I have no doubt that much of the "Matrix" is correct, except for the nature of the creators of the simulation (also see movies "The 13th Floor", "Forbidden Planet", and "Dark City", among others). The "energy" analogy refers to something English has no word for, but other cultures do have, such as "Prana", "Chi".
This is a very real and powerful reality, easily measured. It is really, in our terms, roughly equivalent to "information flow" or a computer's information processing load. The universe is actually powered by our "wanting" or attraction of this kind of energy, so the battery analogy was appropriate. We are inside a "StarTrek Holodeck" virtual reality. The difference from the popular fiction is that we programmed this simulation ourselves for the adventure of it. There is no "bad stuff" outside it that we need to encounter. The simulation is infinitely malleable. Nothing can assert into our experience that we do not program. There are some very important points to be made about it: 1. We each have our own private holodeck independent of all others (there are many anomalies that can not be explained any other way). (Good Reference: see "Ship in a Bottle" and "Elementary Dear Data" from "Startrek Next Generation" for a magnificant science fiction story). 2. Unlike StarTrek, the way we appear inside the simulation is not like outside. 3. We can program anything we like into the simulation, including chaos. Since you programmed 100% of the simulation, it doesn't make any sense to complain or worry about anything. If you don't like something, just reprogram it (why did you program it to something not wanted anyway?). Take a course or two at the Monroe Institute for pracice stepping outside the "holodeck" for a breather or two and perhaps learning how to reprogram the simulation to your liking :-) . http://www.monroeinstitute.com/ Try some spoon bending or winning at craps to help reorient your beliefs. Attend the International Remote Viewing conference soon in Las Vegas (http://www.rvconference.org/). For most , fussing with the rules of the game are considered "cheating", and that's certainly a valid perspective, but for others of us engineering and programmer types, it's fun to tinker with the clockwork ). Also, read the Seth material for extensive technical information, or Abraham-Hicks for practical Holodeck programming techniques. http://www.sethnet.org/ http://www.abraham-hicks.com Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona http://members.cox.net/hoyt-stearns http://turbotip.webhop.net -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 5:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT: The Matrix as Ontology -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene This is probably the book I should have written, but with a little more humor and attention to Yahaa-the-Horselover (the second Baptist, so to speak)... <><><><><><><> How did you get through that entire treatise without a single mention of 'gnosticism'? <g> >From a previous message: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg12139.html http://tinyurl.com/zmnt6 I mentioned a review of Susskind's "Landscape" (presently on loan from the library): http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-03/000664.html http://tinyurl.com/kmccx Which includes: "Suppose this is the case: we're inside a simulation designed by a freckle-faced superkid for extra credit in her fifth grade science class. Is this something we could discover, or must it, like so many aspects of Theory 2, be forever hidden from our scientific investigation? Surprisingly, this variety of Theory 1 is quite amenable to experiment: neither revelation nor faith is required. What would we expect to see if we inhabited a simulation? Well, there would probably be a discrete time step and granularity in position fixed by the time and position resolution of the simulation-check, and check: the Planck time and distance appear to behave this way in our universe. There would probably be an absolute speed limit to constrain the extent we could directly explore and impose a locality constraint on propagating updates throughout the simulation-check: speed of light. There would be a limit on the extent of the universe we could observe-check: the Hubble radius is an absolute horizon we cannot penetrate, and the last scattering surface of the cosmic background radiation limits electromagnetic observation to a still smaller radius. There would be a limit on the accuracy of physical measurements due to the finite precision of the computation in the simulation-check: Heisenberg uncertainty principle-and, as in games, randomness would be used as a fudge when precision limits were hit-check: quantum mechanics." -Charles L. Dodgson ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
