How many Earth Simulation Software Programmers would it take to Simulate People Changing a Light Bulb without Presenting Anomalies?

This is a continuation of the previous page which is here which was the start of me pointing out some realistic earth as a simulation software problem possibilities that no one here had managed to think of. This current page is going to continue to point out yet more simulation ‘software’ problem possibilities that yet again no one has thought of . . .

Hands up if you reading this have ever used any moderately complicated computer software and while you were using it, you PERSONALLY experienced this software doing:

  1. Something ‘stupid’, or . . .
  2. Something ‘unexpected’ or even ‘eccentric’ with respect to how it was supposed to work, or . . .
  3. Something ‘unexpected’ with respect to how you THOUGHT it should work . . .
  4. Something ‘unexpected’ with respect to how it was supposed to work from descriptions in the user manual . . .
  5. While at the same time the software always had some ‘bugs’ and the next supposedly bug resolving version always had some bugs too.

The Popular Human Frailty Delusion that there WON’T be ANY Anomalies AT ALL ‘IF’ we are in a Simulation

Hands up all of those people whom have ever used a word processing program and the software did ‘something’ it shouldn’t have or it did something you’d NOT expect, or it messed up some of your formatting or paragraph structuring or it magically lost something that you’d thought you’d saved or it didn’t interface properly with your printer driver software and so on and so on?

I will remind you that ‘IF’ we are in a simulation then our near future selves will have WRITTEN THE SOFTWARE THAT DEFINES EVERYTHING HERE.

As such, the quality of software WE HAVE HERE will ‘by and large’ either represent the quality of software used for the simulation OR alternatively we here could be being directly managed to depress our thinking abilities and intelligence so much that we are so feeble minded that cannot even put together some decent word processor software that is bug free or that ‘plays’ with printers properly etc.

Based just on what I write so far on the previous page AND this one, then anyone here considering the possibility that we may be in a simulation and writing about anomaly possibilities would have had to have not THOUGHT IN THE SLIGHTEST about the real reality of being a software defined person to declare that our reality would be anomaly free ‘IF’ we are in a simulation.


We cannot even write something as stupidly simple as decent word processing software that is bug free. As such, anyone, ANYWHERE blithely, stating that ‘IF’ we are in a simulation we should EXPECT to NOT have any anomalies presented is basically either seriously delusional OR they are being aggressively managed by simulation software. Which is most likely do you think?

The Popular Human Frailty Delusion that Simulation Software will be IMPOSSIBLY Perfect

So, now that we know that ‘IF’ we are in a simulation we can CONFIDENTIALLY EXPECT to have the presentation of likely MANY complex software interaction anomalies (at a minimum) as well as containing boundary limiting anomalies (as described here) as well as anomalies that relate to the mysterious operational simulation simplifying approximation translations, then can you reading this think of any actual anomalies?

Can you THINK of ANY Possible ANOMALIES? . . .


I’ve deliberately presented a provocative ‘AT ALL’ at this point because rigorous research into ‘earth as a simulation information reading anomalies’ has mysteriously returned a 99.999% probability that even if people have read ALL the pages here and hence they absolutely KNOW ABOUT RATHER A LOT of possible or very definite anomalies their head will mysteriously go blank when asked to recall ANY of them . . . .

They won’t be able to recall EVEN ONE . . . .

I deliberately give a page listing 18 obvious evidence ANOMALY points. I also deliberately point out many of these anomalies MULTIPLE TIMES.

This is deliberately done because apparently when presented with material that even a chimpanzee could deduce would be ‘worrying’ to a simulation designer people become not only observably BUT also measurably FEEBLE MINDED, they develop selective amnesia as well as sub sets of symptoms you’d expect of someone with Alzheimer’s and or dementia to have.

That Observable Anomalous Response to Being Asked to Recall ANOMALIES YOU ALREADY KNOW ABOUT

The problem being that ‘IF’ I dare suggest that this readily observable and easily repeatable ‘anomalous response to remembering anomalies’ anomaly is ACTUALLY AN ANOMALY then you stand a good chance of forgetting all about this as ANOTHER very likely ANOMALY possibility within the next 5 minutes . . .

How many of the Simulation Argument Evidence ANOMALIES that I’ve already pointed out here actually came to mind when you were asked to THINK about ANY possible anomalies that you might already KNOW about above?

As even competent people that I personally know and whom are seriously interested in what I present here and whom are actually aware of many anomalies have actually been directly observed to have trouble recalling EVEN ONE, then is it perhaps possible that we could have lots and lots and lots and lots of visible anomalies which mysteriously we are NOT even allowed to become aware of?

Do, we have lots of visible anomalies that we just don’t take notice of OR ‘IF’ we do notice them we don’t actually spend much time THINKING ABOUT THEM?

For example you’d imagine that ‘science’ which is at least attempting to give the impression that it is focused on understanding the fundamentals of reality would preferentially catalogue anomalies AND preferentially devote resources to investigate them?

Do they?

Does scientific research itself return many anomalies AND does science specifically administratively catalogue them? I should point out that ‘IF’ they did do this then WHERE ARE THEY KEPT. Can YOU tell me?

Where are all the ‘Glitch in the Matrix’ Science Anomalies? Have they found any? ‘IF’ they have found ANY then what do they do with them?

‘IF’ they do find ‘worrying’ anomalies then how many have they found and how would the simulated as common people here find out about them?

Have scientists found any? How many anomalies have they noticed, and on which notice board are they displayed for all to know about?

You would ‘imagine’ that ‘IF’ we are living on one of those mythical real worlds that science would take extra careful notice of anomalies.

You would imagine that they’d automatically do this BECAUSE, anomalies are very, very important as an ‘OFF COURSE’ marker. They help you become aware that you are perhaps not on the right track all the way through to possibly being in a delusional (likely simulation software induced):


So, if I asked you to check through the last 50 years of science research of say a dozen of the more ‘respected’ science journals then how many anomalies do you think you’d find?

Have a guess . . . how many papers in some of the top research journals in the last 50 years returned worryingly, unexpected ANOMALOUS results that DON’T FIT IN WITH SCIENTISTS PERHAPS ‘UNCONSCIOUS’ EMBEDDED EXPECTATIONS AS WELL AS THEIR DIVINE, SACRED (CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DEVIATED FROM) BASIC ASSUMPTIONS?

  1. Would that be less than 10 do you think?
  2. What about less than 100?
  3. How about around 1000 which would perhaps be the number you’d start questioning ‘OFF COURSE’ possibilities?
  4. What about less than but close to 10000, which would indicate ‘OFF COURSE’ with red warning flashing lights synchronized with a very annoying loud buzzer sound?
  5. OR, could there REALLY be MORE than 10000, which would indicate ‘OFF COURSE’ to such an amazing degree that DELUSIONAL FANTASY would be an eminently rational, very objective consideration?

What’s your guess then?

Have a THINK about this and if you are allowed to think of ANY possible science anomalies then leave a comment describing them below.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *