"Earth as a Simulation Series I: How the New Age movements spiritual sayings are 'correct' for a COPIED population where everyone is 'accurately' living SOMEONE ELSE's LIFE. How 'Confirmation Bias & Cognitive Dissonance' are the deducible 'Fixed Behaviours' a copied population will present BUT, wont figure out because 'software' defined people can easily be managed."

Main Page Headings List

 
How many of the ‘suspicions’ on the early pages could you remember?

Below are the 6 ‘suspicions’ that appeared in the first 4 pages . . .

1. “You should be suspicious that these new age sayings appear to be ‘magically’ contained and confined to those directly involved with the new age paradigm.”

2. “You should also be suspicious that they (the new age sayings) seem not to be noticed by people outside of the new age movement (including those that would call themselves researchers whom have actually researched the new age movement).”

3. “You should be suspicious that these popular new age sayings appear to not be ‘seriously’ discussed and questioned (or discussed AT ALL) by the new age crowd.”

4. “You should be suspicious that they (the new age sayings) are bizarrely automatically ‘accepted’ as being ‘true’ and ‘self evident’ (by the new agers).”

5. “From my perspective you should be SUSPICIOUS that the ‘attitude’ that you will only ‘get’ the new age sayings if you are ‘spiritually developed’ enough is suspiciously close to: “Yes, ‘really’ only the most developed and refined minds will be able to see the Kings new clothes!!!”

6. “Definitions relating to ‘simulation’ are virtually unintelligible in their meaning even for ‘normal’ COMPETENT people (perhaps we should be suspicious about this too).”

So, exactly ‘why’ should you be suspicious?

Well, they are suspicious because all of the above ‘suspicious’ points ALL describe observable ‘oddities’ that indicate that perhaps our reality is trying to stop people THINKING about these sayings.

As part of this, it also seems to be trying to make DEFINITIONS relating to ‘simulation’ as archaic and unintelligible as possible (because you then have to spend some decent time actually translating the ‘simulation’ definitions before you can even start to understand what they actually mean).

Would People in a Simulation be Managed to NOT THINK deeply about Specific Simulation Possibilities?

In other words the ‘suspicions’ I pointed out are ‘oddities’ that you would expect ‘IF’ we are in a simulation AND the simulation designers are NOT feeble minded such that they have paid out the extra tuppence (or two cents) and implemented the cognitive management software . . .

This cognitive management software would make it as difficult as possible for people outside of the new age crowd (and even researchers, researching them) to even become aware of these sayings because becoming AWARE of them would obviously be a pre-requisite before you could THINK about the possibility of PROPERLY evaluating them. Of course, the very same cognitive management software wouldn’t allow the new agers themselves to THINK about these sayings in any deeper way either.

After the 5 pages I used to evaluate the sayings then what else did I point out that is observable and which any THINKING person would figure out in about 5 minutes? Unless of course they were being cognitively managed by simulation software?

Well that would be the reasoning leading to evidence that there would be obvious STRUCTURAL ANOMALIES visible in a copied simulated reality.

This very, VERY visibly OBVIOUS evidence is of course confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

NOW for those reading this that are STILL convinced that you have some ability to consciously exercise some ‘coherent’ thinking capacity then you are in luck, because I have a THINKING challenge for you . . . .

Would People in a Simulation be Managed to NOT join Obvious Dots?

Confirmation bias is an example of a STRUCTURAL ANOMALY, a structural anomaly is an anomaly that is visible because it is part of the STRUCTURAL NATURE of a simulation project and as such it is IMPOSSIBLE for such an anomaly to be hidden from the simulated population.

The only way a simulation designer can stop these becoming COGNITIVELY VISIBLE to the simulated population is to manage peoples cognitive functioning and abilities, which as I’ve already mentioned would a) be stupidly easy to do with simulated people and b) would be as cheap as chips and c) this being observably done would ALSO BE EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE IN A SIMULATION.

So, here is your big chance to prove that you are NOT feeble minded . . .

1. What other stupidly obvious STRUCTURAL ANOMALIES will be VISIBLE ‘IF’ we are specifically in someone’s simulation project . . . AND . . .
2. How many of these ARE ACTUALLY ALSO VISIBLY PRESENT HERE?

Some advice . . . it took me three months of THINKING to figure out that I needed to START THINKING like an earth simulation manager, designer AND software programmer so I’d have some chance of THINKING of how I’d design this project AND then of what solutions would be available to keep the obvious anomalies HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT.

Unfortunately it took about a year of serious THINKING effort before I was able to re-orientate my THINKING against all the management efforts to really, REALLY START THINKING like a simulation manager, designer and simulation software programmer . . .

Would People in a Simulation be Managed to Quickly FORGET about ‘Worrying’ to Simulation Possibilities?

So will you be taking up the . . .

“I’M DEFINITELY NOT FEEBLE MINDED” challenge?

Which will have you attempting to figure out the other stupidly obvious STRUCTURAL ANOMALIES that will be VISIBLE ‘IF’ we are in a simulation project AND of checking to see how many of these ARE ACTUALLY OBSERVABLY VISIBLE HERE?

So, all rational, objective, ‘reasoned’ thinkers . . .

THIS IS YOUR BIG MOMENT . . .

. . . to prove to everyone that you are not ‘really’ suffering from some human cognitive ‘frailty’ . . . just figure out and leave a detailed comment telling us what the other IMPOSSIBLE to hide STRUCTURAL ANOMALIES you’d EXPECT ‘IF’ we are in someone’s simulation project (AND how many of these are ACTUALLY visible here) accompanied with basic, simple reasoning describing how the simulation designers have been able to keep them hidden in plain sight from everyone here?

If you cannot do this then I’ll be forced to describe these specific structural anomalies in detail on some future pages AND of how they are kept hidden which will be embarrassing.

Of course if ‘amazingly’ you do manage to figure these out then great because that will be more evidence beyond what I’ve already presented here that we are in someone’s simulation project . . .
For a summary of this the Earth Simulation Hypothesis accumulated so far in this series then read this page here: Are we living in a simulation? What EVIDENCE have I presented so far to Support an Earth as a Simulation Project Hypothesis?

The next series of pages will focus on the new age population, I’ll show that the impossible ‘experiences’ of the new agers are entirely consistent with what you’d expect of a specific sub population of the people we are simulating whom built the simulation we are allegedly possibly living within ‘IF’ these people are in technology terms way more advanced than we are here.

The next series reveals even more easily deducible visible anomalies that are the outcome of common practical simulation design decisions as well as common decisions relating to an OPERATIONAL simulation project that specifically involve self aware, vaguely free thinking people.

Google+ Pinterest
Print

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