The Heavy Stuff

 Hello fellow reality participants and welcome back to The Heavy Stuff (THS) the one internet blog dedicated to taking positions on realities greatest mysteries — and today’s mystery — the issue of  `is our very reality that we experience everyday nothing more than a `simulation’ within a software program’.

Is that heavy enough?

Very recently, I had a Mac Tonnies take on this `issue of simulated reality’ on my anomaly lens on www.Squidoo.com/anomalyman- under the listing for 4-20 (I keep a two month list of blog posts like his on my lens, please check it out after this article) — Mr. Tonnies post directly is at http://www.seti.com/blog/are-we-a-simulation. As Mac says in his post, the idea of our reality being within a computer program is not new - and variations of the idea of our reality being less than SOLID have been with mankind from the very beginning of mans thoughts about the universe and his place within it. (Such as the `world is an illusion’ ideas of yesteryear.)

And, indeed, the very nefariousness of reality, this illusion so to speak, will be something THS will address as THS covers this - but - first the `reality as software execution’ proposal - and the TRUE worrisomeness about the REAL odds that we may be less real than we all think we are.

First, some basic ideas/assumptions  to formulate the thought process:

A. Some intelligences, perhaps similar to human intelligences, may be BILLIONS of years more `advanced’ than mans brain/intelligence.

B. Mankind ALREADY can envision - and live in to a degree (with perceptions)  - simulated realities via our computers (such as the virtual reality glasses in arcades) -  BABY computers to such an advanced civilization with billions of years of programming skills. Yet, already, our simulated worlds with baby software - are approximating reality as we view it. More sophisticated programs of advanced intelligences could imitate the entire observable universe view for a `human’. (Why does all this matter? See C.)

C. IF ANY, and THS repeats, ANY civilization IN THE UNIVERSE EVER , EVER, (ever THS emphasises) has developed the computational ability to give `spaces’ or `characters within a space in a software program’ the capacity for self-awareness - and would `program’ the `rules’ to be `our physics’ - for what could be observed by the character spaces - then the ODDS of US being `real’ — is DEPENDENT on HOW MANY  of these `REALITY GAMES- Software Programs’ EXIST/ (divided by) how many `real’ civilizations exist at any given moment. HOW’S THAT FOR A NEW DRAKE EQUATION?

D. Therefore, if ONLY ONE civilization that has EVER existed that has/did attained the capability to deceive `self-aware characters within a software program of their realness’ - and if they made MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF COPIES OF SUCH A PROGRAM — and if we assume that the real number of `intelligent civilizations’ that exist at any given moment to be something less than millions or billions of civilizations within our universe (both within the visual(observable) horizon from Earth and beyond the visual limit, due to universe expansion) — then the odds are LESS THAN 50/50 (and perhaps 1/1,000,000 or less) that we are indeed REAL. Yes, if one believes in the ability of intellect to be able to produce such software —— the odds are — we aren’t REALLY real. So, if all this is true, it’s likely that a `simulated reality’ is our basis for existence as a conscious space.

And, in that case, we would be a simulation and living within a simulation. Even if we were a conscious space.

Heavy.

But, before you become too depressed at what the REAL odds might be about yourself being REAL - you might want to ask yourself if a reality that is simulated, instantaneously, is any better? Or, could it be that  everything, including consciousness, is `wrapped up’ (actualized)  in `virtual’ descriptions of spaces?

So, lets consider our reality as told to us by the best knowledge of the scientists of today - the accepted purveyor of truths within our culture. And, science, tells us that it, it being science theories,  can explain our reality back to within moments of the Big Bang Inflation- an explanation lacking  - only the `source’ of our `material’ (even that is explained by quantum variations of virtual reality vacuums/particles) - from those pre-big bang moments.

But, sciences `explaining’ of `reality’ has left much to be desired - at least to the common sense of the common man. After all, it is a everything out of nothing hypothisis to the common thinker - really - the same as God creating everything — and that leap of faith.

Additionally, the best `guess’ of the science motif is that `reality’ collapses from an infinite amount of worlds into our ONE real world - instantaneously and continuously —— OR, that the NOW (for us) is but ONE of an infinite number of simultaneously existing universes. (Existing here-now, but unavailable for our observation - part of this is explained as matter at a different frequency of vibration than what we can observe.) But, it goes beyond just the frequencies we can’t observe as humans — these simultaneously existing universes INCLUDE the universe where YOU decided on toast this morning instead of cereal. And, every similar decision EVER made by a conscious entity. That would indeed seem to be an infinite universe. But, is that common sense? Is that what we seem to observe?

Now, to the common thinker — just how believable is THAT. AN INFINITE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES - EACH INSTANT? Doesn’t one reality make more sense? Isn’t that what we all `see’? Does common sense figure into any of this?

Humans know this - what we don’t see is a `collapse’ or a `burst’ of other universes at the moment of now —— EVER. What we see appears to have continuity and realness; with seemingly remarkable stability for  material (matter)/spaces/things that exist only within the NOW (of our perception).

We `see’ (are aware of) only the on-going `created flux’. Literally the flux of creation - phenomenology - that has been going on `from the beginning of space-time’. A real phenomenology that `presents’ as `this instant’ only.

Talk about a thin Vail.

Only an instant within which to exist. It almost sounds as if the `software program’ existence, of a simulated reality - which is always there –is a more reliable `space’ for us to conduct our lives within than an `instant’ which vanishes into nothing. Don’t you think?

But, science says - NO - to the big idea of a simulated reality - instead saying that REALITY basically Simulates. `It’ (reality-mass-space) simulates the moment(reality - no mass - time) . Either collapsing into One universe or splitting into many universes. (And to us - as humans - we couldn’t tell if IT were collapsing into actuality or expanding into actuality — we simply don’t have the perspective (position) to do so.)

And, what (the proper question might be, the who, what where when and why causes the collapsing or splitting) does science `suggest’ might be `collapsing’ or `splitting’ the actualization process of reality - every instant? How would non-ordinary realities humans experience fit into this motif?

That my friend, is the 64,000 dollar question.

Assuming we aren’t a computer software program!!

And, you know what the word `assume’ can do - right?