You are on page 1of 7

Science and Reality

Ian R Thorpe
Scientists believe they have come close to solving the 'Matrix' theory
The question of whether we live in a real world or a simulated one has plagued
philosophers for centuries - but now scientists believe they finally have found a way
to test the theory
!rofessor Silas "eane# a theoretical physicist at the $niversity of "onn in
%ermany said that his group of scientists have developed a way to test the 'simulation
hypothesis' The idea has been debated by the greats of philosophy# from !lato to
&escartes# who speculated that the world we see around us could be generated by an
'evil demon' 'ow more than two thousand years since !lato suggested that our
senses only give us a poor reflection of ob(ective reality# experts believe they have
crac)ed the riddle
The successful film franchise# The Matrix# helped spawn the idea that what we
The Universal I -
thin) is our everyday life is in fact a simulation generated by an all-powerful
computer li)e in &ouglas *dams' novel +itch +i)er's %uide To The %alaxy in which
a very powerful computer called &eep Thought tries to calculate the answer to ,ife
the $niverse and -verything
!rofessor "eane told "". Radio /'s Today programme that his proposal could be
the beginning of a new period of discovery The test would see scientists using
empathetical models )nown as the lattice 0.& approach in an attempt to recreate -
on a theoretical level - a simulated reality To identify what these constraints would
be# scientists would have to build their own simulation of the universe
'ow if you are thin)ing this sounds li)e a rather grandiose scheme at best and at
worst another idiotic waste of money dreamed up by the )ind of psychotics who
mas) their loonytoons mathematical fantasising behind a mas) of 1science1 I'm with
you Science is a meaningless word# a science is a formal and classified body of
)nowledge according to "ritish and *merican dictionaries# therefore as everybody
)nows something we can all claim to be 1scientists1
%enerally spea)ing humans in the secular societies of the developed world#
including scientists who whether they li)e it or not are only human# tend to be
"eep Thou!ht #$itch $i%er&s 'uide To The 'ala(y)
programmed or educated to believe that the only acceptable way of acquiring truth is
through scientific methodology
There are two problems here 2ne is that it is simply not true 3in fact is one of the
massive falsehoods being programmed in the population today45 there are other ways
of determining a high degree of certainty in data 3we shall cover this later4 The
second problem with the above is that only a fraction of a percent of universal
phenomena can be proven by scientific experimentation Thus we need to explain
why the scientific method is so limiting5 do that and the importance of of developing
other means of determining truth would be recognised 6urthermore we also need to
bring forward these other capabilities of evaluating truths using the faculties of the
The experimental method is of course excellent and essential for quantitative
evaluations of what it can access# such as measuring the acceleration due to gravity
This is a favourite of mathematics teachers who love to babble about 'terminal
velocity' If a man weighting 78 )ilos and with a body surface area of 97 square
meters fell off a ten story building how fast would be be travelling:; they love to as)#
being mathematics teachers There's only one anser of course# so fast they would not
sit up and say <+ey guys# how fast was I going when I hit:;
Such phenomena as terminal velocity are relative to a )nown context and there is
no problem +owever# whenever science is engaged in evaluating the boundaries of
)nown )nowledge it is restricted to the context of the observer's nature# it becomes
interpretive# art rather than a science
In scientific methodology the observer can consist of physical senses and
scientific instruments as well as human senses So why is it that relatively so little of
universal phenomena can be detected and measured by the experimental method:
This is because the physical senses and scientific instruments are in an energy
category or spectrum of very low resolution in relation to the infinite and timeless
universe in which they exist
Those who call themselves scientists are unabashed when confronted with the
limitations of their methodology The usual response is to explain# in a patronising
and condescending way that there is a huge difference between a scientific theory and
a secular theory Scientists# they say# publish hypotheses which are then sub(ected to
peer review and when a consensus emerges then a scientific theory becomes a fact in
every sense except that is cannot be tested# the truth cannot be demonstrated
$nfortunately this has led via academic
bullying to some right old bolloc)s being taught
as if it is a scientifically demonstrable truth
rather that a mathematical speculation String
theory# once described by eminent *ustrian
physicist as 1So worthless it is not even wrong#1
becoming the standard model by which
physicists understand how the universe wor)s
Is it any wonder that the ,arge +adron .ollider
experiment at .-R' has been compared to a bunch of people loo)ing for a needle in
a haystac) when they did not )now if there was a needle# what a needle loo)ed li)e or
what a haystac) loo)ed li)e 3string theory unravelled4 .hallenge such pointless wasting
of taxpayers money on chasing shadows however and you will be ferociously
attac)ed by =ealots of the .hurch of Scienceology 3pun intended4 who will permit no
criticism of their Scientific %od or the crac)pot cult based on its worship
It is that )ind of scientific arrogance that prompted somebody to comment#
1Science# often in error# never in doubt1
So what do we do about these people who say they are scientists and expect us
mere mortals to be in awe of them: >ell I have a theory that being the personal
hygiene deficient nerds they are don't get much sex3I exclude the female scientists I
have 1)nown1 who were both fragrant but in need of education and once told that I
understand what a nuclear physicist and an organic chemist do but nobody has ever
managed to explain to me what a 'scientist' actually does# got on very well with me4
"ecause 1scientists1 have a sacred obligation to uphold the dogmas of science they
tend to ignore warnings in the "aghavad %ita# *vesta# "ible# Tao and ?oran that no
good will come of allowing oneself to become a slave to the senses# and become
addicted to the sensual sound of the word science with it's plethora of sibilants and
soft vowels I can only assume they imagine saying it produces the same sensation as
fondling the well rounded buttoc)s of a beautiful woman who is wearing sil) panties
3It doesn't - trust me4
This latest bunch of scientists who want to waste shedloads of money on what
amounts to an intellectual wan) for themselves and their buddies are hoping to
persuade governments than an exercise to create a computer simulation of the
universe would be theoretically possible - and what the constraints on the 'evil
demon' might be >ell one would be that we have no idea what the universe is made
of *bout @8A according to current theory is made of dar) matter and dar) energy#
two things that nobody has seen# heard# felt# smelled# put in bottles or sold on - "ay
but which scientists insist must be real because if they aren't# all the current theories
on what the universe is made of will fall apart
,attice 0.& is a complex approach that that loo)s at how particles )nown as
quar)s and gluons relate in three dimensions "ut# according to that stupid# pointless
waste of money called The ,arge +ardon .ollider and the hypotheses on which
string theory# M theory# +iggs boson theory# electric universe theory# steady state
theory# cyclic universe theory# are based# string theory# there are eleven dimensions
So what happened to the other eight: They are in the same place as the lost tribes of
Israel I guess 3Three theories that could blow up big "ang4
"ut bac) to +itch +i)er's %uide To The %alaxy and the computer model of the
universe !rofessor "eane saysB 1>e consider ourselves on some level universe
simulators because we calculate the interactions of particles by basically replacing
space and time by a grid and putting it in a box1 3Really: *nd selling it on - "ay
+e continued 1In doing that we face lots of problems for instance the box and the
grid si=e brea)s -instein's special theory of relativity so we need to )now how to fix
this in order to get physical predictions that are meaningful >e thought that if we
ma)e the assumption that the so-called simulators face some of the same problems
that we do in terms of finite resources and so on then# if they are doing a simulation
and even though their box si=e of course is enormous and the grid si=e can be very
small# as long as the resources are finite then the box si=e will be finite# the grid si=e
will be finite *nd therefore at some level for instance there would be violations of
-instein's special theory of relativity1
-rm yeah right If you say so mate
!hilosophers have cautioned that there is
still some way to go before we find out
whether the universe is simulated and what we
thin) of as physical reality is really (ust the
wor)ings of a giant computer called &eep
Thought as it wor)s at calculating the meaning
of ,ife# The $niverse and -verything 3sic4
&r !eter Millican of +ertford .ollege#
2xford told the programmeB 1There are two main issues# one is whether the
speculation even ma)es sense and the other is supposing it ma)es sense whether there
is any good reason to thin) it is plausible *nother problem is evidence It seems to
me that the evidence that is loo)ed for is not that convincing1
&escartes said the evil demon that he believed controlled the universe is 1as
clever and deceitful as he is powerful# who has directed his entire effort to misleading
me1 To fuc)ing powerful for scientists it seems because more and more of them seen
to be falling under his spell -ither that or the poor# insane twunts are so intelligent
they can't distinguish between fact and fiction
&escartes also argued that his ability to thin) was# at least# proof enough that he
was real# writingB 1I thin)# therefore I am1 Scientists can't thin)# or at least not
lucidly enough to see the sheer idiocy of this and other colossal wastes of money and
resources they are currently prattling about Therefore they are not real
!lato said that reality may be no more than shadows in a cave but the cave
dweller# having never left the cave# may not be aware of it ,et's stic) with what we
)now# or at least have the good sense to )eep a firm hold on reality as we edge
forward one step at a time
FOR THE BENEFIT OF PROF. BEANE the answer to his question# is reality
real or is the universe (ust a computer simulation isB FORTY TWO
.aptive Minds and .owardly Intellectuals
The %rand Illusion 2f Self
The "rain In * "ottle
0uantum SoulB Is -ach 2f $s * !art 2f The $niverse
$niversal !resentiment
The 6light 6rom 6reedom
,et $s See) 'ew Courneys
!hilo and Sophia
Ian R Thorpe
Things That Ma)e Dou "oggle ,i)e The Misplaced .onfidence 2f *cademics
*cene from +atri( ,eloaded