Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec...x#.UpNIuiePyzJ
DUDE...... this is pretty cool of them to do
"In the 1999 sci-fi film classic The Matrix, the protagonist, Neo, is stunned to see people defying the laws of physics, running up walls and vanishing suddenly. These superhuman violations of the rules of the universe are possible because, unbeknownst to him, Neo’s consciousness is embedded in the Matrix, a virtual-reality simulation created by sentient machines.
The action really begins when Neo is given a fateful choice: Take the blue pill and return to his oblivious, virtual existence, or take the red pill to learn the truth about the Matrix and find out “how deep the rabbit hole goes.”
Physicists can now offer us the same choice, the ability to test whether we live in our own virtual Matrix, by studying radiation from space. As fanciful as it sounds, some philosophers have long argued that we’re actually more likely to be artificial intelligences trapped in a fake universe than we are organic minds in the “real” one.
But if that were true, the very laws of physics that allow us to devise such reality-checking technology may have little to do with the fundamental rules that govern the meta-universe inhabited by our simulators. To us, these programmers would be gods, able to twist reality on a whim.
So should we say yes to the offer to take the red pill and learn the truth — or are the implications too disturbing?
Worlds in Our Grasp
The first serious attempt to find the truth about our universe came in 2001, when an effort to calculate the resources needed for a universe-size simulation made the prospect seem impossible.
Seth Lloyd, a quantum-mechanical engineer at MIT, estimated the number of “computer operations” our universe has performed since the Big Bang — basically, every event that has ever happened. To repeat them, and generate a perfect facsimile of reality down to the last atom, would take more energy than the universe has.
“The computer would have to be bigger than the universe, and time would tick more slowly in the program than in reality,” says Lloyd. “So why even bother building it?”
But others soon realized that making an imperfect copy of the universe that’s just good enough to fool its inhabitants would take far less computational power. In such a makeshift cosmos, the fine details of the microscopic world and the farthest stars might only be filled in by the programmers on the rare occasions that people study them with scientific equipment. As soon as no one was looking, they’d simply vanish.
In theory, we’d never detect these disappearing features, however, because each time the simulators noticed we were observing them again, they’d sketch them back in.
That realization makes creating virtual universes eerily possible, even for us. Today’s supercomputers already crudely model the early universe, simulating how infant galaxies grew and changed. Given the rapid technological advances we’ve witnessed over past decades — your cell phone has more processing power than NASA’s computers had during the moon landings — it’s not a huge leap to imagine that such simulations will eventually encompass intelligent life.
“We may be able to fit humans into our simulation boxes within a century,” says Silas Beane, a nuclear physicist at the University of Washington in Seattle. Beane develops simulations that re-create how elementary protons and neutrons joined together to form ever larger atoms in our young universe.
Legislation and social mores could soon be all that keeps us from creating a universe of artificial, but still feeling, humans — but our tech-savvy descendants may find the power to play God too tempting to resist.
If cosmic rays don't have random origins, it could be a sign that the universe is a simulation.
They could create a plethora of pet universes, vastly outnumbering the real cosmos. This thought led philosopher Nick Bostrom at the University of Oxford to conclude in 2003 that it makes more sense to bet that we’re delusional silicon-based artificial intelligences in one of these many forgeries, rather than carbon-based organisms in the genuine universe. Since there seemed no way to tell the difference between the two possibilities, however, bookmakers did not have to lose sleep working out the precise odds.
Learning the Truth
That changed in 2007 when John D. Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge University, suggested that an imperfect simulation of reality would contain detectable glitches. Just like your computer, the universe’s operating system would need updates to keep working.
As the simulation degrades, Barrow suggested, we might see aspects of nature that are supposed to be static — such as the speed of light or the fine-structure constant that describes the strength of the electromagnetic force — inexplicably drift from their “constant” values.
Last year, Beane and colleagues suggested a more concrete test of the simulation hypothesis. Most physicists assume that space is smooth and extends out infinitely. But physicists modeling the early universe cannot easily re-create a perfectly smooth background to house their atoms, stars and galaxies. Instead, they build up their simulated space from a lattice, or grid, just as television images are made up from multiple pixels.
The team calculated that the motion of particles within their simulation, and thus their energy, is related to the distance between the points of the lattice: the smaller the grid size, the higher the energy particles can have. That means that if our universe is a simulation, we’ll observe a maximum energy amount for the fastest particles. And as it happens, astronomers have noticed that cosmic rays, high-speed particles that originate in far-flung galaxies, always arrive at Earth with a specific maximum energy of about 1020 electron volts.
The simulation’s lattice has another observable effect that astronomers could pick up. If space is continuous, then there is no underlying grid that guides the direction of cosmic rays — they should come in from every direction equally. If we live in a simulation based on a lattice, however, the team has calculated that we wouldn’t see this even distribution. If physicists do see an uneven distribution, it would be a tough result to explain if the cosmos were real.
Astronomers need much more cosmic ray data to answer this one way or another. For Beane, either outcome would be fine. “Learning we live in a simulation would make no more difference to my life than believing that the universe was seeded at the Big Bang,” he says. But that’s because Beane imagines the simulators as driven purely to understand the cosmos, with no desire to interfere with their simulations.
Unfortunately, our almighty simulators may instead have programmed us into a universe-size reality show — and are capable of manipulating the rules of the game, purely for their entertainment. In that case, maybe our best strategy is to lead lives that amuse our audience, in the hope that our simulator-gods will resurrect us in the afterlife of next-generation simulations.
The weird consequences would not end there. Our simulators may be simulations themselves — just one rabbit hole within a linked series, each with different fundamental physical laws. “If we’re indeed a simulation, then that would be a logical possibility, that what we’re measuring aren’t really the laws of nature, they’re some sort of attempt at some sort of artificial law that the simulators have come up with. That’s a depressing thought!” says Beane.
This cosmic ray test may help reveal whether we are just lines of code in an artificial Matrix, where the established rules of physics may be bent, or even broken. But if learning that truth means accepting that you may never know for sure what’s real — including yourself — would you want to know?
There is no turning back, Neo: Do you take the blue pill, or the red pill?
The Matrix Revealed
Tantalizingly, just weeks before The Matrix came out in 1999, astronomers analyzing the light from distant galaxies published hints that the universe’s “constants” might not be so constant. Specifically, they found that the value of the fine-structure constant — which determines how the galaxies’ light should appear — is one thousandth of a percent bigger today than it was 10 billion years ago.
Glitches caused by our simulation being patched up could also be at the root of truly bizarre results that defy the normal rules of physics. One such possible effect appeared in 2011, when physicists working on the OPERA experiment in Europe made headlines as they claimed to have measured subatomic particles called neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light, considered the universal speed limit.
Unfortunately, neither case proved a slam-dunk for a virtual universe. Independent tests could not back up the fine-structure constant data, and the speedy neutrinos turned out to be due to a faulty experimental setup. But there is a more fantastical explanation: These inconstant-constants may have instead been simulation glitches, glimpsed just before our programmers fixed them."
I am unsure if it is okay to paste the article here. It is on the internet for anyone to see, I have provided the link, and it is posted here for purposes of learning, teaching and discussing. I have seen others do it? If it is bad, let me know please.
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
Quote:
I am unsure if it is okay to paste the article here. It is on the internet for anyone to see, I have provided the link, and it is posted here for purposes of learning, teaching and discussing. I have seen others do it? If it is bad, let me know please.
Shouldn't be a problem karika.Interesting article and thanks for posting it
cheers
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
Just to put some more interesting kindling onto this discussion:
http://secondlife.com
I've been "playing" in this virtual world for about 7-8 years. Here's what I can tell you from my own experience.
People only tend to notice what's important to them. If someone invades their space, if someone wants to take part in what they're doing...in a way it's a very selfish place, in another way it's just a magnification of real life interaction. And it's a great opportunity to ask, as I've been thinking about this, what role do virtual worlds like Second Life play in the "NWO" enterprise?
I think virtual worlds that exist today, like Second Life, can maybe shed some insight into this question.
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
The answer is we do live in a Matrix. But I don't know how the matrix works, e.g. if our higher self is "in" our body, or somewhere else like sitting above us, directing our life like a puppeteer.
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
I was reading this again when I noticed this- "Instead, they build up their simulated space from a lattice, or grid, just as television images are made up from multiple pixels." I see the sparklies others have described back in the indigo forum days. Some speculate the sparklies are chemtrail fallout, but I always thought of it as being able to see the grid, although what the grid was or why I could see it I had no idea. Someone showed me a gif once that really captured it, the background was blue, but I guess I forgot to downlod it. Here is n rticle tht sys it is from chemtrils. my keys r sticking again http://www.arizonaskywatch.com/artic...s_and_webs.htm
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
We do live in a matrix of sorts , our government/ the system tells us we are free , and have free speech but , we all saw what they did to the occupy movement ... They say work hard and you can go up the ladder , then you find out unless you have a half a million dollars or a connected relative , the only place you are going is back to the un-employement line , they tell us we now have free healthcare but , the website doesn't work and people are losing their coverage and their cost are triple ... they try and sell one reality , then we learn the truth is different from what their world is ... hell they create fake money everyday ...
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
Of course we live in a matrix, but I think it is retardedly simplistic to try to even compare it to our modern day concept of computerization. We are probably 'light years' away from how the real model works. Dr James Gates mathematical calculations which he says expose the possibility of codes similar to self checking programs in communication protocols is probably the most dramatic indication of this... that is, it is almost like we have found an "exposed panel removed from the 'holodeck' (if I may venture a crude metaphor...) But it is one of the most dramatic examples I think of people who may be in fact referencing Nag Hamadi interpretation... whether consciously or collectively unconsciously... (in one sense they may in fact be considered one in the same!!!... lol... ) i.e. if the mind pursues one goal long enough and hard enough and seriously enough the truth will be revealed 'God willing'... and he certainly appears to be that, a worthy and sincere scientist...
The idea they have discovered a 1000th of a percent difference from what was 10 billions years ago???? is by definition purely hypothetical in and of itself .... who's to say it's accurate... ? that sounds like poppycock to me...
And I still have a great deal of difficulty believing that the faster then light experiment was the result of faulty wiring... these discoveries may be so earth shattering you don't know who is telling the truth or who is lying... whether it is the Secret Society Cabal members death threat control threatening their funding or the universe itself playing cat and mouse... I have never sensed that 'mistake' to be accurate (i.e. I believe they really did stumble onto something and like Pons and Fleishman had to be put down for the sake of the Materialistic Universe Agenda. that is just my sense... same with the Boson deal... just another farce... even a misdirection... some candy for the masses to show at least something for their 20 Billion dollars... quantum dimension = bad... physical particle = good (even if it's supposition is only theoretical to begin with!) and rather then admit they just flushed all that money down the toilet in untold kickbacks to who knows how many were in on it... which is what most multi billion dollar projects are these days to begin with, especially within Illuminati Secret Society controlled organizations which is what all Universities have exposed themselves to be. Scientific when it suits them, Political propagandists when it doesn't... (they will forever have my undying disrespect...)
by comparison Nassim Haramein at 1000 of a percent of the money they have spent (to use a phrase...) has come up with a complete model that integrates fractals, sacred geometry, infinity, black holes, relativity, gravity, curved space, etc etc, into one perfect, elegant and unbelievably coherent model.... and these Illuminati controlled monkeys wearing white lab coats pretending to calculate whether the universe is inside a Bill Gateseon computer... is laughable... the idea when they look at something it becomes an online program is a cheap rip off of an already existing interpretation of the relationship brought up in Quantum physics...
It just goes to show, once you have shoved your head into the Darwinist interpretation, cognitive dissonance forces you to think irrationally by definition. It explicitly tell it's adherents to do so... and what do they come up with? A rip off of quantum physics consciousness vs observation theory... wrapped up in overly literal computer simulation interpretation.... talk about guilding the lily... give me a break.... Ivory tower miscreants... as any of them will tell you if you can't get a grant for it it, IT DOESN'T EXIST IN THEIR UNIVERSE...!!!!
they are scratching the surface in their egocentric self aggrandizing way, and it is nice to see them moving in the right direction for a change... but I think the answer was already solved several thousand years ago by the authors of the Nag Hamadi... who employed teams of "remote viewers" to search for these questions.... they used teams of 16, to double check their results, i.e. if they were all individually getting the same answers during their meditative sojourns, then that was what became recorded....
And the story is clear, there are higher life forms living in the center of the galaxy where the energy is more concentrated and always plasma, and they were experimenting creating 'worlds' (and still are) and earth was in fact a rare and unique experiment. And they did create a template of what a sentient being is (confirmed by Disclosure Project, ie. two arms two legs, etc... ) And the Earth is unique, not the center of the Universe but unique because it is organic and contains the spirit of Gaia (however that is interpreted...) It is a living sentient being... which strangely is the also the cultural mythos story of many primitive tribes and cultures (which also employed Shamanistic practices...) It was both intentional and accidental. Because of Sophia's (one of these 'gods') over whelming sense of involvement mistake of stepping outside of the inner core into the more "physical" realm of the spiral arms... (like how would they know about all this stuff otherwise 5000 years ago???)
Although it sounds fantastic... it does seem apparent that everyone from George Lucas and probably the Wachowski Brothers have been borrowing from it to create their storylines... because it's all there... And according to John Lamb Lash, it accounts for and explains and has consistency with many modern scientific principles and breakthroughs, far too many to be just another story of fiction... created from fantasies thousands of years ago... It certainly makes more sense then the Roman Pizo/Flavian/Josephus Flavius construct cover-up propaganda version...
and the implications of that 'story' is much more profound ... it must in fact be a cosmic truth... that TRUTH truly is and always will be stranger then FICTION... which is why I feel sorry for anyone who actually still watches Television .... I mean I feel truly sorry for them... the epitome of self induced psychological purgatory if there ever was one...
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
Bravo sigma. A click of the "thank you" button is just not enough. Very concise and erudite.
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
Having tripped through the bramble of Sigma's post (and it was a good post), I've had a brain fart.
karika: you want to pick up a copy of "Meditations on First Philosophy" by Rene Descartes. It's a dead easy read. There might even be a copy of it online for free in pdf form. I've got the audio book, listen to it every 3 months or so.
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
Great article, thank you.
Quote:
Posted by
Jeffrey Sewell-Holloway
The voice in the video was that of Tom Campbell.
Tom Campbell began researching altered states of consciousness with Bob Monroe Journeys Out Of The Body, Far Journeys, and The Ultimate Journey) at Monroe Laboratories in the early 1970s where he and a few others were instrumental in getting Monroe’s laboratory for the study of consciousness up and running. These early drug-free consciousness pioneers helped design experiments, developed the technology for creating specific altered states, and were the main subjects of study (guinea pigs) all at the same time. Campbell has been experimenting with, and exploring the subjective and objective mind ever since. For the past thirty years, Campbell has been focused on scientifically exploring the properties, boundaries, and abilities of consciousness.
During that same time period, he has excelled as a working scientist, a professional physicist dedicated to pushing back the frontiers of cutting edge technology, large-system simulation, technology development and integration, and complex system vulnerability and risk analysis. Presently, and for the past 20 years, he has been at the heart of developing US missile defense systems.
Source: http://www.transcend.ws/tom-campbell...ed-simulation/
In the video below, theoretical physicist Dr. Sylvester James Gates speaks about the computer-like codes discovered deep within equations used to describe the nature of our reality (if anything, at least watch this video).
[...]
¤=[Post Update]=¤
Also, here is trans-humanist proponent Nick Bostrom explaining the simulation argument.
[/COLOR]
See also:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1957777.html
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/811428/thu...IX-large.jpg?7
Quote:
Posted by
Vivek
Thanks be to Rahkyt -- :p -- for posting this.
Quote:
Posted by
Rahkyt
More Saturn stuff. I've looked at them all and they are relevant.
First a vid series about Saturn as a "spiritual-numerical entity". A super-computer.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4A9n14uvsYo
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2...n-and-666.html
Excerpt:
Quote:
“The ancient name of Saturn was, as mentioned, EL. It is the reason why those that were chosen by EL, were called Elites. In fact the words, Elect, Elder, Elevated, Elohim, Temple, Circle, Gospel, Apostle, Disciple, Evangelists, etc., all derive from the Cult of EL. Angels are messengers of god. But god was EL, which is why we have the names of the Archangels bearing the ‘el,’ suffix - Raphael, Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, etc,.” -Michael Tsarion, “Astrotheology and Sidereal Mythology”
http://illuminatiwatcher.com/?p=4673
Excerpt:
Quote:
David Talbot’s book ‘Saturn Myth’ explains that during the cataclysm of Saturn, there was a luminous crescent around what we saw as our sun at the time. This crescent/disk combination of the sun is where we get the horned goddess symbolism. Troy McLachlan details a similar story on his website. Icke relates this crescent and disk to the explanation for several corporate logos (e.g. Nike swoosh) and ancient depictions.
Ba’al aka Moloch is also symbolized as a bull with Saturn in middle of its crescent shaped horns. The horns create a ‘U’ type shape which is supposedly the crescent seen during the Saturn cataclysm. Moloch is another symbol of Saturn and the bull is found all over the place if you look. The infamous devil horns are simply a recreation of the evil forces of Saturn. The political leaders we see making the ‘rockstar’ devil horns is supposedly a subtle message of symbolism to one another.
I'm a big fan of Kubrick (RIP) so I'm including this one:
http://saturndeathcult.com/crimes-of...rn-death-cult/
Excerpt:
Quote:
During a March 6, 2011 interview on Red Ice Radio, Weidner asserted that Kubrick had originally wanted to set the story’s monolith on the planet Saturn as it is written in the Arthur C. Clarke novel of the same name and not on Jupiter as it appears in Kubrick’s film. However, the special effects team apparently could not replicate Saturn’s rings well enough and Jupiter was substituted into the plot.
Weidner doesn’t buy this. He believes Kubrick was pressured to make the changes by highly placed occultists worried that the film was too blatant in its depiction of the role played by Saturn in their occult human transmutation agenda. However, from the perspective of this website’s core theme there are enough eerily familiar images in 2001: A Space Odyssey to suggest that Kubrick did in fact get ‘Saturn’ into his film.
I'll end with this short video of Phillip K. Dick, back in 1977. Timelines, the Matrix as Computer Simulation, etc.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FkjdlkCtdrI
The evidence is out there and people know about it. Putting it together in the context of ultradimensional control is the last step in understanding the way to total freedom from control.
[...]
Excerpts from, QUANTUM BIOHOLOGRAPHY
What is DNA; where did it come from; how does it function to create life, to create us?
We have some of the biochemical answers, but we can look deeper into biophysics for our models. We propose that DNA functions in a way that correlates with holographic projection. DNA projects a blueprint for the organism that is translated from the electrodynamic to the molecular level. Further, research strongly suggests DNA functions as a biocomputer. This DNA-wave biocomputer reads and writes genetic code and forms holographic pre-images of biostructures. We are more fundamentally electromagnetic, rather than chemical beings.
[...]
Within this context, some physicists (Miller, 1975; Bohm, 1980) have strongly suggested that the nature of reality is fundamentally analogous to that of a holographic projection. The optical process called holography uses interference patterns. Holography describes transformations of light and optical information mathematically in wave mechanical terms. The superposition of a split beam of laser light led to the laboratory development of holograms, or recordable holographic images demonstrated by Dennis Gabor beginning in 1949. In 1971, Karl Pribram applied this metaphor to neuropsychology, suggesting it was more than analogy, that the brain actually encodes information as holograms. The pattern holds the form.
Holograms contain all the information needed to reconstruct a whole image. Holograms contain many dimensions of information in far less space, like a compressed file. They hold that information in a subtle network of interacting frequencies. Thus, shining a coherent light (reference beam) or laser through the fuzzy-looking overlapping waves of a 2-dimensional hologram can create a virtual image of a 3-dimensional figure.
[...]
In this dynamic model there are no “things”, just energetic events. This “holoflux” includes the ultimately flowing nature of what is, and all possible forms. All the objects of our world are three-dimensional images formed of standing and moving waves by electromagnetic and nuclear processes. This is the guiding matrix for self-assembly, and manipulating and organizing physical reality.
[...]
Our brains mathematically construct ‘concrete’ reality by interpreting frequencies from another dimension. This information realm of meaningful, patterned primary reality transcends time and space. Thus, the brain is an embedded hologram, interpreting a holographic universe. All existence consists of embedded holograms within holograms and their inter-relatedness somehow gives rise to our existence and sensory images.
[...]
The universe is a continuously evolving, interactively dynamic hologram.
Source: http://biophysics.50megs.com/custom4.html
See also: Dr. Peter Gariaev - DNA BioComputer Reprogramming
Re: Do We Live In the Matrix- Discover Magazine
