Closer to Virtual Reality: Extraterrestrials and the Simulation Hypothesis

I think that the Simulation Hypothesis - a hypothesis that we 'live' as virtual beings in the simulated landscape in the computer - is the most probable hypothesis when it comes to choosing between differing likelihood of reality. However, the key word revolves around what I "believe". I cannot prove that the Simulation Hypothesis may be the be-all-and-end-all of our reality - not yet at least though I'm working on that. Thus, I have to keep an open mind to the chance that our reality isn't virtual but really real. For the time being my pontificating on the aliens-are-here, the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis and related, is usually to be examined within that virtual reality scenario.

# Virtual Aliens: If the Simulation Hypothesis is correct, what would it mean for aliens to be here? It could mean no more and no less than what would it mean for a simulated couch to stay your simulated living room or perhaps a simulated tree in your simulated yard or a simulated crook to pickpocket your simulated wallet. You're asking a question about the motivation of whoever programmed into our simulated landscape the this, and the that and the next matter too including the idea of simulated anomalous lights in the sky and simulated extraterrestrials having their wicked way with a select handful of us. I've no idea what their motivation might be.

I suggest though that one needs to perhaps look at things through the eyes of our very own simulated beings part-and-parcel of our simulated landscapes inside our video gaming. What would these virtual beings that we have programmed think of all the bits-and-pieces that people have included in their virtual world? Why is this guy shooting at me? How come this monster lurking in the shadows? How come this Little Green Man abducting and raping my daughter? Do we not include aliens, and all types of alien interactions inside our own video games? Have we not created video games that revolve around "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" and their associated extraterrestrials? So, if we do it, what's the issue with what someone (or something) might use in the programming of our simulation and simulated landscape?

Okay, that's hardly a question that discounts the existence of aliens in the here and today in what you will call our really real reality.

# The Supreme Programmer: It could well be the fact that so far as our Supreme Programmer - the they / it / them responsible for creating our virtual reality - can be involved, we are just trivia. If this Supreme Programmer has designed hundreds or thousands of simulated universes and landscapes, then yes, we're trivial. But so to is any simulation or video game that we create. You buy an off-the-shelf gaming and isn't really each of the contents really trivial? But back to simulated aliens. Since we've programmed hundreds of video games that feature aliens, and produced hundreds of movies and TV episodes (cinema being yet another type of simulation) that featured ET, some made even before the start of the modern UFO era, why should we (Royal We) and why should you (as in just you) raise eyebrows at the idea that our Supreme Programmer(s) featured aliens? Many types of what passes for entertainment is trivial. Our science fiction novels and short stories feature aliens by the bucketful who don't "need to travel through space, time, space-time, or even a mental space to get "here"." Well actually they need to travel with a mental space - the author's mental space or the film producer's mental space or the programmer's mental space. So maybe we're just entertainment for the Supreme Programmer, the "we're" including aliens and UFOs all rounding out the Supreme Programmer's cosmic landscape.

If we could talk to our gaming or simulation characters (or characters written into a novel or who appear on the big screen) - and as you note, we can not, yet - they might ask questions nearly the same as what must exist in the minds of readers here about why we (the Royal We), their creators, programmed this or that or the next thing in creating their simulated landscape. We (the Royal We) might respond that that's the way we wanted it, even though it was trivial, or absurd.

I need explain when addressing the Simulation Hypothesis that no free will exists. The characters in our novels haven't any free will; the characters in our films have no free will; the characters inside our video games haven't any free will. If we're the creation of a Supreme Programmer, we've no free will. We may haven't any free will whenever we boldly go, but as long as we think we've free will we (Royal We) can be convinced of our boldly going prowess. That by the by could equally apply even if we exist in a really real reality.

But if anyone has digested anything I've ever posted about the Simulation Hypothesis, they'd take note there is one vast difference between my postulated Supreme Programmer and a supernatural deity, or God if that word floats your boat. My postulated Supreme Programmer is really a fallible SOB and 'oops' happen and absurdities happen. God, being omni this and omni that and omni the following point wouldn't create any oops or absurdities.

It is important to contrast a creation by a perfect being, an omni-God, whose creation logically will be perfect - no anomalies, no absurdities - and an imperfect being just like a mortal flesh-and-blood computer programmer whose programming wouldn't normally continually be perfect and would probably contain anomalies and absurdities. The proof of that pudding could it be the constant updates and upgrades you get for your PC as well as the news stories that surface from time to time about security programming flaws in software that permit the less than ethical in our midst to accomplish relatively nasty things to our privacy, our bank accounts, our databases, our private and public institutions, like hacking in to the NSA or the CIA, or having the NSA and the CIA hack into our PC's.

But by the by, if anyone were to wish to call the Supreme Programmer, the software/computer programmer in charge of our Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe "supernatural", that's fine by me given that it isn't an omni-supernatural they / it / they. But what this nitpicking actually plays a part in the subject of E.T. and whether or not aliens are, or aren't here, inside our postulated virtual reality quite escapes me. I doubt if the readers here give a damn whether or not a computer programmer can be defined as someone "supernatural".

# The Twilight Zone: Whoever, whatever, programmed our cosmos and our local landscape had a feeling of the absurd. Perhaps that's our Supreme Programmer's sense of humour arriving at the fore. What absurdities? Quantum physics is absurd. The truth that we just can't come up with a Theory of Everything is absurd. An accelerating expansion rate for the cosmos is absurd. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are absurd concepts.  VR Rooms  are absurd (but they're here). The Loch Ness Monster is absurd (but people report seeing it or them). Long Delayed Echoes are absurd (but verified). Transient Lunar Phenomena are absurd (but verified). Those Martian rock 'anomalies' like lizards, rats and skulls are absurd (but they have been photographed). Biblical 'miracles' are absurd but millions believe they happened. The SETI "WOW" signal is an absurdity nonetheless it happened. You can find all types of archaeological absurdities, but I'll mention just one - The Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek in present day Lebanon. There are lots of things that are absurd with regards to the human species: here's one - humans are the only species where the saying "don't shoot and soon you see the whites of their eyes makes actual sense. If photons cannot escape from the Black Hole then neither can gravitons. Gravitons convey the gravitational force meaning that Black Holes exert no gravity. A Black Hole without gravity is therefore an absurdity. You then have quasars that appear linked but have vastly differing red shifts that is also an absurdity. The missing satellite of Venus, Neith, is another absurdity as in how can satellites vanish? You have physical constants that apparently aren't - constant that is. Time travel to days gone by is both theoretically possible (General Relativity) and theoretically impossible (paradoxes) - it's an absurdity to possess both something that could be and not be at the same time. Ghosts are absurd yet there are probably more sightings of ghosts heading back to ancient times than there were sightings of UFOs. Perhaps UFOs, the "Greys" and related may also be absurdities, however they exist in good company with the others of what passes for our simulated cosmic 'Twilight Zone'.

Here are some more absurdities to ponder over.  Go here  can find three generations of elementary particles, yet only 1 plays any significant role in the cosmos. The other two contribute nothing of substance and structure, so why is there another and a third generation of the elementary particles? In archaeology, the Mesoamerican Olmec massive multi-ton stone heads scream out 'made in Africa' or 'we're African', yet there should not have been any cross-cultural contact between Africa and Central America in the past in Olmec days. This type of scenario is deemed an absurdity. Lastly, turning again to human anomalies, we alone in all the animal kingdom have a bipedal gait without good thing about a balancing tail. A bipedal gait without any balancing mechanism makes us very unstable on our feet. We're super easy to knock over. We can lose our balance, fall down and do ourselves a mischief quickly relative to the rest of the animal kingdom. That OUR MOTHER EARTH would select for such an absurdity, is, well, an absurdity.

Exceptions to the rule, like the human bipedal gait, require extra special scrutiny since at first glance lone exceptions appear highly out-of-place and anomalous. Another example is with respect to velocity. Velocities could be added and subtracted with one exception - the speed of light. How come this so? Nobody knows.

Now from the within of the computer searching, as virtual beings, we could never know for absolute certain that anomalies or absurdities weren't designed deliberately or included in the system. But it doesn't mean we (Royal We) can't damn well have suspicions, especially when the anomalies or the absurdities just keep on mounting up. So there is absolutely no such thing, as some might suggest, of a proven 'oops', but there certainly can be suspicions that something is screwy somewhere. There couldn't logically be such suspicions if an omni-God (or equivalent) were the only real option regarding our creation, a thing that was the case in ancient times before education and software simulations was conceived of in anyone's philosophy. An omni-God is not any longer the only real creation scenario game in town.

I repeat, our Universe may be deliberately designed to be a 'Twilight Zone' cosmos, but the odds seem to favour some unintentional "oops" due to lapses in the programming that has been done by my postulated Supreme (but fallible) Programmer. Given the absolute complexity of designing a simulated cosmos from scratch, it really is logical to suspect that anyone who isn't an omni-God would goof a couple of things up. No-one can prove that, but one certainly can suspect that not all is right with the cosmos; one can have one's doubts! The end result is that anomalies and absurdities most definitely argue against an omni-God but support the idea of a fallible creator, like a computer programmer.