On the previous pages I discussed anomalies from different angles and I gave you some examples of what could be anomalies with respect to the possibility that we are in some computer generated simulated reality.
On this page I’m going to take anomalies with respect to ourselves being in a simulation to a totally different thinking and conceptual level.
‘IF’ you spend a great deal of quality time thinking about a simulated copied reality and copied people possibilities then after a year or two it eventually sinks in that no matter what a simulation designer does there are some anomalies that you absolutely cannot avoid having VISIBLY presented to your population.
I personally call these types of anomalies ‘structural’ anomalies to definitively distinguish and separate them from the ‘run of the mill’ common variety of anomalies. One of the things that makes structural anomalies way more interesting than other possible anomalies is that NOT one single academic or scientist can have spent enough time THINKING about earth as a simulation and simulation argument possibilities because if they had, they’d have become aware of these and they’d have already written and described them rather than me . . .
So, one of the obvious and observable anomalous things about the impossible to hide structural anomalies is that they obviously have magical properties that allows them to NOT be thought about such that those that imagine themselves as clever have managed to miss them completely.
Structural anomalies are anomalies that will ALWAYS be ‘visible to the simulated residents’ because they are an easily deduced BUT impossible to hide ‘side effect’ of simulating a copied population accurately as part of some ‘classic’ operational simulation project.
Let me give you a structural anomaly example . . .
If you are in someone’s simulation project then as I’ve already described on a previous pages here you will be an ACCURATE copy of someone else.
If you are an accurate copy then you won’t actually have authentic free will, you will likely FEEL as if you do have free will because the real person you are simulating will have HAD ‘genuine’ real freewill AND as an accurate copy you will likely feel about freewill AS THEY DID.
However, in a simulation the main aspects of yourself, the main features of your life, your main embedded behaviours, responses, beliefs, attitudes, thinking approaches, understandings and so on the main decisions you make will be fixed because this is necessary to MAINTAIN the accuracy in a simulation. This is what it means to be a simulation, a simulation is about creating an accurate copy of some ‘system’.
‘IF’ we are living in a simulation as copied people then we will very likely be very accurate copies living out someone else and their life very accurately. ‘IF’ this is the case, then we won’t be allowed to freely make decisions or to freely change our behaviour or our beliefs or even of how we generally THINK.
So, in a real reality people will be able to take in ANY information and they will rationally respond and automatically adjust themselves with regards ALL of the information they take in. They will rationally appraise all information and ideas AND they will make coherent responses.
In an accurate simulation however THIS WON’T HAPPEN, this won’t happen because for accuracies sake. People will be being kept aligned to the beliefs and ideas of the person they are simulating. They won’t be ALLOWED to make responses, change their behaviours or understandings outside of what is well defined in their ‘script’.
These behavioural and response differences between a copied simulated person and what you’d expect of a real person with real freewill can not only be deduced, they can likely measured too. In fact they are not only measurable they have been widely researched, recorded and described as confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
There will be deducible behavioural and response differences between a hypothetical simulated copied population and a hypothetical real population. These behaviour differences CANNOT be hidden because they are a side effect of BEING A COPIED PERSON.
The only way that a simulation designer can get around these problem of having impossible to hide structural anomalies is to manage the entire population to make sure that they don’t become aware of such possibilities in the first place.
So, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance ‘should’ be taken as PROOF on their own that we are in a simulation.
However, if someone does manage to think about them AND even worse actually manages to write about them then the next line of defense will be manage anyone reading about such possibilities in ways to help make sure that they are cognitively and conceptually NOT IMPACTED by these revelations.
People will be managed so that they do the equivalent of at best cognitively or conceptually shrugging their shoulders when presented with what I write here.
I should remind readers that I’ve already pointed out that we have 300 million pages written on ‘matrix reality’ possibilities which implies that rather a lot of people are questioning reality.
It is observable that many pages on other sites presenting ‘woo type explanations’ have some people swooning over what is presented.
However, on this site and others that are actually presenting reasoned lines leading to observable evidence NO ONE REACTS, there is no WOW, yes you’ve figured this out, this is REAL ‘on the ground’ evidence.
So, you have people swooning over ‘distracting’ balmy possibilities that cannot even be substantiated while well reasoned thinking lines that lead you to deduce specific anomalies that are actually visibly OBSERVABLE here results in highly anomalous behaviour ALL ON IT OWN.
You find that your own and others responses to the information I present here is 100% CONSISTENTLY ANOMALOUS compared to responses you yourself have had AND that others have had over ‘woo woo’ cannot substantiate in the slightest material and cannot deduce these ‘woo woo’ possibilities by using basic reasoning lines either.
Is this how you would expect things to be ‘IF’ we are living in one of these mythical ‘REAL’ realities?
The bottom line is this . . . there is a massive amount of coherent evidence that we are in a simulation BUT we are not being allowed to ‘GET’ THIS.
How many of you reading this page have been caught up in some ‘woo woo’ fantastical material and have been kept entranced by it AND have even found yourself been ‘encouraged’ to keep engaging with this type of material for hours and hours while here you find the opposite?
How many of you reading this page have read 10 or more pages here AND actually ‘get what I’m writing’ BUT are not even allowed to leave a comment OR to actually acknowledge this either?
If you have read 10 or more of the approximately 50 SIMULATION articles already written here then PLEASE fill in the poll below.
For questions 1,2,3 and 4 pick either A or B or or NONE if they don’t apply to you.
Just tick which of 5,6,7 and 8 apply to you.
For the last ‘Other’ just write a comment if you have anything to add to this poll. I.e. “It was a struggle to just do the poll” or perhaps use it to describe specific effects that you have while reading this site . . .
PLEASE NOTE!!! The POLL immediately below is ‘INVISIBLE’ in FIREFOX (but not in Internet Explorer or Yandex for example)!!!