"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."

Could another reason why the simulation designers would slow down technological advancements in their simulation and particularly advances that relate to virtual reality and simulations be because the last thing you’d want is to have lots of people having interactive immersive virtual reality experiences and risking them realizing that particular delusional and psychotic, so called ‘spiritual’ experiences are actually equivalent to what you’d expect of ‘virtual reality’ experiences minus all the visible technologies and accessories.

You’d also not want anyone joining any simple thinking dots and realizing that ACTUAL immersive virtual reality technologies and accessories are NOT actually an essential requirement for people to have these types of virtual reality experiences.

On the contrary, you only need virtual reality technologies to have virtual reality experiences if you are living in one of those mythical, assumed entirely consistent ‘real’ realities that actually had these advanced technologies already established.

How would it be possible to Have Virtual Reality & Immersive, Virtual Environment Experiences WITHOUT These Environments?

Real live completely immersive virtual reality technologies and accessories would not be a requirement in the slightest to have these types of experiences ‘IF’ you were already living in a software defined virtual reality or a simulation because the simulation designers could EASILY program their simulation to emulate these experiences without the original technologies.

Couldn’t THEY?

The problem in doing this is to make sure that no one realizes what these specific experiences REALLY signify. You’d have to find a way to disguise these experiences and prevent people from spending time thinking about them.

In this respect ‘spiritualising’ peoples scripted virtual reality experiences is a master stroke isn’t it?

Because in doing this . . .

  1. It keeps the original context and REAL meaning of these experiences hidden from the very people having these experiences . . . while . . .
  2. It simultaneously gives these people having these so called ‘spiritual’ experiences an authentic virtual reality experience substitute which would be essential to validate their scripted expectations . . . while . . .
  3. Simultaneously and very effectively killing any realistic and rational thinking about the possible REAL origins of these types of experiences because those that imagine themselves to be clever are in the habit of automatically dismissing these types of experiences out of hand apparently as examples of human ‘frailties’. Apparently ‘no deeper THINKING’ about these types of experiences is warranted, allowed or actually even possible for cognitively ‘frail’ academics.

So, ‘IF’ we are in a simulation project AND our technological development has been slowed down to such a degree that we actually do have people here having scripted virtual reality experiences WITHOUT ANY VISIBLE virtual reality gear then what would be an amazingly good and rational and objective question to ask at this point?


Well a seriously good question to ask would be this . . .

“‘IF’ our ‘technology slow down’ hypothesis is operational then what OTHER types of virtual reality experiences can we deduce that people here SHOULD BE EXPERIENCING AND ‘IF’ they are experiencing these then HOW WOULD THEY BE PRESENTED HERE and even more importantly is there evidence of such experiences because people are describing them?”

‘IF’ this is correct then we can likely deduce a whole variety of ‘unbelievable’ experiences which should actually be, being experienced by people here.

What sort of Virtual Reality Experiences would be possible ‘IF’ you are simulating someone that had REAL Experiences of Virtual Reality, Immersive, Virtual Environments?

For example what if someone here (or many people here) are simulating someone that originally:

  1. Were employed to use virtual reality gear as part of their job to demonstrate or sell merchandise on the virtual net?
  2. Were employed as a customer ‘support’ person on the virtual net and helped people solve problems they were experiencing with their companies services or products?
  3. Regularly used virtual reality gear to play immersive games of different types or to spend time in immersive recreational environments. For example . .
    • Shoot em up games . . .
    • Magical Realms where people have magical abilities can manipulate the environment, cast spells, make binding contracts and pacts and so on.
    • Have virtual environments and spaces for relaxing, stress releasing or for meditation and particularly visual meditations.
  4. Regularly used virtual reality gear that had an occasional fault or even a known specific ‘glitch’ and particularly one that only happened occasionally, started to happen after a period of time or that only happened under very specific conditions. In a commercial product these types of faults could have impact a large number of people.
  5. Was employed to be fully knowledgeable of and to demonstrate and sell different virtual reality products of different models to companies or the public?
  6. Were involved with researching, developing, testing and or comparing the quality of different virtual reality products.
  7. Employed to review or to construct and or test the ‘accuracy’ of different immersive virtual reality environments, which perhaps required that this person spend serious time testing the quality of each of different virtual environments and even the quality of rendered components (did they feel right, smell right, and could they adjust these). People involved in the design of virtual environments would of course be IN THEM WHILE THEY DID THIS and they’d be able to make design changes to their virtual environment directly. People here simulating someone whom did this originally would likely be able to make none obvious changes here and adjust mood and ambiance of their environment at will. Some people might even be able to be aware of simplifying approximation translations and as part of testing how good these were they would have the ability to FEEL and be aware of what the original environment was like compared to what was actually eventually rendered. Such people would end up being able to grade the authenticity and ‘realness’ of a virtual environment AND how good it was compared to the ‘real’ reality.
  8. Researched, developed, designed and or tested AND LIVED IN some of the first ‘real world environments’ which would involve all that I describe above BUT there would also be safety features built into so that the avatar form that represents you cannot die when it’s test driving a virtual car for example?
  9. What about the very likely possibility that the first immersive virtual reality environments would have been developed specifically to test the safety of vehicles and particularly under crash conditions. For these they’d want to have real people interfaced into test simulation as part of these tests to make them as realistic and authentic as possible.

‘IF’ you think about the above for a while then with all of these possibilities it is very obvious that ‘some’ simulated people here whom were intimately involved with virtual reality products and or whom regularly used them or that tested the quality of virtual environments then such people would actually be able tell the difference of themselves being in a ‘real’ reality compared to a virtual one, virtually IN A COMA?

How Would it be Possible for an Alleged REAL Person to be Absolutely SURE that they are NOT IN A REAL REALITY?

In other words, if you have a lot of people in your simulation simulating someone that used virtual reality gear regularly on a day in day out, month in, year out basis then they’d develop an inbuilt automatic feeling and sense of the subtle differences between a real reality and an artificially generated virtual reality. In a counterfeit virtual reality trying to pass itself off as a real environment then people simulating someone with extensive experiences of virtual environments will very likely feel that our reality here is NOT REAL?

Strangely, it is OBVIOUS if you spend some time reading specific forums around the web that some people here very obviously automatically absolutely KNOW that they are NOT in a real reality here. I should point out that in one of those mythical real realities NOT ONE PERSON would feel that their reality was even ‘questionable’.

If we are in a simulation then there ‘WILL’ be people here and likely MANY people whom are not even suspicious about whether they are in some sort of artificial reality because they ABSOLUTELY KNOW that they are?

These feelings and knowing’s would be entirely expected and it would be entirely deducible that people would be very certain of the ‘quality’ of their reality ‘IF’ they are simulating someone whom spent quality time in virtual spaces and artificial realities AND these people are accurately simulating this persons virtual reality experiences minus the virtual reality gear.

Once again the above is very easily deduced and OBVIOUS AND it would account for rather a lot of what some people experience . . . once again I’ve not seen anyone laying out anything that would offer a rational basis for these experiences . . .

If we are simulating a population that had virtual technologies and a virtual net, then are there hidden in plain sight clues that people are having experiences that reflect these possibilities.

So, can you THINK of different aspects of virtual reality engaging technologies AND of distinctly different virtual environment experiences BEYOND that of an ‘earth simulation project’ supporter that different people might be here that would also be evidence that technological advances have been slowed down such that virtual reality experiences are being FUDGED?

How do your EXPECTATIONS make you feel about the quality of your own personal reality experience?

Is your reality as you are EXPECTING it to be? Are you perhaps expecting ‘something’ to be different either in phases or all the time? Let us know how your reality is to you by ticking what most represents your experience below.

PLEASE NOTE!!! The POLL immediately below is ‘INVISIBLE’ in FIREFOX (but not in Internet Explorer or Yandex for example)!!!

‘IF’ you have some ‘very’ specific or strong or continuous expectations then please leave a comment below and give us details . . .

Click the right >> link below for the next page in this series . .