This is a continuation of the discussion on the previous page that was the start of me pointing out that how we approach, evaluate and deal with anomalies is highly anomalous all on it’s own . . .
Does science keep track of any anomalies that they do find AND are scientists generally aware of serious anomalies that science DOES actually identify?
I asked a question on the previous page asking if anyone knew roughly of how many anomalous research papers have actually been published on average in about a dozen top science journals over the last 50 years?
Could you find that information anywhere?
Does science respect the position anomalies SHOULD have by cataloging them and making sure that ALL researchers are aware of them? Did you find an official list?
How would a hypothetical Simulation Designer Have the Simulated Population Deal with Potential Anomalies in Ways that Would be the LEAST Worrying to the Simulation they are in?
‘IF’ you were the designer of this simulation then how would you manage the awareness, thinking and evaluating abilities of your simulated population so that there is the least chance of any coherent or realistic THINKING in the slightest with respect to the enormous numbers of anomalies that it’s stupidly easy to deduce you’ll have presented ‘IF’ you are in a simulation.
As a simulation designer then how would you manage your population so that they don’t even become aware that there are ‘anomalies’ in the first place? What would you do to make sure that your simulated population was so befuddled that they don’t even take notice of or even record the anomalies they do actually find?
Perhaps a better question would be . . .
“What would be the deducible, readily observable ‘symptoms’ that would indicate that your simulated population was at least half a dinner service short of a full set in terms of how they actually dealt with anomalies they did actually did become aware of (even only briefly)?”
On a real world with real (not simulated at all) researchers you’d actually expect that anomalies would be directly focused on AND that everyone doing research would be made DIRECTLY aware of them BECAUSE this is not only the fastest way of better understanding the fundamental nature of your reality AND of how everything within your reality actually works while simultaneously it is also the most cost effective way of doing research.
In a simulation however it would be easy to deduce that the opposite of what I describe above would be what you would expect.
You would for example expect that anomalies in general would be ignored, that they’d be swept under the carpet and for seriously worrying ones you’d even expect that research funding would mysteriously become unavailable to continue rational appraisals.
You would also expect that your researchers, rather than being free to adapt and to regularly change their fundamental basic assumptions to accommodate their changing understandings they’d be saddled with an absolutely fixed set of basic assumptions that no matter how unfit for purpose they were they’d NEVER BE CHANGED.
Their basic assumptions rather than being treated as ASSUMPTIONS would actually be treated as holy scripture, as the infallible holy words of some science god.
For example, are you aware that a stupendous FACT is that the entire, rickety structure of science is built on nothing more than a set of best guess assumptions? Are you aware that the foundations of science aren’t built on facts?
You would EXPECT that all official designated researchers in the simulated population (anyone with a PHD) would be directly mentally compelled by invisible software to unquestioningly accept and to support the one party, one size MUST BE MADE TO FIT EVERYTHING structure AND no one must be allowed to dissent approach.
In a seriously well managed simulation, you’d EVEN expect the simulation designers to have written software to directly manage a set of what you could only describe as puppet people whom would feel compelled to harass any ‘official’ researcher that was competent because they DARED to present anything that violated the divine sacred (very likely simulation designer defined) basic assumptions as well as of anyone dedicated that directly focused on any worrying anomalies.
Hence all of the harassing shit that seriously competent researchers like Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin (and many others) have to put up with . . .
As part of the above, you’d also find that people focusing on the abundance of anomalies AND OR whom are presenting theories trying to explain them AND OR trying to do research to better understand anomalies would very likely find themselves labelled as incompetent or even EVIL. You might even find these obviously simulation software organized puppet people using sacred science arguments such as Occam’s Razor monstrously inappropriately (without even realizing this) in attempts to discredit realistic hypothesis, theories or even arguments (I give an example of this being done here).
How Would ‘General’ Anomalies be Treated in a Simulation that itself was Presenting Obvious STRUCTURAL Anomalies?
Let me give you an example of a serious anomaly AND of how invisible in a general sense this anomaly is as well as of how CONCEPTUALLY invisible it is too.
Here is a question for you . . .
“What substance known to science (and everyone else on the planet) has way, WAY more anomalies compared to the next most anomalous substance? Any Ideas?”
Which common substance here is highly anomalous?
If you do know which substance here is highly anomalous then for extra bonus points (which can reduce you’re feeble minded index score considerably) can you tell us how many identified highly anomalous properties this substance has?
The highly anomalous substance is actually WATER and so far it has been identified as having 22 anomalous properties. Just 19 of these have so far been identified by science the others haven’t yet probably because it’s estimated that only 0.00003722% of scientists are aware that water has many anomalous properties never mind the 19 they have already identified.
The highly anomalous properties that science has yet to understand is water’s mysterious abilities to:
- NOT HAVE IT’S ANOMALOUS PROPERTIES POINTED OUT on detailed pages specifically written to provide information about water. Like on this page here for example where only one anomalous property is mentioned or here where only two are mentioned
- Manages to avoid having anyone actually notice that it has mysterious abilities to ‘stay off the anomalies’ radar.
- Manages to avoid having anyone figuring out which simplifying approximation translations would likely be operational to account for these specific anomalies. I say this because ‘IF’ very specific simplifying approximations ARE operational then you can actually DEDUCE that your planetary liquid will VERY, VERY LIKELY HAVE anomalous properties.
Despite the Propagation EVERYWHERE that you shouldn’t expect Anomalies ‘IF’ we are in a Simulation AMAZINGLY Research Proves OTHERWISE
On the purported to be rational rationalwiki.com simulation argument page they describe research proving that it would be impossible to make a simulation ‘perfect’ because the computing power required just to simulate the interaction of only two single water molecules under all conditions accurately would be prohibitively expensive. I quote . . .
“When attempting to make mathematical models of reality, certain assumptions and approximations are made in order to describe systems. If the universe was being described by an analytical process anyway, such things would be unlikely to be needed, and so basic two-body approximations should be perfectly analogous to experimental behaviour. However, such things are rarely seen. In the field of quantum computation (computer models of quantum systems such as atoms and molecules) introduction of such approximations to make even the simplest models disagree with reality considerably. In order to compensate for any approximations made in order to make the systems computable, computational cost must increase significantly – in computational chemistry, the cost of a simulation scales by at least the fourth power of the number of bodies and functions being considered. To make a “perfect” simulation, an infinite number of functions needs to be considered. To accurately model the interaction of just two water molecules (perhaps the simplest chemically interesting system) requires over 500 functions to bring the result within experimental error.”
Amazingly, nowhere on this page is it mentioned that our water molecule actually isn’t perfect to start with.
Should we conclude that perhaps the researcher simulating the two water molecules DIDN’T know it already had anomalous properties? How do you explain that our water molecules already known highly imperfect anomalous properties are NOT MENTIONED on this page?
How do you explain that unbelievably the writers of this page actually use this water molecule simulation research as PROOF we cannot be in a simulation because IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE SUCH A SIMULATION PERFECT.
Seriously, I’m not making this up.
So, research done using our highly anomalous, obviously imperfect water molecule proves that ‘IF’ we are in a simulation you can expect it to be presenting ANOMALIES. In other words if this research was evaluated by people that were actually objective as opposed to people that obviously just imagine they are objective then this research would prove that . . .
IT IS A FANTASY TO EXPECT NO ANOMALIES ‘IF’ we are in a Simulation
The interpretation of this research on a page purported to be ‘rational’ I’d say is likely proof all on it’s own that my postulated simulation software induced feeble-mindedness possibility is operational (as described on this page here).