New Book Avaliable (and free) "Exploring the Simulation"

[JosiahPastor]

You can acquire our short 90 page book either for free or on Amazon via the following links and learn all about the simulation and how to access base reality. 

This simple book is packed full of knowledge regarding the nature of our universe and the meaning and purpose of human life, as well as what comes next. 

While I would appreciate you purchasing this, I believe the information contained within is so vital that I will provide it freely to those who can not afford it. The PDF and YouTube based Audiobook are both free.

E-Book for Kindle:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0C22L3SKN

Paperback:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0C1J7CR4H

Free E-Book (PDF):
http://simulationevidence.com/files/expl...lation.pdf

Free Audiobook (YouTube)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jN-N4H9lYRM

[Ninurta]

I read the book, in it's entirety, and find inconsistencies.

On page 5, we read:

"Given that I have received this specialized knowledge of the simulated world and the base reality beyond it, I am in the unique position to be your conduit to this life-changing and mind-blowing information and guide you through the process of waking up your mind. Ill teach you how to live and what to believe, just follow me and everything will be alright. You can believe in me and my teachings, even if you’ve given up on yourself; we can work together to create something wonderful and fulfilling, and one day you can level up and become something more than just a non-player character in this system."

Here, we see the author claiming "special knowledge" that he "received", which is standard in nearly all religions - the "leader" of the religion must be "set apart", elevated above the teeming masses that constitute the base of the religion. Note also the line "just follow me and everything will be alright". Where have we seen that before? Also make note of the phrases "Ill teach you how to live and what to believe" and "believe in me and my teachings".

However, as if to contradict that, the author states further on page 6:

"We know there are a lot of bad things being said about everyone nowadays, especially on the internet. Given that this is true, we’d like to take a moment to state what we are not. No, we are not a cult. In fact, we are not a religion, and we are not a secular or anti-religious movement either. We are not an MLM or other scam and sell no products. This is not a product or a service. We are not politicians or involved in any government, nor do we wish to make a new one. We are not anti-science or climate deniers. We value knowledge, wherever it leads us, however, it makes us feel."

So he expressly denies that it is a religion or a cult. Keep that in mind, as we will revisit it later.

Regarding the limiting parameters of this alleged simulation, the speed of light is mentioned as one of those limits that is coded into the simulation. Now, I've never been convinced that the speed of light is an absolute limit, as the speed of light is subject to the medium through which it propagates - this is why it is always specified as "the speed of light in vacuum", which vacuum does not actually exist anywhere. Wherever we go, there is always "something" present, however tenuous. But let's assume the speed of light is a valid limitation for the sake of argument - in this simulation, it would be meaningless anyhow, on account of the potential for the "teleportation" type of "glitches" or "cheat codes" mentioned in the text, and so would not be any sort of actual limitation, anyhow.


Regarding the discussion of rights for AI, the author mentions a "granting" of rights to AI. This is an incorrect understanding of what "rights" are, and demotes them to mere privileges. Rights (for example, rights of AI) are not "granted", they are pre-existent. "Granting" rights demotes them to the level of "privileges" rather than rights, and implies that, since they are "granted", they are also subject to revocation by the granting authority. That would make of them "privileges" rather than actual "rights", which are never subject to revocation. That is what makes them "rights" to begin with.

Getting back to the "religion/cult vs. not a religion/cult" debate, we find the following on page 81:

"In the Passtoreal faith, you don’t have to translate anything. The whole goal of the faith is to pass your test and upload to reality, that’s why it’s called pass to real. Granted this is more of a cult than a recognized religion, it’s still an interesting side note."

Here, we see it to be expressly described as a "faith", another word for "religion", and even further, designated as "more of a cult" by the author himself. The initial claim of being a "not religion" is here contradicted or invalidated.

Even the goals are predicated along the same lines as nearly any other religion, as we see on page 82:

"Our expressed goal is that of accessing the developer of the simulation and living our simulated lives in a prescribed manner, eventually shedding the simulated body and uploading the mind to hardware in the base reality."

So it does appear to, at the very least, wear the trappings of a religion. It, for example, merely changes the designation of "god" in other religions to "the Developer" in this one. If we wanted to describe it as a "cult", we only have to read onward to obtain verification of that assessment. On page 83, we read:

"I am seriously interested in setting up a research facility to study the simulation. This facility must be isolated both in terms of communication and geography from the outside world."

Isolation is a well know manipulative technique, from Jonestown to Stockholm Syndrome to the run of the mill abusive spouse. It is used to manipulate the minds of those so isolated, and prevent them from accessing any ideas from the "outside world" that the manipulator may not want them to entertain, ideas that may contradict what is being fed to them by the manipulator.

That paragraph made me VERY uneasy.

In conclusion, this "Simulation Hypothesis" appears to be a religion or a cult wrapped in a cloak of scientific respectability. It could be alternatively viewed as a technological theorem wrapped in religious trappings. Perhaps more accurately, it seems to be an attempt to synthesize religion and science into one single entity, which is not possible.

Religion and science are two entirely separate fields of inquiry, and do not mesh together, nor can they contradict one another. They are like oil and water - they do not mix. Religion seeks to answer the question of "why", whereas science seeks to answer the question of "how". While it is possible for them to work alongside one another, it is not possible for them to merge together into a single entity.

Attempting that merge only serves to diminish both science and religion, because to attempt to do so, one must reduce each to their lowest common denominator. That does a good service to neither of them. It merely reduces, truncates, cripples both.

It could potentially serve as an introduction to religion for technically minded, but uninitiated, persons, or as an introduction to computer games for Luddites such as myself, using religious terminology as a springboard for understanding gaming.

I sense that neither of those goals, however, is the aim of the author.

.

[JosiahPastor]

Thank you for taking the time to read the material. To address your concerns, yes the devoloper of this simulation has unlocked this information in my mind, however I encourage you to study for yourself as well. You should come to the same conclusion. Most of the other concerns are issues of context. Finally, I believe that this is the kernel of truth which degraded into all religions over time, and if something is true, science should be able to uncover it. Truth is truth, which path you take to it is up to you. Consider this not a new religion, but a reset of all religion to origins. With this in mind, are you interested in joining?

[Ninurta]

Thank you for taking the time to read the material. To address your concerns, yes the devoloper of this simulation has unlocked this information in my mind, however I encourage you to study for yourself as well. You should come to the same conclusion. Most of the other concerns are issues of context. Finally, I believe that this is the kernel of truth which degraded into all religions over time, and if something is true, science should be able to uncover it. Truth is truth, which path you take to it is up to you. Consider this not a new religion, but a reset of all religion to origins. With this in mind, are you interested in joining?

No, I'm not interested in joining, but thanks for asking. I already have a religion, and don't need another. While my religion is also unconventional, it has stood the test of time, so far. I'm not a Christian, nor a Muslim, nor a Jew, nor a Buddhist, nor a Hindu, nor any of the fancy newfangled "Pagan" religions that make claims to being "the old religion". The only "hardware" my religion involves is in this reality, none to be found in what you call "base reality" - none needed. Hardware would only impart unnecessary limitations there, just as it does here. Why jump out of one frying pan just to land in another one? That wouldn't be an upgrade, just a sideload. So, in my conception, I don't anticipate "uploading" into any more "hardware" of any sort. Not for a while, anyhow... unless I get recycled, which I suppose is a possibility.

I'm fairly certain the science has not yet been invented or discovered that can investigate the "how" to my belief system's "why". Not that it never can be discovered, only that it has not yet been. With recent advances in quantum mechanics, they may - and I stress MAY - be on the right course of discovery, but I think it will take a while, given the current state of humanity, and may involve new ways of thinking, just as Einsteinian Mechanics revamped Newtonian Mechanics... but still came up short.

The funny thing about discovery is that it always involves discoveries. Science just hasn't got there yet is all. Doesn't mean it never will.

As Tecumseh said, "trouble no man about his religion" - to each his own. In the end, whatever comes, we all have to answer individually for ourselves when we get to wherever we are going - we won't have to answer for anyone else, nor will they be responsible to answer for us - and I'm comfortable with my answers.

.