What if ???
- From: SAMEJACK@xxxxxxxxx (SAMEJACK MCKINNEY)
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:38:03 -0500
GARY OSBORN ASKS
Is life a computer simulation?
Submitted in response to reading Andrew Collins's article GODS, GRAILS
AND MORPHIAN CONTACT, .... Gary Osborn, co-author of THE SERPENT GRAIL
with Philip Gardiner, asks is reality updating itself constantly to
accommodate new thoughts and ideas, not just in the here and now but in
the past as well? Read what he has to say in this debate ... Is life
a computer simulation? Well ask philosopher Nick Bostrom. He says our
lives:
' . . . could well be programmes developed by a post-human society
living in what we think of as the future.' 'At some point, probably in
this century computers will become capable of mimicking what we call
consciousness. The rest follows logically. Once there's enough computing
power to simulate consciousness, creating an environment for it to
interact with would be easy. Simulating an entire universe down to the
minutest level would be a waste of resources; you would only need to
simulate to a degree where the inhabitants didn't notice any
irregularities. There would be no point filling in every microscopic
detail, or the minutiae of distant astronomical objects, unless someone
decided to look at them. Then the creators could fill in the necessary
details on an ad-hoc basis. This recalls whether a tree exists when no
one is looking at it; and it might explain why "reality" at the quantum
level appears so strange.'[1] Really? - You mean 'strange,' as in how
energy takes small, quantum steps; fixed at certain values, as if all
things are "snapped" to different frequency-energy grids, just as pixels
and rendered objects are "snapped to grid" in computer art programmes?
However, if we are living in a virtual simulation, why is it that I have
to continuously endure such trivial discomforts as a virtual itchy nose
for instance? - And why do I have to suffer virtual sinus headaches,
virtual asthma, virtual hay fever and other virtual allergies? Are these
things really necessary?...
I remember in 1993, my brother saying that the sun, the moon, the
planets, the stars and the infinite space of the universe might not
really exist - that it might all be an illusion; an appropriate
"backdrop" or a "stage-setting" for our particular virtual-construct
here in this particular dimension...
He added: "We create it all: the complex nature of these things and
their history, by our constant observation and focus upon them: the
results of our observations adapting themselves to our expectations -
which in turn have adapted themselves to the historical mythic reality
of the consensus."...
If this is so, then these heavenly bodies would follow the natural,
subtle and hidden, archetypal forces of our own consciousness, which is
likely to hide the truth behind all the increasingly complex illusory
patterns we see and which become more complex as we observe them further
- and all according to our beliefs and expectations. As Paul said -
predating the above statement by Nick Bostrom: "If we think of the
repetitive 'blank space' of our universe as a 'back-drop' or
'stage-setting,' then what immediately comes to mind are those simple
background scenes we see in Hannah-Barbera cartoons. The background is
usually repetitive and simple compared to the intricate movements of the
cartoon characters . . . until we come across a scene which requires us
to take a closer look, and then the background becomes a little more
colourful, detailed and complex." I remember turning to look at him with
my mouth open. "Just a thought" he said smiling and shrugging his
shoulders. I have wondered about the so-called "Dark Matter" which makes
up 90% of the universe, and which seems to be potential
energy/information that hasn't been activated as yet. This 90% seems to
be linked to the 90-odd percent of "Junk DNA" - again potential
information that hasn't yet been activated - maybe the reason why most
of us only use 10% of our potential brainpower?...
As we will see, if today's theoretical physicists are correct, then we
are creating our own reality as we go along . . . and we are also
creating our own history...
I can't help thinking that when the first large bone was dug out of the
ground, that this was the moment when the story of the dinosaurs and all
their history began. The thought that we have created and elaborated on
the history of the dinosaurs by our constant search for more bones,
which we then create by our expectations of finding them - seems absurd,
I know . . . but try proving me wrong....
All kinds of exotic species of dinosaur now exist - but not in our own
time frame - Oh-oh no . . . that would be too dangerous from our point
of view. But saying this, some people have pondered over the thought
that man could have been around when the dinosaurs were around and its
no surprise to find reports of people finding 60,000,000-year-old
footprints found in rock...
The history of civilisations are not exempt from this creativity of
ours: If we believe that we have evolved from primates and that the
evolution of man has been a 'gradual process' then we are going to find
proof of this; we will then uncover all kinds of primitive paraphernalia
associated with the gradual rise of civilisations - i.e., an embryonic
ascent from simple to more complex forms of development in which the
earliest form of writing was found to be simple pictographs known as
hieroglyphs which gradually developed into cuneiform script and then to
the modern style of writing we know today...
However, if we get bored with the above, and want to "boldly go where no
man has gone before" by believing that the ancients possessed an
advanced technology handed down to them from the time of "Atlantis," or
maybe given to them from "Pleiadian extraterrestrials", then we will
also begin to find evidence for this as if the energy/information in our
surrounding reality morphs itself to suit our beliefs. When discovering
this new evidence we are often confounded as to why we never noticed it
before...
To support what I am saying, I am amused by the fact that I may have
actually discovered an example of something that has been caught in the
act of 'morphing' - and I report this with "tongue firmly in cheek." The
photo below is of a bas-relief from inside the temple of Osiris built by
Seti I at Abydos, Egypt. So many different photographs of the cartouche
exist that the possibility that this image comes from a photograph that
has been digitally touched up is nonexistent. Now who can fail to notice
a figure that looks like a "helicopter;" something next to it that some
say is a "submarine," - really a hieroglyph in the form of a hand - and
below that something that looks like a spaceship drawn by my five
year-old nephew?...
Well it's not surprising that this particular relief has sparked off
another minor controversy between Egyptologists and UFO enthusiasts.
Egyptologists are saying that it is a 're-carving:' that someone filled
in the stone to replace some of the hieroglyphs. The technical term is
'palimpsest' - the explanation being, that when the filling falls out,
bits of the old and new glyphs overlap and form strange glyphs or
figures...
Mmm, it's possible I suppose, because if you look closely you can see
the outline of a previously-carved falcon-like figure just below and in
front of the "helicopter" - so yeah, maybe. But doesn't this just show
that there is enough potential information here to suit both camps? As
always someone will come along to explain it - and then again, the
explanation will be based on the person's beliefs and will become an
"undeniable truth" as more people see it and believe it. But who can
really dispute the possibility that the reality we are living in is
made-up of information that conforms to our beliefs, and that the
information in and on the relief is in fact morphing itself to suit the
new believers who are growing in number all the time and who believe
that an ancient technology once existed that may have been far in
advance of our own?...
As far as I know, no one has come up with this explanation. And although
some would say that to some extent I am "playing with the reader's
mind", what I am saying is 'thought provoking' all the same because it
cannot be determined one way or another - and this my friends is the
'uncertainty principle' in action - something which is thought to only
exist at the quantum level. As we will go on, we will find that the
so-called "truth" only exists in 'uncertainty.' The moment when we feel
"certain" that we have discovered the "truth" - then that's the time
when the truth moves into uncertainty again. If we are intelligent
enough, then we will find that we were merely playing with the "shed
skin" of the truth, and in the place where the truth once was or might
have been...
If we really are creating our reality as we go along and if all the
information of the universe is within us and also spread out around us,
then we contain all the ingredients we need to construct any scenario we
like. All the seeds or 'information strands' are there for us to use,
manipulate and exploit in any way we choose. We can "cut," "paste,"
connect, disconnect, and reconnect together all kinds of information to
create all and any scenario or "theatrical production" that agrees with
our 'internal dialogue' and the way that we perceive the world. If we
believe that there is a conspiracy, then the information, which
validates our belief will then "pop-up" everywhere and it will then
weave itself together to create a scenario in which we will then find
ourselves playing a key part...
In truth there is only the 'Eternal Now' or 'Present.' From this point
we can create the future and we can also create or 'recreate' the past -
as shown in the example of the Abydos bass relief and the so-called
"Face" on Mars.
I remember my brother and I having a conversation about how we seem to
be creating reality every moment from the point of 'Now!' However, like
'Truth,' the point of 'Now' is a paradox, because while in our normal
everyday consciousness, we cannot really capture the 'Now' - it has
passed before we can ever know it or feel it as something in itself -
although a 'peak experience', a 'flash of insight' or a 'synchronicity
experience' is evidence of our being somewhere closer to capturing it -
even though we don't remember the actual moment when we did this. Paul
and I chatted about how we can also alter the past, as new evidence will
suddenly appear that will reflect these alterations. History then can
change dramatically according to our beliefs about it - especially if a
large percentage of the collective are expressing these beliefs...
The more people who believe that a certain 'alternative' scenario once
happened as regards a specific 'key point' in history, then the evidence
for that particular scenario will begin to show up everywhere. At first,
this evidence will be subtle inasmuch that the evidence seems not to
violate the initial events and will always agree with them. But after a
while all these subtle changes to the old pattern will coalesce together
to drastically transform the version of events that was once believed -
even transforming the evidence relating to the former version of events.
If needed, and just in case we notice it, the new version will always
have enough room to contain the old version within it so as not to
contradict it - bringing it to a new level of understanding that will
help transform the present paradigm. Therefore the past affects the
present and the present affects the past and all from the 'Eternal Now'
- which always seems to be just out of our grasp - most of us being
unconscious of it. (This will be explained later.) My brother brought up
the "Jack the Ripper" case as an example of the 'uncertainty principle'
working within certain events in our so-called "history." Because the
murderer was never caught and has not been properly identified, the
'uncertainty principle,' that has been brought to this brief but highly
dramatic period in our history, turns these events into a creative
medium for the collective; a testing-ground for our creativity, which of
course can be moulded to fit any pattern we choose. The uncertainty
surrounding the murderer - which is our 'focal point' - creates all the
ever-changing theoretical scenarios based around the initial events -
all of which seem quite valid in their own way. One could say that the
collective consciousness seems to have some influence over reality -
even over what has happened in the past, especially in regard to the
smallest details. These alterations or changes to the old pattern of
events which show up right now or very recently in new research as if
the space-time continuum had been disturbed "way back then", are due to
the power of the Collective Consciousness...
Just like the 'Rosenthal Effect' (which we will be looking at in the
next chapter) evidence keeps cropping up, which seems to fit any and all
suppositions. Again this shows evidence that we can also create the
"past," and it would seem that the intensity regarding the 'transforming
evidence' which seems to morph or 'shapeshift' itself to agree with all
and any theory, depends on the 'strength of numbers' regarding those of
us who are focusing on a particular theory about the said event. The
J.F. Kennedy assassination - something else we will be looking at later
- is another case in point . . . a brief but highly dramatic event in
our history which expresses this 'uncertainty principle.' For example,
many of us ask who was behind the assassination? Again all scenarios and
theories tend to agree with the initial events and each to a surprising
degree...
All the phenomena associated with the paranormal or the mystical is the
greatest area of debate this is because certain elements of 'paranormal
phenomena' express the 'uncertainty principle' - i.e., does the
paranormal exist or not? . . Meaning that all the phenomena associated
with the paranormal and the mystical is the 'uncertainty principle' at
work. This 'Uncertainty Principle' - also expressed in physics to
indicate the paradox that exists in 'particle/wave duality,' is one of
the key attributes of the very Centre from which we are creating our
binary-processed, dual reality in the first place. The Source or Centre
is neither 'This' nor 'That' . . . and neither is it wave or particle,
but both. It is what that great artist-mystic, Austin Osman Spare termed
the "Neither-Neither." In the same way, it's possible that our own minds
are also creating the existence of UFOs, visiting ETs and what some
people call the "alien abduction" syndrome. It would certainly tie in
with all the many different kinds of "alien" that were reported to have
been seen since the late '50s. From the limited media attention given to
the UFO subject in the last two decades, it's not surprising that we now
identify only one kind, the so-called "Greys" - as if people's minds are
now tuned-in to expect this one species of "alien" which has now become
an archetype. It gives a whole new meaning to the old saying "Ah . . .
it's all in your mind" - but this doesn't mean that the latest mythic
reality of "ETs," "aliens" and so-called "alien abductions" is any less
real - and especially if the truth be, that everything is all in our
mind. I'm certain that we create everything in our reality - all of us
being unconscious "co-producers," directors, "actors" and "extras."
However, if we do create our own reality, then why is it that most of
the time we are working against ourselves? - As in the irony of someone
going to the cashpoint to draw out £30 and then going back to the car
to find a parking fine for £30. This kind of absurdity is called
"Sod's Law" - but it smacks of some kind of 'perverse precognition'
working behind the scenes. Does this mean that by going to draw out
£30 the person already knew deep down that he would need that £30 to
pay the parking fine? . . And before you ask . . . yeah, that person was
me - someone who has had more than his fair share of sad situations in a
'virtual reality' that has 'parking attendants' programmed within it.
While thinking about the above, I began looking back through the notes I
made during my research on the link between the uncertainty principle in
quantum theory and the dual nature of human perception . . .
1. Taken from New Scientist, magazine, 27th July 2002 Links Events
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What if ???
- From: SAMEJACK MCKINNEY
- Re: What if ???
- Prev by Date: There is nothing already out there
- Next by Date: Re: What if ???
- Previous by thread: There is nothing already out there
- Next by thread: Re: What if ???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
