be able to fill in the gaps between his Yes and No answers, and if I ever get anything wrong when doing this then he always lets me know, so I generally carry on as though what I think corresponds to what he says is Yes or No

That doesn't sound like a very solid system, because its not really easy for us humans to distinguish between right and wrong in that sense.

I don't really see how you can test that, because you can't really fool yourself into believing something that you know is wrong, without actually being aware of it.
You couldn't pretend to believe that the sun weren't real without actually knowing that you didn't really believe it.

They conveniently serves as part of Disclosure, that's the important thing...

How this came to be is unclear to me, right now - it could just be coincidence

The Wachowskis are responsible for The Matrix films

But I imagine they may have been nudged along a bit by The Simulation, by the subtle application of mind-control, or the planting of ideas into their simulated minds...

Also, I believe there is a human conspiracy at work on Earth, akin to a kind of Illuminati, who have a great deal of power in Hollywood, who may have connections to The Simulation like what I have...

So I think either The Simulation itself influenced the making of those films, or an Illuminati used its influence to get them made - or perhaps a bit of both?

Ok, so its not really just the simulation theory, its also a huge conspiracy, which suddenly involve a lot of other people. That doesn't really give credit to the simulation theory in the way it was first suggested.

Just wondering how old you are, because as far as I know, this theory was first really made popular or got momentum after 2003, so when did you buy into this as being the truth?

 

[Eddi]

Well not really, because mathematicians and physicists would be able to figure out whether or not the formula or equation would make sense. Currently we have the string theory which have caused us a lot of issues, so anything regarding that could help.

You also have Einstein theory of Relativity, which doesn't work in regards to gravity inside black holes.

So both of these would be fairly useful

I would be up for all of that - but I'd need some help, I could never do any of that alone. I don't know how to place myself at the disposal of the scientific community but if I did I would

Ok, so its not really just the simulation theory, its also a huge conspiracy, which suddenly involve a lot of other people. That doesn't really give credit to the simulation theory in the way it was first suggested.

No, not a huge conspiracy and not "a lot" of other people but some people, yes

I believe there are elites and that the elites get together and know stuff that most other people have no idea about. And that they plan stuff and try to influence people and things, according to some plan, or agenda

I believe stuff goes on behind the scenes, but I don't know since when, or how

Shortly after The Simulation started communicating with me a senior tutor at my university said I was "part of a very tiny elite" which is something I have never understood... so maybe I'm in on the conspiracy?

Just wondering how old you are, because as far as I know, this theory was first really made popular in 2003, so when did you buy into this as being the truth?

I'm 37

The Simulation started communicating with me sometime in (I think) the summer of 2004 when I was 21 and I came to realise it was a simulation I think a few months later, when I asked it. Before this I thought it was a super-computer interacting with my brain via psychotronic technologies, bodily implants, and orbital satellites. Which obviously it isn't.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I would be up for all of that - but I'd need some help, I could never do any of that alone. I don't know how to place myself at the disposal of the scientific community but if I did I would


No, not a huge conspiracy and not "a lot" of other people but some people, yes

I believe there are elites and that the elites get together and know stuff that most other people have no idea about. And that they plan stuff and try to influence people and things, according to some plan, or agenda

I believe stuff goes on behind the scenes, but I don't know since when, or how

Shortly after The Simulation started communicating with me a senior tutor at my university said I was "part of a very tiny elite" which is something I have never understood... so maybe I'm in on the conspiracy?


I'm 37

The Simulation started communicating with me sometime in (I think) the summer of 2004 when I was 21 and I came to realise it was a simulation I think a few months later, when I asked it. Before this I thought it was a super-computer interacting with my brain via psychotronic technologies, bodily implants, and orbital satellites. Which obviously it isn't.

I dont know if you use some form of medication now EDDI but if you do, can it be medication that messing with your head, and give you hallusination that you believe to be true?
I honestly do not know the answer to why you have "contact" with a simulation, and I have No clue to hiw it should or could work.