An ‘anomaly’ is an unexpected ‘out of context’ reality presentation that is not individually foreseeable by the designers.
Simulation Argument Attuned Definition of Anomaly . . . What is a simulation anomaly?
Anomalies are the by-product of hardware and/or software architecture and interactions as well as of commonly used techniques such as buffering or caching of commonly accessed data.
Anomalies can also arise due to multiple and highly complex software components interacting in ways that have not or that cannot be anticipated.
The simulation designers would actually expect certain types of unforeseen anomalies to be visibly present because they wouldn’t be able to anticipate such anomalies individually.
As such, you’d expect anomalies BUT they would likely be rare and if they do occur they are likely to be personally experienced.
As one of the anomalies about earth as a simulation anomaly possibilities is that we are told and have propagated pretty much everywhere that we shouldn’t expect any anomalies then I’ll be quashing that fantasy with what I present on the rest of this page and the one following . . .
Let me put the Complex Interactive, Synchronized Simulation Software Routines Required just to Simulate A Simple Action into Stark Perspective!!!
‘IF’ we are in a simulation then every single aspect of yourself as a simulated as conscious person is defined by software written by a software programmer. Every single aspect of your entire self and all interactions of everything including your interactions with everything of the environment and with ALL others are all completely software defined AND software rendered.
Take a look at your right hand now . . .
There will be a whole set of software routines that coordinate the movement of your head and that move your hand, there will be other software routines that move your eyes and others to adjust your eyes to have them focus properly on your hand. Yet more routines will capture what your eyes see and store what you see in your short term memory, other routines will define and be responsible for the growth of the skin cells covering your hand and others will keep track of the synchronized simulated cell divisions process that result in new skin cells and old ones dying, other software routines likely with many sub-routines will present the active processes, the chemical reactions, the enzyme pathways within each skin cell, including the vesicles, the mitochondria the membranes and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.
What would it take in Simulation Software Terms to Generate ALL THE DETAIL to Simulate & Render just one Contained Action
When you shake someone’s hand there will be yet another set of complex software routines coordinating your arm and hand movements and synchronizing them with the movements of the arm and hand of the person whose hand you are going to shake.
When you speak to someone there will likely be literally 1,000’s of software routines defining your thoughts, converting your thoughts to speech while others will manage the use of your vocal cords, others will synchronize the movement of your larynx, tongue, mouth and lips while fine tuning the air flow so that whatever simulated thoughts you have rendered in your likely simulated head will all be nicely conveyed into understandable speech.
So, just for the very simple things that I describe above there will be literally 1000’s and more likely 10,000’s of software routines all having to work together seamlessly to result in what would be a very minor sub presentation compared to the ENTIRETY of our potentially simulated reality here and that’s just for your hand and eyes and moving and looking at your hand, shaking someone’s hand and speaking to them.
How Many Software WRITERS would it take to Generate ALL THE DETAIL to Simulate & Render just one Contained Action?
Amazingly, all of what I describe above isn’t happening ‘magically’, ‘IF’ we are in a simulation it’s happening because 10’s of thousands of teams of programmers have written perhaps millions of routines and procedures to make everything you see, everything you perceive, everything you think and everything you sense, feel, perceive, take in and remember HAPPEN in ways that you feel and perceive as if it is all entirely ‘real’.
As a simulated person then everything of yourself as in your physical body, your eyes, your moment by moment feelings, each thought you have, and all supposedly ‘spontaneous’ thoughts and thinking lines as well as all of your internal states, behaviours, responses and all aspects of your personality and character are all defined, calculated and ‘rendered’ by software.
Let’s make what I’m trying to convey to you here VERY clear . . .
After reading the above, can you imagine that ‘anyone’ that actually managed to write out the above VERY realistic description of what would be required just to present some very minor parts of the ENTIRETY of what would be required to simulate the complexity of each person, ALL peoples interactions and the entirety of our environment.
Can you imagine that ANYONE could write out or even THINK about earth as a simulation software possibilities in this detail WHILE remaining in a fantasy with respect to them THINKING ‘they’ll be no visible anomalies’ ‘IF’ we are in a simulation?
What Would be a Priority Item on any hypothetical Earth Simulation Designers ‘DAMAGE LIMITATION STRATEGY’ List?
So, ‘IF’ you reading this were the hypothetical designer of our simulation then what would be one thing that you would make sure never happens?
Well, you’d try and make sure that not one person in your simulated population does the most stupidly obvious thing such that they are actually able to THINK realistically about what would be involved software wise in a moment by moment sense just to simulate a minor action such that they present this publicly.
How well managed would a hypothetical simulated population have to be for no one to be able to actually write in this degree of detail (despite them having a simulation argument published as a PROMPT) BUT even worse than this is that NOT ONLY WAS THIS NOT DONE but despite no decent explanation and certainly no reasoning you have spread EVERYWHERE within your hypothetical simulated population that ‘IF’ we are in a simulation THEY SHOULDN’T EXPECT ANY ANOMALIES . . .
Is there any evidence that this particular damage limitation strategy has been been applied here?
What else would be on any Earth Simulation Designers ‘DAMAGE LIMITATION STRATEGY’ List relating to software?
Can you think of anything else that is obvious in simulation software writing terms that if you THOUGHT about copied duplicated population possibilities ENOUGH would also suggest that the NO ANOMALIES assertion is ‘rationally’ completely unrealistic if not entirely balmy?
Have a THINK about this before reading the next page and perhaps in the mean time re-familiarize yourself with just some of the visibly OBSERVABLE anomalies so far presented on this site: Compilation of 20+ Unique & Observable Evidence Points that we are in a Simulation
January 10, 2015 @ 2:02 pm
This passage describes a Simulated Copy being run through a ‘timing’ resolution experiment to CHECK FOR ANOMALIES. It is from the perspective of the Copied person.
(The character is ‘Paul Durham’; The first ‘Paul’ is the copy and he refers to his original as ‘Durham’ and ‘the djinn’ (ahaha))
It describes the complexity just to render one moment for as ‘simulated as conscious’ person and also contains a similar bit to:
“Take a look at your right hand now . . .
There will be a whole set of software routines that coordinate the movement of your head and that move your hand, there will be other software routines that move your eyes and others to adjust your eyes to have them focus properly on your hand. Yet more routines will capture what your eyes see and store what you see in your short term memory, other routines will define and be responsible for the growth of the skin cells covering your hand and others will keep track of the synchronized simulated cell divisions process that result in new skin cells and old ones dying, other software routines likely with many sub-routines will present the active processes, the chemical reactions, the enzyme pathways within each skin cell, including the vesicles, the mitochondria the membranes and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.”
p 41 – 44
Paul sat in his study, in his favourite armchair (unconvinced that the texture of the surface had been accurately reproduced), taking what comfort he could from the undeniable absurdity of being afraid to experiment on himself further. He’d already ‘survived’ the ‘transition’ from flesh-and-blood human to computerized physiological model — the most radical stage of the project, by far. In comparison, tinkering with a few of the model’s parameters should have seemed trivial.
Durham appeared on the terminal — which was otherwise still dysfunctional. Paul was already beginning to think of him as a bossy little djinn trapped inside the screen — rather than a vast, omnipotent deity striding through the halls of Reality, pulling all the strings. The pitch of his voice was enough to deflate any aura of power and grandeur.
. . .
Paul counted to ten. The djinn returned. Staring at the face on the screen, Paul realized that he had no inclination to think of it as ‘his own’. Perhaps that was a legacy of distancing himself from the earlier Copies. Or perhaps his mental image of himself had never been much like his true appearance — and now, in defence of sanity, was moving even further away.
Paul would have preferred to not have been reminded. He’d known that Durham must have cloned him, and would be feeding exactly the same sensorium to both Copies — while only making changes in the model’s time resolution for one of them. It was an essential part of the experiment — but he didn’t want to dwell on it. A third self, shadowing his thoughts, was too much to acknowledge on top of everything else.
. . .
Paul counted. The easiest thing in the world, he thought, when you’re made of flesh, when you’re made of matter, when the quarks and the electrons just do what comes naturally. Human beings were embodied, ultimately, in fields of fundamental particles — incapable, surely, of being anything other than themselves. Copies were embodied in computer memories as vast sets of numbers. Numbers which certainly could be interpreted as describing a human body sitting in a room . . . but it was hard to see that meaning as intrinsic, as necessary, when tens of thousands of arbitrary choices had been made about the way in which the model had been coded. Is this my blood sugar here . . . or my testosterone level? Is this the firing rate of a motor neuron as I raise my hand . . . or a signal coming in from my retina as I watch myself doing it? Anybody given access to the raw data, but unaware of the conventions, could spend a lifetime sifting through numbers without deciphering what any of it meant. And yet no Copy buried in the data itself — ignorant of the details or not — could have the slightest trouble making sense of it all in an instant.
Squeak. ‘Trial number three. Time resolution twenty milliseconds.’
‘One. Two. Three.’
For time to pass for a Copy, the numbers which defined it had to change from moment to moment. Recomputed over and over again, a Copy was a sequence of snapshots, frames of a movie — or frames of computer animation.
But . . . when exactly did these snapshots give rise to conscious thought? While they were being computed? Or in the brief interludes when they sat in the computer’s memory, unchanging, doing nothing but representing one static instant of the Copy’s life? When both stages were taking place a thousand times per subjective second, it hardly seemed to matter, but very soon —
Squeak. ‘Trial number four. Time resolution fifty milliseconds.’
What am I? The data? The process that generates it? The relationships between the numbers?
All of the above?