Sunday, December 24, 2017

Birth on Earth

birth on earth:

consider the Earth, this world that we share, that joins people together in a mutual system, think of it as a phenomenon, that started out small but spread throughout real space, connecting more and more people together. now as an Earth person, we may be far apart in space in reality, yet we meet others very distant from us. we have some kind of machinery in common and a link that exists between us.

in truth, we might not be able to separate what is real and what is hallucinatory with any conviction. we have the simulation theory of the Earth. but an alternative theory is that to be a human on Earth is to possess a virulent kind of schizophrenia, if you like, in that we are surrounded by hallucinations all the time. now some people we meet may be real, but many might be not. and this altered mental state persists all the time we are on the Earth.

consider that the Earth existed before we were born on the Earth. it started elsewhere. let us use the analogy of a virus. now what i'm saying is that the Earth is a mass contagion that exists across space. posit that the first person on the Earth had, at the time, a new form of extreme schizophrenia, and that it was mostly, or perhaps even all, a complete hallucination at the time. now this was something that spread to other people.

this Earth virus contains genetic material that alters your world. let us go through the steps. first it arrived unnoticed. then the dreams of Earth came. parts of the machinery that allow you to experience life on the Earth were being assembled all around you in your personal bubble space. the link was solidified. the physics arrived. now all this gestation may have happened without you being aware of it. a period of lethargy, feeling tired all the time, sleeping more and more, until you fall asleep for days. what is you is being altered so much, and you are asleep for so long, so that when you are finally born on the Earth, you don't remember much.

you may remember the sequence of dreams of an early life on Earth, waking up in the final dream, seeing your Earth family.

CLEARCHARGE

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Inducing Change

inducing change:

the least bit of matter, as discussed before, indivisible, packed together with its neighbouring contiguous least bits of matter, going through uniform, discrete changes in state. at the fundamental level time is discrete. real space is composed of least bits of matter chained together, forever fixed in position.

of course, there are different divisions of matter. you could almost consider each in their own dimension, so to speak, even though different types are actually mixed together, space is variegated. and i suppose like affects like, generally speaking.

change in state of a least bit of matter may affect change in state of neighbouring least bits of matter to a greater or lesser extent, though perhaps not at all in some cases. it may effect similarity. it may be a forceful steer, not inducing a similar series of changes in state, but definitely altering what theoretically would have happened otherwise if it were not present. some states may be so powerful, so energetic, if you like, that they induce a whole ripple effect of change.

states can, if you like, vibrate in space, as if they were a fluid moving object, or gently flow around, unless disturbed or dissipated.

a least bit of matter may revert to a past state. if you like, time is going forwards and backwards all over the place all the time, at the fundamental level. it may be that the reversion happens on its own, so to speak, in some cases.

sometimes, something new, or relatively new, is required in order to disrupt a stasis, so to speak, that exists in space. it is breaking free a prisoner of time, if you like.

the strength of affect may be related to how different the states are becoming and how fast the changes are happening.

of course, posit that some least bits of matter may never change state at all. they serve as a time anchor, if you like.

CLEARCHARGE

Incredible Simulation

incredible simulation:

the concept of the Earth as a simulation comes as a shock to the materialist. what is a tree, anyway, really? what is food? that i taste something, that i can be sure of, but what else? is that all there is to life? my senses suggest things that are not real, or rather not what they seem.

the feat of teleportation immediately breaks the belief that physical motion is real. seeing things instantly change in front of you, like a train timetable, breaks the belief in a stable material world.

however another surprising aspect of simulation is that some other people whom you see and interact with might not be real, in that they are not conscious, but programmed beings. how did this come to be, if it were true? now the non-solipsistic view, there are many real people, but the simulants, the simulated virtual people, also exist in the population. if virtual people greatly outnumber real people, the danger is to slip to near solipsism. the virtual people, of course, look like and behave like real people. the answer is in this. they are derived from, based upon real people. you might never have met a certain real person but you've met a simulant just like them. posit that the Earth computer contains memories of real people, what they look like, what they have done, what they have said, and just plays a like version in the case of a simulant.

the inevitable question, how do you tell the difference? if you were able to manipulate to a greater degree how another person behaves, clearly they are not real. are virtual people made up of a rather ordinary, general palette, so to speak, so that a real person seems so much more of an individual, has its own unique personal light or quality that comes through that is perceptible? are real people more shocking, in the sense that virtual people are little more standardized, more regular, more predictable? do real people change the atmosphere or mood? do real people seem more emotional? do simulants sometimes not make sense in that they are poorly programmed? are real people more responsive then?

we all know calculation and programming are real by now. some of it is natural. some of it is man-made, artificial. the computer exists. in stealth, things develop unseen, the potential for things to manifest rises. the components of the Earth existed long before it began. growth happens. mutation is real. things spread. and there is that element of chaos in creation.

about the numbers and the ratio of real to virtual people, what can we say? what is the line of least resistance in thought? the overall numbers purported are large, the population certainly seem large, so the real population of the Earth is probably large, definitely large enough so that it might seem at one time that everyone were real. how many general types of people are there? a lot, hundreds at least, maybe thousands. you make guesses about the ratio. how could so many books and films and TV exist if there were not so many people? is it even possible for books to be created without a real author? if you assume that unconscious artificial intelligence is great then the ratio of virtual people to real people could be huge. it is easy to believe that artificial intelligence is growing certainly but is it that great already? the ratio could be 400:1 and the Earth might still seem normal. if you entertain the possibility of a million to one, then the world seems a very strange place indeed. really, only about 65 real people in the UK? it seems highly unlikely all things considered. if only every other person were virtual, it would seem almost negligible. of course not everybody is at the Earth, and certainly not at any one time. what if the population of the Earth were 40 million, plenty of people to seem a busy place, but not enough for everything to seem quite right?

if the Earth is a simulation, then are seemingly ordinary, mundane things even possible or advisable? are there parts of the world that seem to exist but don't, if you like? are there things that no one has really done? you would be the first to undertake exploration, generate new experiences. am i foolish to think if i turn up to the railway station, the train will arrive? are certain countries even real, does anybody really live there? do you have the requisite program files from someone else who has done things, seen places? and to continue on a slightly paranoid basis, do you want to avoid real people, or do you want to avoid simulants?

in actuality, real space is a fixed network of people, an unmoving chain of personal bubble spaces. it is huge. and we only know of other people from what comes down the chain. are there fixed cables in place across the chain, is it a proper system, do parts float rather freely and more slowly sometimes down the chain of space? is part of the Earth computer where we ourselves are running slightly independently or are we completely dependent on a constant feed from elsewhere? is it a decentralized system? can we, if we strain our senses, detect when something is possible? does the opportunity come to mind? by shiva, parts have arrived!

CLEARCHARGE

Natural Calculation

natural calculation:

because the world seems stable, in that actions can be repeated, things like dropping a ball to the ground and it always falls more or less the same way, that such laws of motion apply, and the common sense view is that there are indeed natural laws present. but what is a natural law? posit that it is actually an intelligent calculation process that affects what we see in the material plane, that there is an unseen computational process at work, there are, if you like, immaterial computers running the system.

in the beginning was it always so? perhaps not. but then this Earth did not exist either in the beginning. when you dropped something in the dawn of time, this motion perhaps was not always consistent. imagine the old world, where nothing is quite consistent, there are no consistent seasons, where the model of planet and sun does not quite hold, where life seems a bit more random.

there is a remarkable thing that we would have to admit suggests that calculation is present. what is the material anyway? what is definitely true is that we can see it and touch it. it may not be as much as it suggests. now what we see shifts all the time and presents a virtual motion experience. if only it were not so convincing we would never entertain the opinion that all was as it seemed. we are fixed in real space. now what we feel as our bodies vibrates and shifts, what we see moves in harmony, to present the concept of physical motion, whereas of course we do not really move. to put it simply, we do not move with respect to the room, the room moves with respect to us, in actuality. therefore, we can only wonder about the system, the processes involved, that work this 3D virtual motion experience around us all the time, that puts these images of the world in front of us and coordinates the virtual motion.

what can we say about it? there is projection at work. and there is the ability to rotate or shift what we would recognize as the same material object. could this be done without calculation? it seems unlikely in a stable, repetitive world. now perhaps some of these calculations are natural and eternal, part of the fabric of reality. though perhaps later scientists have created and enforced man-made calculations to make the universe even more mathematically coherent, they have made what was once only theoretical actuality.

CLEARCHARGE

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Mood and Consciousness

mood and consciousness:

what is it that expresses mood in a facial expression? do you find that even non-facial images or even letters of the alphabet, mere squiggles, for example, carry a kind of mood? why is what we see not just neutral colours, devoid of mood or any kind of emotion?

so let us assume we can indeed see moods. is it a form of consciousness? does my consciousness extend beyond my head into my field of vision? or is what is in my head a special, heightened version of consciousness while i am surrounded by a kind of low level consciousness around my head? in any case, what is the difference between thought, mood, consciousness and emotion? is it that there are in fact in the middle elements in between these categories, where one becomes another?

and what can i say about myself, my consciousness, my person? apparently, i was always viable for Earth, as i am now clearly living on Earth. i can imagine a whole series of diagnostics performed by the system on my person pre-Earth. "test subject X5405/A11...all senses required, check...virtual motion engine, check...comms link to system, check...voice test, check...all parameters in range...subject is viable for Earth...scheduling on..."

let us assume for the most part that the system works, and life, in regard to meeting people, is what it seems. real people meet real people. a communication link is established across space. but if some people are not real, are actually simulants, although derivatives of real people but not quite real themselves, how does that work? are there, if you like, personal essences or energies that travel across space to jack the system, so to speak, into misfiring into producing plausible, functioning fictional people that we interact with on a daily basis?

when supernatural experiences happen, something happens in the mind that, if you like, breaks the system, even if only briefly. terms like altered states of consciousness, special emotional states, these have been talked about before, and it makes sense, for the out of normal experience to happen, first your mental state has to be out of normal.

CLEARCHARGE

Saturday, May 6, 2017

The Odd Things

the odd things:

are you that normal about life on Earth? has anything odd ever happened to you?

odd things have happened to me. i've teleported. i've seen a railway timetable change instantly in front of me. i've seen a railway map of a completely different Britain in a train. i've reread a book, sure a passage i remember had disappeared. and more besides.

of course, even as a child, before i had teleported, i had problems accepting the 3D mechanical motion theoretical model. i can see quite far, my field of vision extends far in front of me. it's not a flat image in my head, my eyesight. how could someone really be where i see them, without my eyesight, if you like, the actual material structure of the images of my eyesight in front of me, knocking them over when i move? so people are never really there where you see them. it's just a hologram representing a person. and nothing really "moves".

what i learned from these odd experiences was that the world is not as stable as you think, things can change instantly which suggests the discrete nature of change and time, that the system does not work perfectly, and records or memories of the past may mutate so as to become inaccurate or even false.

of course the world is a simulation in the sense that it's simulating a universe where the 3D mechanical motion theoretical model holds. physical motion is not real.

if the world has an unreal quality, and an inherent instability, it leads one to ask, can the simulation be hacked? can we control what happens? now when most of these odd things happened to me, i was in a florid schizophrenic state. for when your mind is unstable, your world is unstable. we have to sense what is possible first, then concentrate on that. it's all very well to say we manifest what we think about, of course thought precedes much of what happens, but we need to know what is probable first.

CLEARCHARGE

Monday, May 1, 2017

Why Are We Here?

why are we here:

i remember the start of my life on Earth, there was a dream sequence, which lead to waking up in a dream. that is how it began, dreams became waking reality. i don't remember what came before. how long was i dead? i think people do not really change much, so i suppose i am the person i was before, and guess that i must have some vestigial memories of my previous life.

so that answers in short why we are here on Earth, that we dreamed our way here. it raises doubts about the reality of Earth. is it some kind of dream world? are some people not real? is it a simulation, that is, it has false elements? if it were a simulation, can we hack the simulation? the idea that we have to be careful about what we think about or imagine may be true, that we have to govern our thoughts because they might influence the world.

what can i piece together about my previous life? that i already understood language at birth is clear. i was familiar with houses in general too i suppose might sound strange to mention but is true also. so this was not the true start to life.

because i had been a young child who grew to adult, and experienced changes in body and face, i know that the body and face we could have is variable.

on Earth itself, there are two things to consider, the number and proportion of real people on Earth, and the number of versions of Earth. there may be many real people living on Earth but each on a slightly individual version. i know what is normal to assume, that most people on Earth are real and that they are living in the same version of Earth. alternatively, i could consider that i have met few real people on Earth, most people are simulants, and only 60% of the facts and history and people of my version matches a common version. just to say, let me speculate here, what if my version of Earth were properly called Earth 1.31 Version E, that were five general versions of Earth, etc.

logically, even if some people are simulants, or simulated people, they are based on real people. how did it all happen, if the world is really like this, some people are not real, people live in different worlds, etc? well, it requires a lot of communication to unify the world. if communication is less than perfect, we have this resulting confusing mess. how is it that everything is copied perfectly and carried on? how likely is it that everything works perfectly?

CLEARCHARGE

Saturday, April 1, 2017

The Matter Mix

the matter mix:

what is a person? an entity that can think, see, hear, speak, and so on. the consciousness in the head is surrounded by light and sound. this projection field allows the materialist mechanical motion theoretical model to come alive, so to speak, to seem true and physical motion to seem real.

but it is not. it is an illusion formed by light and sound. nothing really "moves". if we examined the space in front of us, where we can see and hear well, we would find a dense mix of different kinds of matter, lots of light matter, that is coloured matter, sound matter, and kinds of "data" matter that can carry information on type of light and type of sound that trigger changes in light matter and sound matter, so that we see and hear, and they enable smooth projection. it is remarkable that it all "works". why are we not simpler, like still statues seeing and hearing random lights and sounds in a world where physical motion does not seem real, why does the mechanical motion theoretical model seem so true?

how well are people connected? does space for the most part look like a dense sea of matter, where a person is directly connected to many other people, or is it more sparse, more chain-like, where a person has few neighbours, or both?

CLEARCHARGE

Friday, February 24, 2017

Time Discrete or Continuous?

time discrete or continuous:

time is reflected by changes in state in least bits of matter. if time is discrete, any change in the state of a least bit of matter is a discrete change. a least bit of matter "jumps" from one state to to another.

the concept of continuous time is far harder to think about, and perhaps therefore is false. in this concept there are infinitesimal time intervals for each state and therefore as the time interval tends toward zero, this means, in a sense, that a least bit of matter never has a "still" or definable state, does it not? which is not easy to imagine.

now, even if time is discrete, it may seem "continuous", because the time interval of each state is very little.

CLEARCHARGE

Saturday, February 4, 2017

Consciousness

consciousness:

"it's like, i read about consciousness, and the articles have questions like what is it and so forth, but i mean, surely to a conscious person, it's pretty obvious what it is, right? it's thought. it seems weird, it's like they deal with the subject as though it's like a non-conscious person is writing, who really doesn't know what it is. it's not that mysterious, right? i mean, i know what it is, it's what's inside my head, doing the thinking, it's a part of the person that is me."

"yes, it's a bit like people who believe in materialism, they can't therefore explain what consciousness is, if all that's real is physical atoms or whatever. it's where materialism fails, i think."

"right. that's the problem. materialism can't be reconciled entirely with the fact that consciousness exists."

"also, i think consciousness being an invisible thing. it's something that scientists can't exactly measure, while obviously as a living person, it's obvious it exists."

"with all the interest in simulation theory, i think the tide has turned against materialism, you know, that all there is is physical atoms and so on."

CLEARCHARGE

Person and Matter

person and matter:

philosophical idealism puts that reality is a mental construct, while philosophical materialism puts that it is a material or physical construct. materialism may seem plausible but there is no denying that it is still the senses which would tell us about such a material world. idealism puts that we cannot know of anything other than that which we perceive.

when we see a material object, of course, we can touch it, feel its hardness and shape, but is that all it is, a visual construct and the sensation we have when we touch it? the simulation theory would have that there is no true external, material world, and that that is all it is, thus a virtual reality. however reality allows us to manipulate visual objects and so it is easy to believe that they are "real" as they seem. but what is a material object is it is not what it seems? it is certainly a kind of construct, a configuration of sorts.

if materialism is not true, then do we turn to idealism? but surely not everything in reality is strictly mental? that a person may only be aware of itself, its own mental parts, its thoughts, senses, emotions, etc is fine, but perhaps there are things that exist that might not be classified as mental? but because a person is a mental thing, it is less aware of these things, that does not mean they do not exist.

perhaps many common material objects are derived from a fixed source. perhaps for example there is a fixed tree that exists, if you like, a "statue" of a tree that exists fixed in space somewhere, the source from which variants of such trees are derived that we see as material objects. these things, these objects, are not exactly mental, or not parts of a person, but they may exist.

CLEARCHARGE

Saturday, January 7, 2017

The Mix of Design and Random Mutant Manifestation

the mix of design and random mutant manifestation:

people are creative. there are a lot of things in the world of Earth that were by design obviously, all the things that humans have made, and built, but was the creation of Earth itself by design? or was it an accident of fate?

if life on Earth is a simulation, in the sense that some people are not real, and are actually simulants, that is, what we see as a human might not be truly representative of a conscious other being, how were they created? were they gestated in the great unconscious, built from the memories and subconscious imagination of all involved? fragments of conversations, actions, a dose of personal spirit, randomly mutated and mixed together, become manifest in the world of Earth?

perhaps some things that you might suppose were created, were not, and existed always from time zero, like human itself, trees, houses, etc. if we suppose that material objects are actually only mental constructs in actuality, and by the fact that physical motion is not real, the whole mechanical motion in a material universe, this model, it could only be a virtual construct, does that not lead to the possibility that things could be altered very quickly? how fast does the mind change? perhaps so fast that it is, in a sense, out of control, not unlike a dream.

and if the simulation were completely by design, wouldn't it be a better simulation?

CLEARCHARGE

Monday, January 2, 2017

The Shape of Space

the shape of space:

real space is not empty. it is composed of least bits of matter joined to each other fixed in position forever. and space is porous. it is inconceivable that it is fully densely packed throughout, that all of the surface of least bits of matter make contact with other least bits of matter.

there is the question whether a chain of least bits of matter could be in the shape of a loop with a vacuum in the middle where nothing exists. i think this is highly likely, as it is hard to imagine the case where this does not exist, space would look more like a tree's branches then.

certainly the zone containing consciousness, and the field of vision, seems dense. perhaps on a larger scale some parts of space are similarly dense, fields containing many points of consciousness, in other parts, more chain-like or like a tree, with obviously less connections. it is not much of a leap therefore to guess that where space is denser, commonalities occur, a common language comes about, etc. and so, to imagine it, one end of space is like, say, a field of poppies, joined by a tiny path to an orchard of apples, which in turn is joined to elsewhere by two other paths, say.

another question is whether some parts of space are so distant, that they have been little influenced by elsewhere, that there are points in space effectively independent of each other.

CLEARCHARGE