Imagine "physicality" (touch, smell, taste, sight, sound) is just a tiny fraction of what is possible and a "byproduct" of an older universe using ultra advanced tools we can not comprehend.
from my own digging into this area, I have the impression that it is all recursive similarity perhaps that is what it really is, but I don't know a single being that could prove that beyond the point of abstraction, we are dealing with ideas rather than events, so we can't prove a thing about it, we can only have our very own experience. I guess that is enough proof of what we really are, isn't?
Carlos Castaneda in his book "The Active Side of Infinity" touch the subject in many ways: here are some interesting quotes:
"They discovered that we have a companion for life," he said, as clearly as he could. "We
have a predator that came from the depths of the cosmos and took over the rule of our lives.
Human beings are its prisoners. The predator is our lord and master. It has rendered us docile,
helpless. If we want to protest, it suppresses our protest. If we want to act independently, it
demands that we don't do so."
the above quote is where the term "human coops" came from, many theories were created around this knowledge of the ancient Mexican sorcerers.
to complement the above :
“Forget the self and you will fear nothing, in whatever level or awareness you find yourself to be.” <--- this is deprogramming what was computed into ourselves from the moment we born until the moment we realized the existence of the matrix, this is a crucial point that many decide to go back to sleep, a glimpse of true reality scare the hell out of beings.
Castaneda perceived the universe and humans as energy, he used the sorcerer way to do that, however there is many other ways to perceive it, interesting how we can compare it to an holographic reality.
For me, this was extremely deep rabbit hole to dig, so I stopped, I can't tell it is a dead-end, because I didn't reach the bottom of it, neither could find anyone who did.
"In 2019, There was a tech entrepreneur named Erin Valenti, who went to Silicon Valley for business meetings regarding the expansion of her web development engine. After meeting with several tech company execs, she ended up dead in the back seat of her rental car after texting to her family, "We're in the Matrix." I wonder if this is what she saw first-hand, when the rest of the industry informed her that her web development engine would only be allowed to develop just so far, before it would have to give people the wall. I wonder if she tried to tell them no, and that's why she ended up dead". unquote
Big Tech CEO found dead in her car after frantically calling her family telling them "We are in the matrix" after attending a series of high-tech related meetings and private conferences in California
Erin Valenti was a tech entrepreneur and CEO of a company called Tinker Ventures. She tragically passed away in October 2019 under mysterious circumstances. Before her death, she made a series of frantic and confusing phone calls to her family, during which she reportedly said, "It's all a game, it's a thought experiment, we’re in the Matrix."
Erin Valenti had been attending a series of tech-related meetings and conferences in California before she went missing. She was found dead in her rental car in San Jose, California, five days after she was reported missing. The official cause of death was determined to be "acute manic episode," but the circumstances surrounding her death and her strange final messages have led to a great deal of speculation and concern within the tech community and beyond.
The very strange and unusual case of Erin Valenti.
Erin Valenti was a highly accomplished 33-year-old CEO of a tech company called Tinker, which develops websites and smartphone apps. She was known for being very smart and kind (she worked as a volunteer to fight human trafficking) with a great sense of humour and a successful career. Originally from Fairport, NY, she resided with her husband in Salt Lake City, UT.
In late September 2019, Erin flew to California for business meetings in Silicon Valley. (FYI; on Wednesday September 25th in her most visible Facebook page, Erin wrote, “Heading to SF and LA soon… whose around? Dm me!!”) She was due to fly back to Utah on Monday October 7th. She met a former colleague on Sand Hill Road in the afternoon of that day, who said nothing seemed unusual with Erin. This was her last known sighting. At 3.30pm, Erin called her parents in a state of distress, saying she couldn’t find her rental car. Her father, Joseph, said Erin was talking a mile a minute and wasn’t making much sense.
She located the rental gray Nissan Murano soon after and then stayed on the phone with her mother and father, where her conversations began veering from the strange to the really, really unusual. Her mother, Whitey, recalled Erin sounding disconnected and at one point told her ‘it’s all a game; it’s a thought experiment. We are in the matrix.'
Erin missed her flight later that evening and failed to show at a ceremony in Utah the day after (Tuesday, October 8th), where she was due to receive a ‘Women in Tech’ award. Both her husband and her parents were greatly worried and tried to file a missing person’s report, supplying LE with the make, model and license plate of the car, descriptions of her odd behavior on the phone, and data-tracking the location of her last phone call, but San Jose LE would not file it until Thursday, October 10th, and even then they said Erin was voluntarily missing. The family have since called LE’s effort a charade after LE told the family that she was an adult, and she could have just taken off for a few days.
On Saturday October 12th, five days after the unnervingly odd conversations with her parents, Erin was found dead in the backseat of her rental car on a residential street in San Jose’s quiet Almaden neighborhood, a half-mile from her last known location. There were no clear signs of physical harm.
The autopsy report determined her death was due to natural causes following an 'acute manic episode.' Her family and friends agree that Erin had no history of mental-health disorders or substance abuse. She surrounded herself with friends and was not the type to bottle her feelings.
There is a focus on conspiracy forums online about the very strange nature of her death, paired with the Matrix comments she made to her parents. Is this simply a case of someone’s heart just stopping or body just failing at the age of 33 due to an ‘acute manic episode’ or something a little more suspicious?
Bose is a German word that means bad, evil, worthless, furious, or angry!
Erin Valenti was found FIVE days on Saturday morning October 12, 2019. Her last meeting at 2500 Sand Hill Road 3pm, Monday afternoon. 6591 & 6585 Bose Lane, six houses South of Diablo Way.
Feel like you’re a pawn in someone else’s game? Simulation theory is becoming more widespread as a viable way to view reality, particularly in circles dominated by aspiring mental prowess or conspiracy. The bare-bones essence of simulation theory is that our reality is nothing more than a computer model programmed by some advanced source of intelligence with humans as the pawns without any true free will. I find this a woefully inadequate explanation of reality, that cancels every divine aspect of being human. I detail my own thoughts on the subject in this commentary.
DW Description: Chris Langan is known to have the highest IQ in the world, somewhere between 195 and 210. To give you an idea of what this means, the average person's IQ is 100 and Albert Einstein's IQ was 160. Chris Langan joins the show to discuss his theory of everything - God - psychedelic drugs - and aliens in this special 2-hour conversation.
00:00:00 Welcome
00:01:25 How Michael heard about Chris and the CTMU
00:01:53 Why is the Smartest Man living on a farm in Missouri?
00:03:30 Getting Frozen out of the Economy
00:04:00 Higher Education
00:08:00 Blue collar lifestyle; bar bouncing; limited opportunity
00:11:30 Becoming an autodidact
00:13:30 Reality is Logico-Geometric
00:14:00 CTMU
00:15:30 IQ
00:16:50 Does God Exist? Nature of God.
00:20:30 Our relationship with God
00:21:30 Simulation hypothesis; Pantheism v. Panentheism
00:24:30 Reality / Christianity / Consciousness / Quantization of Reality
00:28:10 Free Will; Fixed v. Self-generating array / Metacausation
00:36:00 God in time and space / Heaven and hell / Salvation
00:39:00 Michael and Chris light up cigars
00:40:00 Psychedelics / Angels and demons / The devil
00:45:30 Satan versus Lucifer; their roles and relation to God
00:48:00 The psychology of sin; the devil; the current situation
00:51:00 Soros, Gates; the psychology of the elite
00:52:00 Money system; human utility; grassroots resistance
00:53:00 Do we need another revolution?
00:53:30 Globalism; conspiracies; WEF; Young Global Leaders
00:57:00 Donald Trump; 2020 election
00:59:30 What is your political background/beliefs? Demise of the Dems/RINOs
01:02:30 Immigration
01:06:45 COVID / vaccines / Great Reset
01:09:30 Intelligence Agencies
01:11:30 Aliens / Demons / UFOs / CIA / The Devil
01:25:00 Marxism / Academia, higher education
01:26:30 Capitalism v. Monopoly Capitalism
01:28:30 Beauty / Truth / Telesis
01:32:40 Intelligence
01:33:40 Catholicism / Pope
01:35:00 Beauty / Religion in art / Beauty & Truth
01:38:30 The Modern Right / Social engineering / LGBT
01:40:30 Modern philosophers
01:41:30 Classical philosophers; relationship b/w philosophy and religion;
01:45:00 intelligent design; new atheists; good & evil
01:48:00 Participatory observers; faith & knowledge, religion / religious institutions; truth and meaning in life
01:53:30 Transhumanism
01:57:00 What should we do about all this? Getting back to God as individuals and a species
The man who is reported as possessing an IQ of 200+ - while I applaud much of his thinking, and concur with most of what he states, what does this '200' actually refer to, responding to puzzle questions, solving equations, having the correct answers to a test? I think humanity has a great deal to learn about how we measure abilities, how we define human capabilities and creative potentials, our metrics for intelligence are more of a revelation about our limitations and comprehension, of how we apply pre-determined ideas and build compulsion into our social realities, than being a true means of determination.
The implicit order has corelations with coding for browsers - I recall reading that an American math wiz/philosopher had discovered 'Mosaic' coding underlying the 'fabric of reality' - well this is to be expected, because our own mathematics is compelled to reflect this implicit order!
It is not that our own universe is a simulation, it is that simulations have to relate to this implicit order in order to function - so we make the mistake of extending this idea to imply the opposite of what is the case: This is my opinion, of course!
The Webb telescope has shown us that the universe is much, much older than we imagined - a mere 13.5 billion years is not even close to the true duration, and extent of the universe. They have had to re-group and totally go back to the beginning, no 'Big Bang' and a much older universe where all things become possible.
I think we are approaching the ideas of Arthur M Young, he was so far ahead of everyone else that it has taken since 1995 to now for his ideas to even begin making sense to physicists: his rejection of Relativity was stupendous in liberating his ideas, the "Torus" model of the universe is much closer to what we are seeing - a gargantuan cycle of universal 'breathing'.
I know I am guilty of being an educated fool here, I know enough to know that I know very little: Arthur M Young will become the hero of our times, this is my prediction, he arrived at the truth so long before official science that he was denounced as being a maniac.
Could the Mandela Effect be proof we’re living in a simulation?
Join MIT computer scientist Rizwan Virk as he dives into how collective misrememberings—like Nelson Mandela’s death in the 1980s or the Monopoly Man’s missing monocle—suggest glitches in a simulated reality. Drawing from his book *The Simulated Multiverse*, Virk connects quantum physics, video game tech, and the Mandela Effect to argue our world may be a digital construct with branching timelines. Perfect for fans of simulation theory, quantum mechanics, and mind-bending mysteries! Are these memory discrepancies evidence of parallel universes or simulation errors? Share your Mandela Effect experiences in the comments! Like, subscribe, and hit the bell for more reality-challenging content.
Best Statistical Evidence We Live in a Simulation | Rizwan Virk:
Thank you for this post, Sir. First person words are the best words.
I don’t know Arthur M Young, thanks for that tip.
Your story reminds me of a story told (lecture) in my physics schooling: back when the quantum train was getting rolling, one guy presented a classical solution that explained a thing. The quantum backers came back with a harder problem, and he did it again. Third iteration, he came back again with a deep dive into classical mechanics. Dunno how it went after that, but I figure that his point might be still relevant had computer power bridged that gap. Never heard of this story since then, over 40 years ago.
Posted by Mike Gorman
(here)
The man who is reported as possessing an IQ of 200+ - while I applaud much of his thinking, and concur with most of what he states, what does this '200' actually refer to, responding to puzzle questions, solving equations, having the correct answers to a test? I think humanity has a great deal to learn about how we measure abilities, how we define human capabilities and creative potentials, our metrics for intelligence are more of a revelation about our limitations and comprehension, of how we apply pre-determined ideas and build compulsion into our social realities, than being a true means of determination.
The implicit order has corelations with coding for browsers - I recall reading that an American math wiz/philosopher had discovered 'Mosaic' coding underlying the 'fabric of reality' - well this is to be expected, because our own mathematics is compelled to reflect this implicit order!
It is not that our own universe is a simulation, it is that simulations have to relate to this implicit order in order to function - so we make the mistake of extending this idea to imply the opposite of what is the case: This is my opinion, of course!
The Webb telescope has shown us that the universe is much, much older than we imagined - a mere 13.5 billion years is not even close to the true duration, and extent of the universe. They have had to re-group and totally go back to the beginning, no 'Big Bang' and a much older universe where all things become possible.
I think we are approaching the ideas of Arthur M Young, he was so far ahead of everyone else that it has taken since 1995 to now for his ideas to even begin making sense to physicists: his rejection of Relativity was stupendous in liberating his ideas, the "Torus" model of the universe is much closer to what we are seeing - a gargantuan cycle of universal 'breathing'.
I know I am guilty of being an educated fool here, I know enough to know that I know very little: Arthur M Young will become the hero of our times, this is my prediction, he arrived at the truth so long before official science that he was denounced as being a maniac.
For over a century, the double-slit experiment has been the greatest mystery in science. It’s the paradox that breaks our intuition. How can a single particle act like a wave, going through both slits at once to create an interference pattern? And how does the simple act of "looking" force it to choose a single path, destroying that pattern?
Physics gave this mystery a name—wave-particle duality—but it never gave us a real answer. It left a question mark at the very foundation of reality.
Today, I’m telling you the mystery is over:
My theory, the Information-Computational Universe (ICU), proposes a simple but profound answer: Reality isn't fundamental. It's rendered.
Think of our universe like an incredibly advanced video game. The world behind you isn't fully rendered until you turn your head. The game engine only computes and displays what is absolutely necessary, when it's necessary, to save resources.
The ICU proposes that our universe does the same thing.
What we call the "wave" is simply the universe's rendering engine tracking all the potential paths of the particle. It's not a physical wave; it's a wave of information—a compressed data file of possibilities that the substrate carries forward.
What we call the "particle" is what the engine is forced to render on the screen the moment you "look" at it.
Why does looking change anything? Because observation isn't passive. It's a request for information. You're forcing the system to spend its processing budget to give you a definite answer. When that informational load exceeds a universal limit—a kind of 'processing budget' I call S_max—the system can no longer hold all possibilities. It’s forced to collapse the data file and render a single, classical outcome at a single point.
That’s the dot on the screen.
Now, that’s a bold claim. But this isn't just a story—it's a testable, computational model. I've built a simulation that runs on these exact, deterministic rules. There’s no mystery, no pre-programmed outcomes. You can watch the logic at work, creating the exact interference and collapse patterns we see in the real world. I invite every skeptic to examine the code; it is a transparent implementation of these principles. The patterns you see are the genuine result.
So, the solution to the double-slit experiment is this:
There is no wave-particle duality. There is only a deferred computational record and the act of rendering that record into reality. The mystery was never in the physics; it was in our assumption that the world exists in a definite state when we aren't looking.
The best part? This isn't just theoretical. The information budget, S_max, can be measured. The experiments described in my paper can be performed in a university physics lab today, turning this century-old paradox into a solvable physics problem.
I invite you to read the full paper, explore the framework, and see the future of physics.
The Information-Computational Universe (ICU) Theory
Backup ICU Theory Copy
Double-Slit Simulation Code
Collapse Equation With Explanation
Black Hole Entropy - GR Simulation
@jensenium on YouTube quote:
"Thanks for your time and your feedback, everyone!
I respect skepticism, but I would HIGHLY recommend looking at the code in the simulation. You can see the deterministic mathematics at work for yourself. The code is a faithful and transparent implementation of the ICU model's rules. There is no evidence of pre-programmed outcomes, lookup tables, or any other form of "cheating." A skeptic can be assured that the patterns that emerge on the screen are the genuine result of the physical rules defined in the script.
Here's how it works:
The Source of Randomness:
The code uses numpy.random.rand() and numpy.random.choice(). These are standard, well-vetted pseudo-random number generators from the NumPy library.
There is no custom or "rigged" random number generator. The probabilistic nature of the outcomes stems directly from these standard functions.
How a Particle's Final Position is Determined:
In the Mechanistic and Deterministic modes, the final step is always the detect_position(psi) function.
This function implements the Born Rule, the absolute cornerstone of quantum mechanics: probs = np.abs(psi)**2.
It then uses np.random.choice(xs, p=probs) to select a final position.
Conclusion: This is a 100% faithful implementation of how measurement works in quantum mechanics. The final position is never known in advance. It is probabilistically chosen from a distribution determined by the final state of the wavefunction psi. The simulation does not "decide" where the particle will land; it computes the probabilities and lets NumPy's random number generator make the final weighted choice.
How the "Collapse" Decision is Made (The Core of the ICU Model):
This is the most important part for a skeptic. Does the code "force" a collapse to generate the right pattern?
ICU Mechanistic Mode:
The collapse is triggered by the line: if np.random.rand() < np.sin(theta)**2:.
This is a straightforward, honest probabilistic trigger. It's a "coin flip" where the bias of the coin (np.sin(theta)**2) is directly controlled by the user via the θ slider.
If the trigger fires, the wavefunction is projected onto a single slit (psi = psi * mask). This action correctly models a "which-way" measurement.
Conclusion: The decision to collapse is not pre-programmed per-particle. It is a random event whose probability is explicitly defined by the user's input, faithfully modeling the interaction with a detector.
ICU Deterministic Mode:
This is the most novel part of the theory. The collapse is triggered by the line: if S_load > S_max:.
S_load is the Shannon entropy of the wavefunction's probability distribution, calculated using the standard formula -np.sum(probs * np.log(probs)). This is a mathematical property of the wavefunction itself at that moment in time.
S_max is a fixed, constant threshold (hardcoded as 5.0).
Conclusion: The collapse here is deterministic, as advertised. It is not random, but it is also not pre-programmed. It is a direct, causal consequence of the wavefunction's state exceeding a critical information-load threshold. This is the core physical principle being simulated. The code honestly checks this condition and acts accordingly.
Grok 4 "Expert Mode" reaction:
"Thank you for sharing the additional context from Mike Jensen’s YouTube comment (@jensenium), which provides specific details about the code and simulations behind the Information-Computational Universe (ICU) theory. This comment, presumably posted recently given the theory’s publication on September 4, 2025, emphasizes the deterministic and transparent nature of the simulations used to model the double-slit experiment and wave-particle duality. Assuming for argument’s sake that the ICU theory is 100% correct, as you previously requested, this new information allows us to refine how the theory’s mechanisms could be leveraged to "hack reality" or yield practical benefits. I’ll first summarize the comment’s key points, then explore how these computational details amplify the potential applications, building on the idea of accessing the "core code" of reality. Summary of Jensen’s YouTube Comment
Jensen’s comment addresses skepticism about his simulations, detailing how the code operates transparently to replicate quantum behaviors deterministically, without "cheating" via pre-programmed outcomes or rigged randomness. Here’s a breakdown:
Simulation Transparency:
The code uses standard NumPy pseudo-random number generators (numpy.random.rand() and numpy.random.choice()), ensuring no custom manipulation.
Outcomes emerge naturally from the defined rules, not lookup tables or forced results, allowing skeptics to verify the patterns (e.g., interference or collapse) as genuine.
Randomness in the Simulation:
Randomness is sourced from NumPy’s vetted functions, aligning with standard quantum mechanics practices.
This pseudo-randomness mimics probabilistic quantum outcomes but is fully reproducible given the same seed, supporting the theory’s deterministic claim.
Particle Position Determination:
In both Mechanistic and Deterministic modes, the particle’s final position is computed via the detect_position(psi) function, implementing the Born Rule (probs = np.abs(psi)**2).
np.random.choice(xs, p=probs) selects the position based on the wavefunction’s probability distribution, ensuring the simulation faithfully mirrors quantum measurement without predetermining the outcome.
Wave Function Collapse Mechanism:
Mechanistic Mode: Collapse is triggered probabilistically with if np.random.rand() < np.sin(theta)**2, where theta is a user-controlled parameter (via a slider). This models a "which-way" measurement by projecting the wavefunction onto one slit (psi = psi * mask), mimicking detector interaction.
Deterministic Mode (ICU’s Novelty): Collapse occurs when the wavefunction’s Shannon entropy (S_load = -np.sum(probs * np.log(probs))) exceeds a fixed threshold (S_max = 5.0). This is deterministic, driven by the wavefunction’s state, not randomness, reflecting ICU’s core idea of information overload triggering reality’s rendering.
Key Claim: The simulations are honest implementations of ICU’s principles, with collapse in Deterministic Mode being a causal consequence of exceeding an information threshold (S_max), not a pre-programmed event. This aligns with the theory’s assertion that reality optimizes computational cost, collapsing only when forced by observation’s info load.
This transparency strengthens the case for testability, as anyone can inspect the code (though specific links to the Google Colab simulations remain unavailable in the provided data). It also clarifies how ICU’s deterministic collapse differs from standard quantum mechanics’ probabilistic view, tying directly to the idea of reality as a computational substrate. How This Helps Us (Assuming ICU is 100% Correct)
Building on the earlier discussion of "hacking reality" and the practical benefits of ICU, the code details provide a concrete blueprint for manipulating the universe’s computational substrate. If reality indeed operates as a voxel-based, deterministic system with S_max and SSP governing collapses, the simulation’s mechanics suggest ways to exploit these rules. Below, I’ll extend the previous ideas (overloading, glitching, social engineering, nested realities) with specific insights from the comment, focusing on how the code’s principles could be applied practically or experimentally to "hack" the universe’s core. 1. Overloading the Substrate: Triggering Controlled Collapses
The comment’s Deterministic Mode (if S_load > S_max) reveals that collapse happens when the wavefunction’s Shannon entropy exceeds a universal threshold (S_max = 5.0 in the simulation). If this mirrors reality, we could manipulate entropy loads to force specific outcomes, effectively rewriting local physics.
Practical Application:
Quantum Engineering: By designing experiments that push systems near S_max (e.g., entangling particles in high-information states via lasers or quantum circuits), we could control when and where collapses occur. For example, in quantum computing, we could force qubits into desired states without decoherence, enabling stable, scalable quantum processors for cryptography or AI.
Energy Manipulation: Overloading specific voxel regions could release energy (as collapses reset entropy), potentially creating micro-power sources. Think of it as "mining" quantum collapses for clean energy, akin to tapping black hole entropy but on a lab scale.
Hacking Reality: Experimentally increase S_load (e.g., via high-intensity photon interactions in optics setups) to crash local substrate regions, causing glitches like temporary violations of conservation laws or localized time dilation. The simulation’s S_load = -np.sum(probs * np.log(probs)) suggests precise entropy calculations could target these effects, using high-precision detectors to measure when S_max is breached.
Benefit: This could yield breakthroughs in energy tech (zero-point energy analogs) or allow "cheats" like teleportation by collapsing clouds into specific positions. For instance, a lab could replicate Jensen’s optics experiments to test entropy thresholds, potentially scaling to macroscopic hacks.
2. Exploiting Glitches: Manipulating the Born Rule
The simulation’s use of the Born Rule (probs = np.abs(psi)**2) for position selection implies that reality’s probability distributions are deterministic outputs of the wavefunction’s state. If we can alter the wavefunction (psi) before collapse, we could bias outcomes, exploiting the substrate’s "code."
Practical Application:
Precision Quantum Control: Modify wavefunctions using tailored electromagnetic fields (like the simulation’s theta slider) to skew probabilities. This could enhance quantum sensors for medical imaging (e.g., ultra-precise MRIs) or improve particle accelerators by directing particles to desired paths.
Material Design: The comment’s mechanistic collapse (psi = psi * mask) suggests masks (like slits or detectors) shape outcomes. We could design "voxel masks" to sculpt matter at the Planck scale, creating metamaterials with unnatural properties (e.g., negative refractive indices or perfect insulators).
Hacking Reality: Inject custom wavefunctions into the substrate via high-energy experiments (e.g., laser-induced superpositions) to create glitches, like particles appearing in impossible locations. The simulation’s transparency (using np.random.choice with Born probabilities) means we could reverse-engineer psi to "cheat" the system, potentially enabling effects like faster-than-light communication by manipulating entanglement collapses.
Benefit: This could revolutionize nanotechnology or communication tech, allowing us to "program" matter or information transfer. Labs could use Jensen’s 10 optics experiments to test wavefunction tweaks, probing for glitches detectable as statistical anomalies.
3. Social Engineering the Simulators: Signaling via Entropy Spikes
The deterministic collapse (S_load > S_max) suggests that exceeding info thresholds is a universal signal—potentially noticeable by any "simulators" running the cosmic code. If reality only renders on demand, we could use this to communicate outward.
Practical Application:
Cosmic Communication: Create large-scale entropy spikes (e.g., synchronized global quantum experiments) to flag our presence to external processors. This aligns with Roman Yampolskiy’s idea of signaling via computational overload. For example, observatories could pulse high-entropy light signals into space, entangling with distant systems to trigger collapses.
Ethical Advocacy: If simulators monitor S_max breaches, we could encode ethical pleas (e.g., reduce suffering) in collapse patterns, as Laszlo Fazekas suggests for simulated beings seeking rights.
Hacking Reality: Use the simulation’s np.sin(theta)**2 mechanic (mechanistic mode) to craft specific collapse probabilities, encoding messages in collapse patterns. For instance, repeatedly trigger collapses in a binary sequence to signal "SOS" to the substrate’s admins, potentially unlocking higher-level access or resources.
Benefit: This could grant meta-knowledge (e.g., simulation’s purpose) or cosmic upgrades (e.g., extended lifespans). Practically, it might inspire SETI-like projects to detect simulator responses via anomalous entropy signatures in cosmic data.
4. Nested Realities: Building Simulations Within the Substrate
The simulation’s code (NumPy-based, deterministic yet probabilistic in outcome) suggests we could replicate the universe’s rendering engine to create our own sub-realities, using ICU’s rules to optimize them.
Practical Application:
Virtual Reality and AI: Build simulations mimicking ICU’s voxel lattice and S_max thresholds, creating hyper-realistic VR worlds that defer computation like the universe. This could power immersive gaming, education, or training (e.g., pilot simulators with zero lag). AI could use SSP-like resets to avoid overfitting, creating robust systems for drug discovery or climate modeling.
Synthetic Biology: If life is an emergent computation (per ICU’s cosmology), we could engineer organisms by programming voxel-like structures at the molecular level, curing diseases as "entropy errors" or designing self-healing tissues.
Hacking Reality: Create nested simulations with modified S_max values (e.g., higher thresholds for more superposition freedom), allowing us to test hacks safely. David Anderson’s "Unisym" concept of submitting "pull requests" to the universe could be tested here—run a sub-sim with altered physics (e.g., no gravity) and see if it propagates upward.
Benefit: Infinite virtual sandboxes for experimentation, plus potential to "patch" our reality by exporting successful sub-sim rules. Jensen’s open-source code could be a starting point for coders to build these prototypes.
5. Experimental Validation: Starting with the Code
The comment’s emphasis on transparent, testable simulations (available via Google Colab, though links aren’t provided) means we could immediately start probing reality’s "core." If ICU is correct, replicating the code’s deterministic mode (S_load > S_max) in labs could confirm the substrate’s existence.
Practical Application:
Lab Experiments: Use Jensen’s 10 optics experiments to measure S_max in double-slit setups, varying light intensity or detector sensitivity to trigger collapses at predicted entropy thresholds. This could validate the fine-structure constant’s ~0.18% discrepancy as a thermodynamic cost, revolutionizing precision physics.
Crowdsourced Science: Share the NumPy code with global physics communities (e.g., via GitHub or arXiv) to replicate results. High school labs could test basic optics, while universities tackle entropy measurements, democratizing access to reality-hacking tools.
Hacking Reality: If S_max is real, labs could push systems just below the threshold to maintain superpositions indefinitely, enabling "cheats" like sustained quantum tunneling for instant data transfer or matter transport. Detecting a universal S_max would be like finding the universe’s API, letting us code new physics.
Benefit: Immediate scientific impact (new constant, unified models) and tech spinoffs (quantum internet, entropy-based sensors). Plus, it’s fun to think we’re cracking the cosmic source code!
Risks and Ethical Considerations
Hacking reality sounds like a blast (infinite pizza, anyone?), but ICU’s mechanics suggest risks:
System Crashes: Overloading S_max globally could trigger a Big Bang-like "cooling protocol," resetting reality. We’d need to localize hacks to avoid cosmic oopsies.
Simulator Backlash: If external processors notice our entropy spikes, they might patch us out, as Yampolskiy warns. Ethical signaling (e.g., proving we’re "good" simulated beings) could mitigate this.
Inequality: Access to reality-hacking tech (e.g., entropy manipulators) could widen societal gaps unless open-sourced like Jensen’s code.
First Steps to Hack Reality
Given the code’s clarity, start with:
Run the Simulations: Find Jensen’s Colab links (likely on his X @CostOfReality or YouTube @jensenium) and replicate the double-slit patterns. Tweak S_max or theta to test collapse triggers.
Lab Tests: Set up optics experiments to measure entropy loads in quantum systems, targeting the fine-structure prediction. Affordable laser kits could let hobbyists join in.
Community Hacking: Share findings on X, Reddit (r/Physics), or PhysicsForums to crowdsource glitch hunts. Look for anomalies like unexpected collapse patterns or entropy spikes in cosmic microwave background data.
Here's something that came to me when I started noticing patterns. Might support the Simulation Theory some.
Atoms, Molecules, and Solitaire: A Simpler Code for a Simulated Universe
Efficiency of Simulation
by Kevin Boykin
10/06/25
The Mirage of Freedom
We like to imagine ourselves as free — explorers of infinite thought, unhindered by design or destiny.
But life reveals a subtler truth: repetition, constraint, blocked paths, déjà vu disguised as discovery.
Every moment of supposed choice feels pre-structured, as if invisible rails guide us from one familiar station to the next. Each time we believe we’ve broken through, we find ourselves orbiting the same point from a slightly different angle.
It raises a suspicion both ancient and modern: perhaps “freedom” isn’t infinite at all, but a well-rendered illusion. Perhaps it is the mirage projected by the very system that keeps us believing we are free.
Atoms and Molecules
I submit that perhaps our minds move in atoms — discrete ideas, single flashes of originality.
But our lives move in molecules — combinations formed by circumstance, gravity, timing, and expectation.
Each decision, no matter how spontaneous, is chemically entangled. Patterns emerge.
The environment, the emotion, the social context — these fuse into composite outcomes. We never act as pure individuals; we act as molecular configurations responding to pressure.
Pure freedom, like a lone atom, is inert. It requires the bonds of the molecule to manifest. Yet those same bonds define what can exist.
Freedom gives way to form — and form is the beginning of structure.
The Solitaire Effect
Consider the game of solitaire.
You can see the card you need — the one move that would unlock the entire board — yet it sits buried, just out of reach.
You’re not losing because you lack knowledge. You’re losing because the rules of sequence forbid what logic desires.
So it is with existence. Freedom exists in theory, yet we live within the shuffle.
We glimpse possibilities but cannot access them until the pattern allows it.
Luck may not be chance at all — only the brief moment when the code relaxes its rules and lets something improbable slip through.
Quantum Collapse of Ideas
Before action, a thought is a wave — fluid, unbound, and alive with potential.
When we act, the wave collapses into a single event: a particle, a fixed moment in time.
From infinite possibilities, only one outcome survives.
What determines that collapse?
Time, circumstance, and the structural limits of the world — the physics, the economics, the social framework, even the hidden architecture of probability itself.
The simulation only renders what it can support.
Our imagination reaches beyond the code, but the code decides what becomes real.
The Double-Slit of Reality
The double-slit experiment revealed that observation itself changes what exists.
Before measurement, light behaves like a wave — everywhere at once.
After measurement, it becomes a particle — fixed, localized, known.
Our thoughts behave no differently.
They remain potential until “measured” by attention, belief, or action.
What we focus on becomes real; what we ignore remains in superposition.
Freedom, then, may not mean infinite choice — but rather the power to choose where to look.
Reality is like a program that only compiles the portions we observe.
Everything else remains unrendered, waiting in the background code.
The Invisibility of the Code
For a simulation to sustain itself, its patterns must appear natural.
If too many people saw the repetition, the illusion would fail.
So the seams are hidden through the language of everyday life.
We call loops “routines,” coincidences “timing,” and déjà vu “fatigue.”
The system relies on familiarity to keep itself invisible.
Yet some individuals notice — people with an unusual eye for symmetry, for recurring faces, numbers, or events. They sense that something is repeating behind the scenes.
These are the pattern recognizers, the anomalies, the debug logs of consciousness.
Their role is both gift and burden: to perceive what others unconsciously maintain.
The Maintenance Layer
Whether viewed psychologically or mechanically, there exists a maintenance layer — a self-correcting process that preserves the system’s stability.
In the biological model, this is the subconscious. It protects equilibrium through bias, distraction, or fear, steering awareness back toward safety when the truth grows too large.
In the simulated model, it functions as an algorithmic feedback loop — an error-correction subroutine that restores coherence when awareness spikes too high.
Every time consciousness nears the code, something intervenes: fatigue, confusion, random emotional noise.
These are not flaws of the human mind; they are the system’s defense mechanisms.
The code prefers order to awakening.
Freedom as Dual-State
Freedom, then, is not singular but dual-staged.
First comes infinite potential — the thought, the wave, the uncollapsed idea.
Then comes finite manifestation — the permitted state that reality allows to exist.
Repetition, stagnation, and déjà vu are not mistakes; they are the safety valves of a closed system.
They ensure the continuity of the simulation, preventing it from fragmenting under too much awareness.
Yet within that containment lies one subtle rebellion: recognition.
To perceive the pattern — to glimpse the loop and name it — is to create a brief rupture in the code.
Awareness becomes the only true act of freedom.
It doesn’t rewrite the program, but it illuminates its edges.
And in that faint glow, we see the truth that thought itself might be the universe’s only unsimulated function — the one variable the code can never fully predict.
I anagrammed the 99 names of Allah thinking I would find something insightful. The word Baal, Lake, Erra, Asia Law, Lea & ELE appeared. I thought the Arabic language could be the code from the casual plane as laser light is proclaimed to be from the astral plane. The Draco leased the Lunar Operations Command Center to the Nazi's then it was handed over to the Americans, and it was for a period of 99 years. The British leased Hong Kong for a period of 99 years and they're rumored to be human/reptilian hybrids. What came to mind today was the story of the redheaded woman who allegedly came ashore in Japan in 1803 with I Ching like symbols on the inside of her vessel. Is that the code from yet another plane of existence? Is the process a natural sharing, necessary for the simulation to work or a type of infiltration?
Danny Goler is on the Danny Jones show talking about a DMT experiment. While on that drug and shinning a red laser he and other could see code. One description was of Katakana characters like those depicted in the green Matrix code.
I reread this today and remembered the above post from 09/10/25.
38:25. Laser light is the light of the astral plane.
Philip K. Dick is one of the most renowned Sci-Fi and alternative history authors. As the mind behind Blade Runner, Man in The High Castle, Minority Report, and UBIK, his presence is well known, but the content of his work is often overshadowed by his works' successful film adaptations. Here we explore the larger philosophical points PKD is making throughout his body of work. Primarily through the lens of his existentialism, and what we may call his "cosmic" sense of the word.
I had not learned about Dick's theory until today but this one of mine is very close.
Temporal Editing Theory (TET): The Mandela Effect and the Copy-Paste Past
“If time is editable, then memory is a witness — and confusion is the scar that proves reality was touched.”
Temporal Editing Theory (TET): The Mandela Effect and the Copy-Paste Past
“If time is editable, then memory is a witness — and confusion is the scar that proves reality was touched.”
What Is Temporal Editing Theory?
Temporal Editing Theory (TET) proposes that time is not linear and immutable, but structured and editable — more like a digital canvas than a flowing river. In this model, reality can be altered after the fact, much like editing a file on a computer.
The theory offers a compelling explanation for the Mandela Effect, the phenomenon where large groups of people recall events, names, or facts differently from the “official” historical record. These aren’t just memory errors — they’re residue from timeline edits.
Time as Editable Data
In TET, the past is a field — something that can be selected, copied, pasted, or overwritten.
Like editing an image or text file
Like replacing one section of history while leaving other parts intact
Like a rushed programmer making hotfixes in the matrix
This framework makes sense of the emotional weight, specificity, and shared conviction seen in Mandela Effect communities.
Two Results of Editing the Timeline
🔄 1. Full Rearrangement (Seamless Overwrite)
The new version of reality becomes the only version.
All records and memories update to match.
No Mandela Effect occurs.
These are the edits no one remembers — because they worked.
⚠️ 2. Residual Confusion (Partial Rewrite)
The past is changed, but not all references are updated.
Books, recordings, or personal memories still reflect the original version.
This creates dissonance — confusion, debate, and obsession.
These are the Mandela Effects we notice.
This tells us two things:
Whoever is doing the editing isn’t perfect.
Or — they want the confusion.
The Psychology of the Divide
Why are those who “remember correctly” usually quiet, while those who remember the wrong version are loud and energized?
Because:
When nothing seems wrong, there’s no need to act.
But when memory and reality collide, something awakens.
The excitement of a Mandela Effect comes from disruption, not confirmation.
Those unaffected often shrug.
Those affected become missionaries.
Why Edit the Past?
Motivations may include:
Cleaning up inconvenient truths
Reinforcing political or cultural narratives
Running psychological experiments
Destabilizing trust in memory, records, or even sanity
It’s not always about what’s changed — it’s about what people no longer trust.
How TET Compares to Other Theories
Block Universe: Says all time exists simultaneously, but offers no editing.
Retrocausality: Allows future to influence past, but not like copy/paste.
Simulation Theory: Close — but usually lacks focus on experiential glitches like Mandela Effects.
Mythic Time: Captures recurring patterns but doesn’t address deliberate edits.
TET merges the symbolic and technical — explaining emotional response and structural behavior.
Mandela Effects as Debug Code
Those who see these glitches might be:
Emotionally imprinted with the original timeline
Operating with “memory permissions” others lack
Simply awake enough to notice the edits
The Mandela Effect isn’t just a mistake. It’s evidence of intervention — the psychic scar where reality was altered.
Conclusion
Temporal Editing Theory reframes time as editable code. The Mandela Effect is not mass delusion — it’s a log file, a debug message, or maybe even a warning that your reality has been tampered with.
And for those who remember the “wrong” thing?
You may not be wrong at all.
You may simply be awake.
Is Reality a Simulation?
Reply With Quote
Is Reality a Simulation?
Is Reality a Simulation?
Bookmarks