The Metachemistry of Food

the metachemistry of food:

eating food of a variety that satisfies is, as most would agree, a healthy thing to do. it relieves hunger and provides energy. the introduction of food into the mouth releases tastes and digestion alters the feeling in the body.

to relate food to a chemical construct, suppose it is as classical chemistry would have it, made up of elements such as iron, magnesium, phosphorus and sodium. to state thus is to posit that such forms of matter are common to us all, and each food item relates to a certain configuration of such elements.

the digestion of food releases energy as a stream of particles, changes in states of least bits of matter copied across space, fast moving, that effect changes in states of least bits of matter of other forms of matter.

CLEARCHARGE

Animus, Change and Affect

animus, change and affect:

let us begin with an aside, as to the schizophrenic patient who "hears voices", when he has calmed down, been released from mental hospital, it would seem that medical science, in the form of a patient psychiatrist, who it seems, always loves to ask the question, "do you still hear voices?" at every meeting, explains that the "wiring" in your brain has misfired or such, and that these are, in fact, hallucinations, not that you actually hear anyone else really talking to you. well, in retrospect, this just smacks of a form of solipsism, it is put that you couldn't possibly be talking to anyone else, it's all in your own mind, well, by induction, how could i possibly be talking to him, or her? what if the psychiatrist is just a "hallucination"?

i have posited, repetitively, i'm afraid, about the fundamental fixed, motionless solidity of reality, least bits of matter, which i will refer to as a "bit" henceforth, and so on. the sense of time is derived from the changes of state that bits "experience". change is fundamental, time could be described as an "experience". again, as i have repetitively stated before, "time" can thus flow in many directions at the bit level, "forwards", "backwards", "left", "right", etc., a bit can "re-experience" a previous state, e.g. a visual bit has been red before, it isn't now, but it will be again, just blink.

but to call it "matter", i have realized, is to convey as sense of "non-person". what if, so to speak, everything is "alive", has an "animus" or personality? do we all like each other? do we not copy those whom we do and refuse to mimic those we do not? when my neighbour was likeable, i copied him, when he wasn't, i didn't. so thus, sometimes, when a neighbouring bit of the same type is agreeable, its "affect" on the bit's change of state is powerful, when it is alien, or hostile even, its affect is not and the bit doesn't follow its neighbour's change of state. that is to say, bits possess a type of personal reaction to their neighbours.

CLEARCHARGE

How to Interpret the World as Simulation

how to interpret the world as simulation:

a priori, we know that physical motion is not real. we do not really move. what we see is our surroundings move relative to us. we do not actually move relative to our surroundings. we each are a fixed point of consciousness inside each our own vision orb, so to speak.

the universe is not real.

it is naïve to think that what it seems is actuality. how would moving vision orbs not collide with each other and not suffer the injury of entangling vision? how could they occupy the same space, for that matter?

as for the problem of other minds...

a priori, what is far away is not me, as far as my point of consciousness is concerned. whether each person's consciousness is made of same matter is another question. are there different forms of consciousness?

a priori, propagation of states of matter exists. a priori, computation exists. a priori, magnification exists.

we are billions of points of consciousness, forever fixed in real space. this natural computer of reality sorts out all the images of what we see in the world and sends them to us through the viaducts of real space in miniature form and through the workings of our own minds, these are expanded and rendered in our own vision orbs.

"i'm not really standing 3 feet away from you. i'm 3 trillion light years away! what you see is a hologram 3 feet in front of you."

CLEARCHARGE

Errors in the System

errors in the system:

"i'm schizophrenic, i've been locked up in mental hospital three times, i'm officially crazy. i know i'm a crank. the weird things that have happened to me, the errors in the system, started the year after i got out of hospital for the first time. for long periods, things are normal, but then odd things happen now and again, which throw me off, and start me questioning everything again."

"you mean things like the Mandela Effect?"

"that's not the weirdest, but my version of that is i remember different actors being in movies i saw a long time ago, but i can't be sure that my memory is not faulty."

"what are the weirdest, the most unbelievable things?"

"teleporting is definitely one of them. there are two kinds, one obvious, when the surroundings suddenly change and you're somewhere else instantly, but then there's the not obvious one you're only aware of later, you have teleported, but the flow of the surroundings is continuous, it doesn't look as though you've suddenly changed location, as if geography had temporarily been altered, one street has slided over, if you like."

"what's the next weirdest?"

"time slips. when you wake up one morning and it seems you've lost days and the calendar has jumped. but i mean it's not like these things happen to me all the time, but they have happened, so i had to have a big think. all these things, it probably hasn't helped my mental health, to be fair, you can't take life seriously enough anymore."

"you can't be sure what's real. but perhaps it's made you sane in a way that a person who lives a completely normal life, where nothing out of the ordinary ever happens, is not."

"yeah, but too much shock isn't great either."

"anything happen recently?"

"i don't know if errors in the system are correlated to how mentally unstable i am, maybe they are. what happened the other week, i was in a mall, this was in the food court, i walked past a sign and thought i was at a certain restaurant and turned the corner to order at the counter, i was at another restaurant. i walked back and the sign had changed."

"i suppose what bugs you every time is you keep wondering what really happened."

"exactly. every time an error happens you wonder if you're losing your mind."

"but no system is perfect, right?"

CLEARCHARGE

Points of Power in Time

points of power in time:

was there ever an all-powerful god, or even goddess perhaps, that created everything? now this is a simple concept, no doubt that is why everyone here has asked this question before. but such simplicity of thought is perhaps lacking in application to translating what reality is and how to understand the world. and really, if there were one person so powerful, wouldn't we know more about him or her? how could such a god be so anonymous?

i think it could be argued that a person born on earth is made, in the sense that it has been altered from its original state, has been given a human form, and the use of machinery, so to speak, to function in the world, that is, to see and to hear and to interact with others. it is a soul, so to speak, that has been hooked up to the world.

posit, however, that there were many responsible for what the world is, which leads to endless questions, then who supplied the human face, who owned the first orange tree, who ate the first apple, and so on? what is more prosaic to consider is that there was no one person who gave everyone else everything, but thousands or millions or billions who contributed parts of what the world is today.

a lot is possible in a very short time. if we assume there are many souls, each having contributed to what the earth is, doing their creative bit, we can see, assuming there was a wealth of things even in the beginning, how the world might have come to together in short order. connectivity, wealth, creation, speed. however, we feel small as individuals, that others have given us so much, because there are, in fact, many. if this were a reality of few people, we would not live in such a complex world.

so, to continue this argument, we live in a world of lesser gods. who were the gods of language? who had the original face? who first ate? at each inflection point in time, someone did something or gave something of themselves to the wider world. they exerted their power at that point in time that would last for ever after.

CLEARCHARGE

Illusion in the Simulation

illusion in the simulation:

posit we do meet real people in this simulation of earth. posit also that we meet mere simulants of people too. who are these simulants, these illusions of people? they are illusions, because they are not the real people themselves but shallow versions of them. are they true copies of real people? most probably not. and are many simulants just a mix of several people, randomly put together?

if they are derivative copies of real people, how similar are they to the real people they are clones of? perhaps we never meet a lot of real people but we meet a lot of their copies in this simulation. perhaps the name is the same, they look similar and behave in a like manner but they are imperfect copies of the person with a different biography. nevertheless, for some moments, it is just like meeting the real person.

with the young earth theory an assumption, this simulation was put together in a hurry. therefore, it often seems like some random mix of personality and conversation that we encounter.

CLEARCHARGE

Young Earth Theory to the End

young earth theory to the end:

do you believe the universe is real as it seems? do you believe even in physical motion? i do not.

can things not change instantly? how long does it take the imagination to foment a virtual world such as earth? was earth not created suddenly after gestating in the collective subconscious for a few hundred years? imagine what it must have seemed to lonely individuals before it came, a world where everyone lived and could meet, instead of being alone perhaps in a world of your own as at the start of time.

posit that this earth is only a schizophrenic-born dream world. that King George III was really the first king. or was it King George II? and earth began in 1700s England with a cast of virtual people with one single, solitary soul, the first-born on earth. posit too that the real year is only 447. only a rich imagination and certainly, metaphysically, a great potential for life and technology could have created such an earth, a world where much is possible, or perhaps not, in reality, if it is indeed only a 200+ year old simulation.

note that the Gregorian calendar recently seemed to jump 8 days in mid-April. it's not the first time it seemed to jump. i doubt i was asleep for 8 days somehow! it seemed to jump one day in 1995 but i am not certain. this is only further proof that the earth is not what it seems for such an error to occur. if you reckon there was once a 67 day difference in the Gregorian calendar from the original calendar, still kept off-earth, the original calendar being earlier, there is now a 75 day difference. it is today, 8 May, 2018, on the Gregorian calendar. that would make it 22 February, 447, today. next year, 448, will be a leap year, so there will be a 76 day difference until the Gregorian year, 2020, when it will return to 75 days on 1 March after 29 February. but i digress.

how did we all know about the earth before it came? was it shared voices? was it shared dreams and nightmares? the collective subconscious works in mysterious ways.

and how will the earth end? will we return to our own world in a dream exit? we can only hope for the best.

computers came. that you read this is proof of the evolution of technology and the possibility of programming. is there something in this technology that could save us from this artificial madness and write us all a good ending to this story of life on earth?

CLEARCHARGE

You're Not Here

you're not here:

"hey, what do you think's going to happen next, man?"

"i think he's going to go over there and talk to that person in the next ten minutes."

"shit! you're right. how did you know that?"

"maybe it's all happening closer to me. i just guessed."

"what do you mean closer to you? we're all in the same place."

"look, you're not here. there is no here. you see a lot of projections of humans around you, but you're not here. like physical motion is not real. nobody moves in space."

"so it's like the matrix. and we're plugged in. what are your conspiracy theories? i mean, like the real government and so on."

"i don't know. there are bad people, sure. but can bad people really group together? there have got to be some trust issues, right? or do they just tacitly approve and do their little bit for some evil agenda? but you know what i'm really thinking about now? sometimes, i imagine someone out there, actually several people, huge, off-Earth, you know, bored, nothing to do, plenty of spare time on their hands, they know what's going on, they're watching, and somehow they have power over the system, i mean they can send illusions of people into like, the theatre of Earth, and these illusions, they're not real people, they're sort of versions of themselves that they can manipulate like a puppet, and i keep meeting them. how crazy am i?"

"that's far out, man! but what do you think about the universe? what is it really? i mean, is it infinite or...?"

"yeah...the universe is infinite! but the universe is not real! it's just a theoretical model."

"you mean, like, what we see, when we go around, geography, it seems like there is a universe, but there isn't really?"

"exactly."

"but what are off-Earth people? how do they know about the Earth?"

"fuck, everybody knows about the Earth!"

"quiet, man, you don't want anyone to hear this stuff."

"yeah, i guess you have to be careful what you say, especially names."

"yeah, i mean, you don't know who can hear you, right? you think you're alone, you can say anything you want, but is that really true? you know what i mean?"

"i think about who my real neighbours are in space. you can't change who your neighbours are. i think i live in a peaceful part of space. i mean, some people, they just seem like they're really billions of light years away in reality, you know?"

"i don't know, man. how much can anyone really know? that's the entire problem. epistemology is a fucker, right?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Virtual Motion

on virtual motion:

posit that physical motion is not real, that it is actually virtual motion we see. everyone knows the 3D mechanical motion model. by now, it's hardwired in, so to speak. what things seem, that such motion looks as if it is happening, people moving, material objects moving, is not real, is not true. now this opens up a lot of sceptical ideas of course. am i a brain in a vat? what else is not real? etc.

but how does the actual projection of images in your eyesight work? when you walk forwards, objects move towards you. when you swing right, objects move to the left, and so on. posit that this 3D mechanical motion model was there right from the beginning, is eternal, then we didn't need to invent it, we always had it in mind. that would explain why it works so well, and how easily it operates. we could always imagine it, therefore it works.

so visually, objects move relative to us, not us to them. as a digression, speaking of relative, am i sure i actually grew several feet in my childhood? what if the material world actually shrank relative to me? maybe i grew a little, but in actuality, everything and everyone i saw became smaller as i aged to adult? perhaps not.

it seems a stretch to suppose that my eyesight, my projection field, is mapped by some kind of invisible computer, and that everything i see is computationally projected to precise coordinates as i move around. would this computer hold a micro image of everything in my range of sight and project this to my field of vision?

and what actually composes what is immediately in front of my head? we know we have the senses of sound and light, but obviously there is more than sound and light out there. again, calling all that exists matter, how much matter in front of me is actually light? 40%? 10%? 1%? say per clump of matter in front of my head, there are 100 parts, of which only 40 parts might be light or akin to light, 5 parts sound, but that leaves 55 parts we're not sure about. there are invisible least bits of matter we are little aware of surely? that that can be sensed is only so much.

CLEARCHARGE

The Random Inflated Simulated World

the random inflated simulated world:

to begin with, the world as a whole, or the universe, or reality, was much simpler, people were alone, if you like, but communications, the propagation of sounds and images, and later meetings, rapidly inflated the world, or the unconscious at least. if i state that i began alone, but met several people the first day, and lived eventually on earth, with a purported population of millions, you can see the course of history.

if we consider that earth is a simulation of some kind, that all is not quite as it seems, it is not quite "real", that some facts are not true, that indeed some people are not true, what of these people populating it? now false facts are easy to manufacture, the imagination works constantly, people are crazy, to be blunt, and dreams happen, and to acknowledge that birth on earth began itself as an awakening from a dream about earth, it is therefore easy to be sceptical about much of earth and the people populating it. what makes up a person or what represents them? a certain personality, emotions, and things they've said or done, their own personal light and sound perhaps, and what you might call a certain flavour or mood to a person, indeed how do we recognize people in dreams if we see them but indistinctly if not by the flavour they give off? if we posit that not all people we see and meet are representations of real people then what are they but random composites of real people, saying and doing things that real people have done plus perhaps some random causal factor? they are not "real" but they are just like someone real or several real people. perhaps some of these people have a biography, they are consistent, or perhaps some people, that we only see for a minute say, walking past us on the street, never appear again, and have none!

assume that the general speed of the world is fast, change can be almost instantaneous, communication is not perfect, for errors and mutation exist, giving rise to the random nature of the universe, and our own eyesight and hearing, or our projection field, is prone to inflation and errors too, all give credence to this argument of a simulated world. it wasn't meant to be this, but this is what happened.

CLEARCHARGE

Alternate Dimensions, Other Worlds and Partial Correlation

alternate dimensions other worlds and partial correlation:

it is most likely naive to assume that everyone lives in the same world, with all the same people, also that when people meet, true correlation is the case when most likely it is not, that what is transmitted from another person regarding it, is not exactly received or that the signal carrying the data is not accurately interpreted about that person, that what we sense about another person does not correspond exactly to what that person is all about. real distance in space, and mutation of signal, signal loss, and inaccuracies in interpretation to replicate what is going on at a distance, mean that true correlation may be foolish fancy. that the system in place in this reality is well engineered is an assumption that must be undermined.

in the beginning, certainly, we were not in the same world, not by a long shot actually. constant communication and even rapid advances in communication in recent times still does not mean that we all live in the same world now even. indeed, we may still assume that everyone is still in their own world, an earth-like version, and though it might seem that two people are in the same world, one might be in an alternate dimension to the other, even though they meet. to apply numbers, for example, two people who meet may both believe they are on Earth, but the correlation figure for their two worlds might only be 86%, that the geography might not fully agree is one point, the other is that the two sets of the people in both worlds might not is the other point.

to give an example, two people might both walk along the same street in a busy city, but one sees fewer people than the other, and also sees people that the other does not see. we must admit that the sets or networks of people that the two are in may be different. why should they be the same in any case? social networks are formed by forging links between people in real space, are they not, and if we assume that this task is more difficult, that the system is not fully connected, then are individual networks not different?

that the system is far from perfect and that individual projection fields that render what we see and hear are prone to confusion and inaccuracies means that we cannot assume that we see and hear people truly. there are the factors of random application and inflation to consider also. that the signal must pass through all the personal zones between two people and in all probability must be flavored, if you like, or mutated, to take on that of the people in the middle or those closest in the most perhaps.

the plank underlying this argument is partial correlation, that errors exist in data transmission, that some data is not transferred, unrelated data is applied, and rendering or replication is an inexact science, so indeed, how could we all live in the same world with the same people?

CLEARCHARGE