Re: If I may interject...
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:02 pm
Not sure if this is the proper place for this or not, so if it doesn't fit here I'm going to trust the mods to move it. 
Much of this comes back to the idea of our existence being that which is within a matrix, a creation which we were placed within that in some way is run or managed by a force, and possibly micro-managed at greater and greater levels within that matrix. We're returning to the idea of the universe being a very complicated computer simulation of which we are a part, that our minds are somehow connected to it. I want to look at a couple of things about this theory that I think are significantly crucial to understanding the validity of the theory. I'll probably do it in a couple of posts so there's not anything huge and hard to read. Bite size.
The first thing that needs to be determined in defining this computer simulation is to ascertain if the simulation is open or closed. What I mean is that if the simulation is open, beings can pass in and out of it (namely, a mind, or a physical/energy being) as opposed to a simulation in which beings have been placed in the system and it has been closed, or the simulation is actually open so that outside beings can interact with beings within the system, and vice versa.
This is important to ascertain because if it's a closed system in which we are enclosed as physical/energy beings, there's nothing we can do to exit the system or it's program. Which means, anything that comes up (including discovering that we are in the system and it's actually a simulation) have contingencies, or are part of the program. Every behavior, idea, action, reaction is covered by the program and we basically have no free will. This means that the alt community is as much a slave of the program as the non-alt community. You might think you're breaking free (think the movie "The Matrix") but in reality, you're simply participating in a subset program which fools you into thinking you're in control, or really aware, when in reality you're not, and you can never be. The other down side to a closed system is that the rules are written and they can't be broken from inside or outside the system. The only thing that can change the rules would be to destroy the system completely and start again, re-writing the rules. Which isn't very practical unless it's a computer program: in which case, you dear reader are nothing but a collection of rules that act and react according to the system, and you have no real significant meaning except as a "bit" of information. Pretty depressing huh?
Or it could be a system/simulation that is open in which case, there's a chance that you're more than just a bit of information. An open system has the advantage of being able to escape, to be able to comprehend other dimensions, other beings. It has the advantage of being able to awaken, realize a greater potential, and a chance to make differences or take control.
The problem is there's no way we can know if it's truly an open or closed system because a closed system would have programming in place to create the idea of an open system. Occam's razor would then apply: a closed system is in fact the more reasonable conclusion.
So if you want to go with the idea of a computer simulated reality, you have to concede there is at least the possibility that there is absolutely no free will, that you have no real choices, that your choices are actually simply subsets of an existing program, that those choices will be reflected and replayed generation after generation until the simulation ceases to exist. We can have no real knowledge of anything that exists outside of the simulation because knowledge, consciousness, is merely a result of a program. We can't even really know with any certainty that we know the program completely.
In effect, if you concede the idea of a matrix type reality? You have to also concede that what is possible to actually know is very limited.
I'm not so convinced it's a closed system though. I'm also not convinced it's a computer simulation. I'm more likely to believe that the de jour theory of existence is simply a rehash of long-held beliefs seen through a lens of materialism. The last video where we are asked to see tree stumps and mining in natural landscapes is a really good example of what I'm trying to say above: you can, if you want to, see anything you want anywhere you want if you don't permit yourself the common sense and thoughtful approach to problems we all have.
Unless, you choose to believe this is a simulation: in which case, nothing you do or think is your own, or in your control. And thinking otherwise is simply a subset of a program you're a part of.
More coming.
Much of this comes back to the idea of our existence being that which is within a matrix, a creation which we were placed within that in some way is run or managed by a force, and possibly micro-managed at greater and greater levels within that matrix. We're returning to the idea of the universe being a very complicated computer simulation of which we are a part, that our minds are somehow connected to it. I want to look at a couple of things about this theory that I think are significantly crucial to understanding the validity of the theory. I'll probably do it in a couple of posts so there's not anything huge and hard to read. Bite size.
The first thing that needs to be determined in defining this computer simulation is to ascertain if the simulation is open or closed. What I mean is that if the simulation is open, beings can pass in and out of it (namely, a mind, or a physical/energy being) as opposed to a simulation in which beings have been placed in the system and it has been closed, or the simulation is actually open so that outside beings can interact with beings within the system, and vice versa.
This is important to ascertain because if it's a closed system in which we are enclosed as physical/energy beings, there's nothing we can do to exit the system or it's program. Which means, anything that comes up (including discovering that we are in the system and it's actually a simulation) have contingencies, or are part of the program. Every behavior, idea, action, reaction is covered by the program and we basically have no free will. This means that the alt community is as much a slave of the program as the non-alt community. You might think you're breaking free (think the movie "The Matrix") but in reality, you're simply participating in a subset program which fools you into thinking you're in control, or really aware, when in reality you're not, and you can never be. The other down side to a closed system is that the rules are written and they can't be broken from inside or outside the system. The only thing that can change the rules would be to destroy the system completely and start again, re-writing the rules. Which isn't very practical unless it's a computer program: in which case, you dear reader are nothing but a collection of rules that act and react according to the system, and you have no real significant meaning except as a "bit" of information. Pretty depressing huh?
Or it could be a system/simulation that is open in which case, there's a chance that you're more than just a bit of information. An open system has the advantage of being able to escape, to be able to comprehend other dimensions, other beings. It has the advantage of being able to awaken, realize a greater potential, and a chance to make differences or take control.
The problem is there's no way we can know if it's truly an open or closed system because a closed system would have programming in place to create the idea of an open system. Occam's razor would then apply: a closed system is in fact the more reasonable conclusion.
So if you want to go with the idea of a computer simulated reality, you have to concede there is at least the possibility that there is absolutely no free will, that you have no real choices, that your choices are actually simply subsets of an existing program, that those choices will be reflected and replayed generation after generation until the simulation ceases to exist. We can have no real knowledge of anything that exists outside of the simulation because knowledge, consciousness, is merely a result of a program. We can't even really know with any certainty that we know the program completely.
In effect, if you concede the idea of a matrix type reality? You have to also concede that what is possible to actually know is very limited.
I'm not so convinced it's a closed system though. I'm also not convinced it's a computer simulation. I'm more likely to believe that the de jour theory of existence is simply a rehash of long-held beliefs seen through a lens of materialism. The last video where we are asked to see tree stumps and mining in natural landscapes is a really good example of what I'm trying to say above: you can, if you want to, see anything you want anywhere you want if you don't permit yourself the common sense and thoughtful approach to problems we all have.
Unless, you choose to believe this is a simulation: in which case, nothing you do or think is your own, or in your control. And thinking otherwise is simply a subset of a program you're a part of.
More coming.
