November 16, 2014
"Earth as a Simulation Series 2: Are we simulated copies of people? How, slowing down technological development in your simulation will get around the potential recursive building sims in a sim glitch problems. However, an accurately simulated population will STILL present specific experiences, despite that the technologies these experiences depend on DON'T YET exist (immersive VR experiences for example). This series presents evidence of anomalous 'missing technology' experiences & evidence of obscuration of these & evidence that the simulation we are in was built in the last few decades."
Well, there is an embedded engrained assumption that ‘IF’ we are in a simulation it will be perfect in it’s presentation.
I would agree that it stands a reasonable chance of being ‘perfect’ in terms of it’s ‘visual, perceptive and sensory’ technical presentation.
However, a perfect technical presentation doesn’t get round the problem that both simplifying approximations and structural anomalies will result in IMPOSSIBLE TO NOT HAVE VISIBLE anomalies. As I’ve already pointed out this is delusional thinking of the highest quality ‘IF’ the simulation is simulating accurate copies of self aware, free thinking people because then it’s impossible for example, to get around the rigid, robot like behaviours etc that simulating accurate copies would be STUCK WITH (As I explain on this page here: How the Behaviour of a Simulated Person will Differ from a Real Persons Behaviour & result in Confirmation Bias & Cognitive Dissonance Anomalies).
So, it is likely NOT delusional to expect that the quality of hardware and rendering of both the simulated people and reality would be flawless. In other words in a simulation project trying to convince the population they are in a real reality the quality of the presentation is likely to be impeccable.
Unfortunately for people that cannot THINK too well then they might not realise that this doesn’t mean that specific individual experiences in the simulation will themselves ALWAYS BE FLAWLESS. What this means is that in a simulation that is technically flawless in it’s perceptually and sensory presentation then anyone here simulating someone that used poor quality, flawed or faulty VR gear will experience the same poor quality effects, the same flaws and the same ‘faults’ in their simulated reality here because they are actually being technically duplicated and rendered VERY ACCURATELY.
In other words ‘IF’ some or many people here are simulating someone that used virtual reality gear AND the quality of the virtual reality equipment was poor or it had some flaw or it developed a fault then these ‘problems’ will very likely be accurately rendered to the simulated copied person here.
Basically, ‘IF’ your simulation is out of sync in terms of technology this will result in some people here living out virtual reality experiences, while inconveniently not having the virtual reality gear and equipment to give these particular experiences context.
For example, you are likely reading this on either a computer monitor, a tablet or a mobile screen. Most evenings I watch DVD films and series. During the last week I’ve been having problems with my computer AND as a result my default media player has been having problems RENDERING my DVD’s. Apparently there is some data encoding problem that prevents the software from displaying the video information correctly. The end result is that my DVD is displayed as large multicoloured pixels which splat about on the screen as it plays.
I suspect that many so called clever people haven’t quite managed to figure out that ‘IF’ we are in a superbly accurate high quality, flawlessly engineered, multiple redundancy EVERYTHING, simulation then this means it will do an amazingly good job of very, VERY accurately rendering all the flaws individuals experienced when people being simulated used their consumer grade, bug ridden virtual reality technologies.
So, if ANYONE in our hypothetical simulation is simulating someone whose personal, home entertainment grade virtual reality set up was glitching AND they couldn’t afford to replace it AND spent six hours a day in virtual reality environments during which their glitch had the hardware occasionally rendering a consistent areas of their virtual reality environment landscape as a mass of much larger pixels then what can you expect here?
Well, in these circumstances you’d expect your likely designed to be flawless simulation to accurately render these flaws into the vision of the person simulating the original person whose virtual reality hardware had this fault.
In this respect anyone claiming to see obvious pixels in the rendering of their vision would actually be evidence that our simulation is rendering virtual reality experiences minus all the actual virtual reality technologies of someone whose original virtual reality equipment was consistently faulty. This would also of course be evidence that technological advances had been slowed down.
On the simulation argument web site on the Why Make a Matrix? And Why You Might Be In One page Professor Bostrom writes this . . .
“Some people have written to me that they have found signs that we are in a Matrix. One person, for instance, told me that he could see flickering pixels when he looked in his bathroom mirror.”
This is ‘pixels’ in mirrors is exactly the sort of thing you’d expect ‘IF’ technologies are being slowed down and we are simulating people though the the high technology very advanced phase the simulation was designed and built within.
In talking to a simulation expert I had explained to myself how window spaces and mirrors are likely to be dealt with by software routines that would use specific hardware to construct and render these simulation components separately. You would expect that future high tech virtual reality hardware just like today’s modern graphics cards would have very specific hardware designed to do specific frame rendering jobs.
One of the very specific virtual reality construction tasks that you can deduce would be handled by very specific independent hardware would be mirror rendering.
Thus ‘IF’ that specific ‘mirror rendering’ hardware component developed a fault then what the person describes above is coincidentally exactly what you would expect for such a fault. You would also expect that in a technically perfect simulation, simulating duplicated ACCURATELY copied people then such a simulation will very accurately and very perfectly duplicate the copied people’s experiences.
An ‘I’m seeing pixels when I look in a mirror’ experience would be one of the things a virtual reality hardware designer would identify as the sort of specific fault that you could expect to occasionally encounter.
Of course there is also the anomaly in the above extract that this is not a web site discussing MATRIX possibilities, it’s actually a web site supposedly discussing simulation argument possibilities BUT because no one presents definitions of matrix or simulation anywhere then no one seems to have a clue as the actual differences. Because of this, then everyone mixes up matrix only information with simulation only information with the observable outcome that apparently no one realizes that in a SIMULATION the people ARE NOT REAL, they are entirely software generated which means that it would be stupendously realistic for the people to exhibit anomalies themselves.
In a matrix the people are real, ONLY In a simulation are the people entirely software generated. In a matrix only the external environment can be manipulated, in a simulation the external environment AND the people could be manipulated. Perhaps they would be manipulated to have them not define anything while also having them mix up information selectively or perhaps to have them remain unaware of realistic virtual reality hardware fault possibilities?
As such you’d expect that at least the originator of the simulation argument would KNOW that simulated people would have to be software generated AND in knowing this then you’d imagine that they would at the very least discuss the possibility of highly complex, unexpected software interaction problems as well as the very likely possibility that in a simulation, simulating software defined self aware, FREE THINKING people it is actually seriously likely that the simulated people themselves will be directly manipulated and managed AND if this is done there will be observable evidence OF THIS BEING DONE.
‘IF’ this observable pixels problem in mirrors happened to EVERYONE here simultaneously then you’d have to conclude that our own simulation had developed a very specific mirror rendering hardware component fault. ‘IF’ however this just happened to isolated individuals under very specific conditions then a slow down of technology coupled with a fault in the very advanced virtual reality technology of the person someone here is simulating would be a very realistic possibility that you’d EXPECT to have explored and discussed ‘IF’ we are living in one of those mythical real realities.
Above I give just one realistic virtual reality ‘fault’ possibility, I’m sure there will be more. If anyone can think of other possible ‘faults’ and ‘Glitches in the Matrix’ that could end up with noticeable anomalies then leave a comment below. If anyone has experienced a ‘Glitch in the Matrix’ then leave a comment describing it below and I’ll may end up using it in the later pages or more likely I’ll construct a page specifically to present possible simulation glitches and anomalies with REALISTIC explanations, explaining how they’d fit in with ourselves living in a simulation.
Click the right >> link below for the next page in this series . .
Filed under Are we living in a Simulation Definitions & Basic Information, Do we live in an Earth Simulation Evidence, Pages related to Prof Bostroms Simulation Argument, The Origins of the New Age Population