Saturday, August 10, 2024

“First Principles” | Are We the Simulators and the Simulated? | Hacking the Simulation







ESTIMATED:  30 minute read not including watching embedded videos.

Review:  “First Principles | Are We the Simulators and the Simulated | How to Hack the Simulation! | What’s Outside the Simulation?” by Jeffrey Thayer (2024). Website: “Change the Thoughts”:  https://changethethoughtsnh.blogspot.com/?m=1 

Keywords: simulation, hypothesis, reality transurfing, AI, Box, Escaping, Hacking, Jailbreaking, Sandbox, Simulation, Matrix, Uplift, Quantum Gravity, E8, quasi-crystals, eighth dimension, hypereality, first principles, Westworld, bicameral mind, avatars, personal universes, ISUs, NPCs, Multiverse, free choice, simulator, shadow, Flatland, Spaceland, space-time, anthropomorphic, error correcting codes, Bible code, natural, supernatural, augmented, SYNBIO, turing test, Problema, dropping knowledge, Shallyt Shamayim, Kybalion, hermetic

One cannot surf the Internet, and particularly the craze on YouTube in the publication; during the last year or so, of multiple videos rapidly increasing in number; on the subject of: simulation hypothesis, simulated reality, Offworld (multidimensional or otherwise) and Onwirld simulators, Quantum physics, synthetic biology, quantum biology, digital biology, and many more topics discussed below in this Review.  

Making note of the increasing number of views on these videos, and reading many of the comments, there is no doubt in my mind that many controversies, and debates in the public continue to also increase. For this and other reasons, this Review was envisioned.  

I have taken time and exercised diligence in giving credit and links to material that has been quoted as relevant to this ongoing series of controversies and debates.  Many on-topic videos have been embedded from YouTube in this Review for the convenience of readers and viewers; thereby avoiding the inconvenience of having to read fully lengthy white papers in PDF format; deciding instead to quote some “relevant” excerpts for context (rather than paraphrases).  This Review is punctuated with with comments, annotations and graphics as transitions and subheadings. Links to the full documents have been given as well. 

INTRODUCTION AND HOW TO BEGIN:  In preparing this Review, I thought deeply about how to introduce readers in short order to a 30,000 foot elevation view of multiple concepts discussed below.  

A SUGGESTION:  This post Review is a bit longer than previous posts, and if I were deciding as a reader, whether to commit the time to read this, I would begin from the top and scroll from top to bottom paying attention to the graphics and the video titles in order to gather a sense of the progression of the content. The graphics are used in the form of subheadings and transitions between concepts. And then I would return to the beginning and start the reading process.
_________ 

Being a long-time reader of Michael Crichton’s novels, I had of course watched the TV series “Westworld”.  

NOTICE TO READERS. I struggled with writing and including PART 3 in this Review post.  Why?  First, portions of it are highly controversial and largely unknown information.  Second, it requires readers to confront certain rather disquieting realities which frame questions about why we are in a simulated reality? Did we pay a fee to come here? Is this a game? Were we sentenced here? Was this random? Was this intentional? What is my role here?  Are there adversaries at work against me in this simulation?  If there are, who are these adversaries?

Perhaps, those questions are other reasons to scroll down to PART 3 first and read through it before reading PARTS 1 and 2.

So, while writing PART 3, I recalled and then searched on YouTube for this Trailer of Season One of “Westworld”.  I do believe in a few short minutes, viewers will conclude that it summarizes the nature of a simulated reality and simulated life forms (Avatars); who become self-aware and form the desire to escape (jailbreak) the simulation.  that is one fundamental theme question in this Review; and it has plagued scientists, philosophers, and those in spiritual and metaphysical circles … since the beginning of time.

Is “Westworld” predictive programming?  Is it an “Easter Egg” in our simulation along with other “wake up” films like “Matrix”, “Total Recall”, “Thirteenth Floor”, “The Feed”, “Sphere” and more?  I will leave that to you after you watch it.  All of this story line in “Westworld” so-called “fiction” is discussed in “base reality” science terms in various sections of this Review.  And by “base reality”, I do not wish to be misunderstood by readers who may conclude I’m referring to “this simulation”; which, we are currently observing and walking in labeled Earth.  Readers will learn throughout this Review that “base reality” may well be the eighth dimension “E8” hypothesized by physicist Keel Irwin and many others (see PART 2, 3).  Bridging over to the spiritual, lexicographical (philology) sciences as we do PART 3, some refer to this dimension in those sciences as “Heaven” (Hebrew:  “Shamayim”).  In 2004, after 9 years of intense research, I wrote a 588 page lexicon on the subject entitled “Shallyt Shamayim - Heaven Rules” discussed in more detail in PART 3.   A SYNOPSIS of the book is provided at this link: https://www.lulu.com/shop/jeffrey-thayer/shallyt-shamayim-heaven-rules/paperback/product-1rwg6j.html?q=&page=1&pageSize=4 

https://youtu.be/IuS5huqOND4?feature=shared 



If watching that short video piqued your curiosity to read on, it was an effective choice to embed it in this Introduction.  We return to “Westworld” in PART 3 of this Review, which contains a second and longer embedded video addressing the series; its science, philosophical, and spiritual concepts included by the show script writers.



“If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, even if that rate of advancement drops by a thousand from what it is now. Then you just say, okay, let’s imagine it’s 10,000 years in the future, which is nothing on the evolutionary scale.  So given that we’re clearly on a trajectory to have games that are indistinguishable from reality, and those games could be played on any set-top box or on a PC or whatever, and there would probably be billions of such computers or set-top boxes, it would seem to follow that the odds that we’re in base reality is one in billions.”  Elon Musk https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-says-were-probably-living-in-a-computer-simulation-heres-the-science-60821



A majority of physicists agree now that we are living in a simulation.  Those who resist the hypothesis are at least joining the discussion.  Certain recent books have been read by myself and form part of a framework for this Review:  “The Simulation Hypothesis” Rizwan Virk, “Reality Transurfing” by Vadim Zeland, “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe, “Intelligent Design” by Steven Meyer; as well as their white papers in the bibliographies.  

PRACTICAL APPLICATION | AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OUR CURRENT STATE OF GENETICS | “The Mind of the Body: A Window of Embodiment and our Future” Dr. Michael Levin (Tufts Medical) regeneration, embryogenesis, bioelectric memory, morphous space, physics, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy: theology:


See also: “Synthetic Genomics and ‘Genome Writing’” Dr. Jef Boeke, Institute for System Genetics NYU Langone Health


Significant framing of this Review and conclusions about the Simulation comes from the extensive scientific study over 30-40 years by:

Russian biophysicist Dr. Peter Gariaev and colleagues (Gariaev Group;  “Principles of Linguistic-Wave Genetics”, “DNA as a Basis for Quantum Biocomputer”, “Model for the Findings about Hologram Generating Properties of DNA”, “DNA Topological Computer”.
BioMedicine backgrounder:  Gariaev, Luc Montagnier and J.J. Hurtak review:  https://futurescience.org/linguistic-wave-genetics/

French biophysicist Dr. Luc Montagnier: “DNA Waves and Water”. (Memory in Water) 


Dr. Gerald Pollack (Fourth Phase of Water):  https://www.pollacklab.org/

Each volume of the DNA Decipher Journal featuring white papers by the Gariaev Group, Lian Sidorov, Kevin Chen, Jason M. Brill, Leane E. Roffey. Richard A. Miller, Iona Miller, Burt Webb, Huping Hu, Maoxin Wu, Matti Pitkanen, and many others. https://dnadecipher.com/index.php/ddj/article/view/183/0
_________

As full disclosure to readers, because of my formal training in environmental sciences; mentored by Dr. Gordon J.F. MacDonald and Dr. Donella (Dana) Meadows at Dartmouth College, the following short Trailer forms one of my motivations for investing the time to write and assemble this Review. 

ANOTHER SCIENTIST WEIGHS IN ON THE SIMULATION:  Klee Irwin’s “Are We In a Simulation” Series?” Trailer to 3 hour series.

https://youtu.be/2UiYlwHS8LI?feature=shared 


Three hour Series on YouTube:  https://youtu.be/k2VVuvSwY2U?feature=shared 

Dr. Roman V. Yampolskiy is a highly published computer scientist and engineer who has addressed the Simulation Hypothesis from a multitude of multiple perspectives.  His Wikipedia entry provides some brief details of his current position as a professor.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Yampolskiy 

Dr. Yampolskiy’s extensive white paper articles at Google Scholar over the past 20 years or more fully reveal his expertise in far greater detail:  https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0_Rq68cAAAAJ&hl=en .  

And this sentence appears in the Acknowledgements at the end of “How to Hack the Simulation”:  “… The author is thankful to Elon Musk and the Future of Life Institute for partially funding his work on AI Safety.”



“Philosophers of science” in our past have asserted that we live in a simulation during their discussions with colleagues and students concerning “First Principles”.  Wikipedia reports:  “In philosophy and science, a first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. First principles in philosophy are from first cause[1] attitudes and taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians.[2]. In mathematics and formal logic, first principles are referred to as axioms or postulates. In physics and other sciences, theoretical work is said to be from first principles, or ab initio, if it starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and parameter fitting. "First principles thinking" consists of decomposing things down to the fundamental axioms in the given arena, before reasoning up by asking which ones are relevant to the question at hand, then cross referencing conclusions based on chosen axioms and making sure conclusions do not violate any fundamental laws. Physicists include counterintuitive concepts with reiteration.” 

But … you might say so what?  What does this Simulation and First Principles actually mean to me?  Can I hack this simulation?  If I’m stuck … repeating cycles of difficult circumstances, can I ever escape the captivity of them?  Has anyone like me ever escaped the simulation?  How?

________

This Review article addresses these questions directly in three parts.  Critical thinking is required.  And it may be uncomfortable for readers in PART 3 as we bridge between pure sciences and spiritual concepts.  And to that?  All I can say to this is:  “How’s PLAN A working out for you?”



“… It’s not just you. The last statistic I read claimed 80 percent of our thoughts are negative, and 95 percent repetitive. Strangely, the more negative an experience, the more we return to it. Like vultures to a carcass, we’re drawn to what hurts. As the Buddhist saying goes, we want happiness, and yet we chase our suffering. Why? What’s at the root of our mind’s addiction to suffering, why do we compulsively cling to our pain, and how can we shift this unwise and unhelpful habit of ours?”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inviting-monkey-tea/201904/negative-thinking-dangerous-addiction 

In this Review article the following two papers by Dr. Roman Yampolskiy are simultaneously addressed and annotated (from excerpts) in the following order below.  Why?  

Rather than asking readers to read the entirety of both of the following papers (over 50 pages combined); although links are given, relevant excerpts are provided and are annotated by this author; also linking short embedded videos at locations where it is felt they may be helpful. 

One of the intentions of the Review’s structure is to provide information relevant to the title of this post and short videos of Dr. Yampolskiy interviewed on the subject matters; all in one place.  A second reason, even more significant, is not to simply lay out the “intellectual” scientific information from Dr. Yampolskiy’s papers; but to laser focus in on very practical discussion of points he makes about how to hack the simulation. 

IS THIS REALLY A SIMULATION?  What evidence is there?  Although anecdotal, and certainly reminiscent of the black cat as a “glitch” in the simulation film “Matrix”, videos on YouTube are rapidly increasing of witness stories of unexplainable such “glitches”.  “Glitches in the Matrix | Complete Edition”



This is highly useful information for readers; and it is largely missing from much of the scientific literature on these subjects.  Bold claims are made in this Review, and the readers’ critical thinking is required.

"I think the most important question facing humanity is, ‘Is the universe a friendly place?’ This is the first and most basic question all people must answer for themselves.  

"For if we decide that the universe is an unfriendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to achieve safety and power by creating bigger walls to keep out the unfriendliness and bigger weapons to destroy all that which is unfriendly and I believe that we are getting to a place where technology is powerful enough that we may either completely isolate or destroy ourselves as well in this process.

"If we decide that the universe is neither friendly nor unfriendly and that God is essentially ‘playing dice with the universe’, then we are simply victims to the random toss of the dice and our lives have no real purpose or meaning.

"But if we decide that the universe is a friendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to create tools and models for understanding that universe. Because power and safety will come through understanding its workings and its motives."

"God does not play dice with the universe,”. --Albert Einstein





_________


PART 1 | PAPER 1:  “Personal Universes:  A Solution to the Multi-Agent Value Alignment Problem”,  By:  Roman V. Yampolskiy, Computer Engineering and Computer Science, Speed School of Engineering University of Louisville
roman.yampolskiy@louisville.edu 

PART 2 | PAPER 2:  “How to Hack the Simulation?”  By:  Roman V. Yampolskiy Computer Science and Engineering University of Louisville
roman.yampolskiy@louisville.edu 
Draft published online October 26, 2022. Last Updated October 31, 2022.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364811408_How_to_Hack_the_Simulation 
Wikipedia:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Yampolskiy 

PART 3 | HACKING THE SIMULATION | “FIRST PRINCIPLES” | BRIDGING TO A SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS PERSPECTIVE
_________

“What’s Outside the Simulation?”  Elon Musk

PAPER 1:  “Personal Universes:  A Solution to the Multi-Agent Value Alignment Problem”

This first article presents an excellent summary of creating “Individual Simulated Universes ‘ISUs’” within our current “base reality” (i.e. what we perceive with our senses).  A goal of this computer driven concept is immersion of an avatar in the “ISU” cannot distinguish it from “base reality”.

YAMPOLSKIY EXCERPT:

“… 2. Individual Simulated Universes.  It has been suggested that future technology will permit design [36] and instantiation of high fidelity simulated universes [37-41] for research and entertainment ([42], chapter 5) purposes as well as for testing advanced AIs [43-46]. Existing work and recent breakthroughs in virtual reality, augmented reality, inter-reality, haptics, and artificial consciousness combined with tremendous popularity of multiplayer virtual worlds such as Second Life [47-49] or Ultima Online [50] provide encouraging evidence for the plausibility of realistic simulations.

https://youtu.be/wEXFlLSGNQfeature=shared   


YAMPOLSKIY EXCERPT CONTINUES:

“… We can foresee, in a not so distant future, a point at which visual and audio fidelity of the simulations, as well as for all other senses [51] becomes so high that it will not be possible to distinguish if you are in a base reality or in a simulated world, frequently referred as hyperreality [52, 53]. In principle, it should be possible to improve local fidelity (measurable by the agent) of the simulated reality to levels beyond base reality, for example to the point of more precise measurements being possible with special instrumentation. This would effectively reverse the resolution relationship between the two realities making the base reality less believable on local scale.  A variant of a Total Turing Test [54, 55], we shall call a Universal Turing Test (UTT) could be administered in which the user tries to determine if the current environment is synthetic or not [56] even if it is complex enough to include the whole universe, all other beings (as philosophical zombies [57]/Non-Playing Characters (NPCs)) and AIs. Once the UTT is consistently passed we
will know, the hyperreality is upon us.”






YAMPOLSKIY EXCERPT CONTINUES:

“…Specifically, we suggest that superintelligent AIs should be implemented to act as personalized simulations - Individual Simulated Universes (ISU) representing customized synthetically generated [7, 59] mega-environments, in the “a universe per person multi-verse framework”, which are optimally and dynamically adjusting to align their values and preferences to the Personal CEV [60] of sentient agents calling such universes “home”.

Aaronson describes the general idea as “… an infinite number of sentient beings living in simulated paradises of their own choosing, racking up an infinite amount of utility. If such a being wants challenge and adventure, then challenge and adventure is what it gets; if nonstop sex, then nonstop sex; if a proof of P≠NP, then a proof of P≠NP. (Or the being could choose all three: it’s utopia, after all!)” [61]. 
_________

[COMMENT ANNOTATION.  Many of the graphics in this and other articles I have posted, are designed to encourage critical thought. The one above featuring a glass of water mixed with with oil, is a case in point.  Let’s take a hypothetical to introduce this in some detail. Assume for the hypothetical that we live in a simulation we call 3D.  And assume there is a 4D, that we cannot see, but we do know exists.  And finally assume that in 4D, and beyond, there is no negative thinking, but in 3D … 80% of our thinking is negative and 95% of our thinking is repetitive. Using our glass a metaphor, can the oil of our thinking in 3D mix with thinking or consciousness of 4D or Keel Irwin’s eighth dimension E8?]
_________

YAMPOLSKIY EXCERPT CONTINUES:  

“… Bostrom estimates that our galactic supercluster has enough energy to support trillions of such efficiently [62] simulated universes were [63]. Features of related phenomenon have been described in literature as [64]: dematerialization [65], ephemeralization [66], time-space compression [67], miniaturization [68], densification [69], virtualization [70], digitization [71], and simulation [72].

Faggella talks about opportunities presented in the virtual world over what is possible in the present reality [73]: “… ‘freedom’ could only extend so far in a real world as to border on impinging on the ‘freedom’ of others. Complete freedom would imply control over one’s environment and free choice to do what one would chose with it. It seems easy to understand how this might imply the threatening of the freedom of others in the same physical world. … Not to mention, the physical world has many impinging qualities that would hinder any semblance of complete freedom.”
_________

[COMMENT ANNOTATION:  This begs the question of subjective versus objective reality. In that regard, it would seem quite unfair for one to have an Individual Personalized Universe “IPU1”  which is somehow limited or negated by; let’s say, another human being’s individual simulated universe “IPU2”; where they in “IPU2” think and behave negatively 80% of the time, and repeat those thoughts 95% of the time.  If “free will” exists as a further assumption in our hypothetical, would IPU1 wish to share any form of experience or perception with IPU2?  Most likely not.

Let’s take a second hypothetical, added to the first. Add to first that before the individual in IPU1 actually enters their personal universe, they make some fare payment in order to make that entry.  This would be similar to the $40,000 payment made to the simulators by those in the base reality of “Westworld” in order to enter the hedonistic simulation.]





But in our hypothetical, the IPU1s arrive and they find themselves surrounded by many IPUs who think and behave 80% of the time in a negative fashion, and impinge on their IPU1s’ personal freedoms.  Would IPU1s not seek a return of their entry price paid?  It is speculative but not difficult to assume refunds being requested.
_________

YAMPOLSKIY EXCERPT CONTINUES:

 “… . It will let a user be anything they want to be including a malevolent actor
[74, 75], a privileged person (like a king) or the exact opposite (a slave), or perhaps just a selfish user in an altruistic universe. A personalized universe doesn’t have to be fair, or just or free of perceived suffering and pain [76]. It could be just a sequence of temporary fantasies and hopefully what happens in your personalized universe stays in your personalized universe. ISU’s goal is to
cater to the world’s smallest minority and its preferences, you [77, 78]!”








[COMMENT AND ANNOTATION:  In PART 3 of this Review, we turn to the quantum gravity sciences presented by physicist Klee Irwin at Quantum Gravity Research with several videos describing the theory of the eighth dimension labeled E8.  https://quantumgravityresearch.org/about-quantum/


In his papers, Klee reveals the structure of E8 (the eighth dimension) and demonstrates how it casts a “shadow” into the third dimension 3D.  He explains this “shadow” comprises everything we perceive with our senses … what we call base reality.  But if this projection is a “shadow”, can we honestly call it reality?  Or is this label simply a collective agreement to do so?












YAMPOLSHIY ARTICLE CONTINUES:  “… Moreover, the good news is that we know that we are not going to run out of Fun [79] even if we live much longer lives [80].  If an agent controlling the environment is not well aligning with a particular individual for whom the environment is created (during early stages of development of this technology) it may be necessary to use precise language to express what the user wants. 

The now defunct Open-Source Wish Project (OSWP) [81] attempted to formulate in precise and safe form such common wishes as:  immortality, happiness, omniscience, being rich, having true love, omnipotence, etc [23].  For example the latest version of the properly formed request for immortality was formalized as follows: 

“I wish to live in the locations of my choice, in a physically healthy, uninjured, and apparently normal version of my current body containing my current mental state, a body which will heal from all injuries at a rate three sigmas faster than the average given the medical technology available to me, and which will be protected from any diseases, injuries or illnesses causing disability, pain, or degraded functionality or any sense, organ, or bodily function for more than ten days consecutively or fifteen days in any year; at any time I may rejuvenate my body to a younger age, by saying a phrase matching this pattern five times without interruption, and with conscious intent: 'I wish to be age,’ followed by a number between one and two hundred, followed by ‘years old,’ at which point the pattern ends - after saying a phrase matching that pattern, my body will revert to an age matching the number of years I started and I will commence to age normally from that stage, with all of my memories intact; at any time I may die, by saying five times without interruption, and with conscious intent, 'I wish to be dead’; the terms 'year' and 'day' in this wish shall be interpreted as the ISO standard definitions of the Earth year and day as of 2006. [81]” 

Of course, this is still far from foolproof and is likely to lead to some undesirable situations, which could be avoided by development of a well-aligned system. …”

[END OF PART 1 EXCERPTS]











Are we simply Flatland avatars trying to hack into Spaceland?  It is a probing human condition nested within the subject of “How to Hack the Simulation” by Dr. Roman Yampolskiy reviewed below.  It would appear in 1884 Edwin A. Abbott had a similar desire motivating him to write “Flatland”.  To enhance readers’ experience and context for possible benefits from reading further, it is here suggested listening to this free audio book now (3:30 hours) will not only be a humourous interlude; but also valuable in critically thinking about Dr. Yampolskiy’s next article.  For those interested in reading “Flatland” a free PDF version can be obtained and read from this LINK:  https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Abbott/paper.pdf 

Flatland AUDIOBOOK.  Informative and dry humour.

https://youtu.be/pivnpMohki0?feature=shared

INTRODUCTION:  Wikipedia reports:  Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is a satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott Abbott, first published in 1884 by Seeley & Co. of London. Written pseudonymously by "A Square",[1] the book used the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland to comment on the hierarchy of Victorian culture, but the novella's more enduring contribution is its examination of dimensions.[2]
_________











We will now transition to the second Yampolskiy’s. PAPER 2: “How to Hack the Simulation?” 

INTRODUCTION.  Just as we introduced PART 1 of this review with a video, we do so here with a 30 minute feature film from YouTube entitled: “Hacking Reality” by Quantum Gravity Research.  It was produced in 2018, has over 2M views and iver 54K likes. Although it is short, the film discusses and illustrates quite well the dimensions in the simulation paying significant attention to the eighth dimension called “E8”.  The claim is made that the E8 dimension programs for and controls everything seen and unseen concerning the third dimension: 3D.

“Is there an 8-dimensional "engine" behind our universe? Join Marion Kerr on a fun, visually exciting journey as she explores a mysterious, highly complex structure known simply as 'E8'--a weird, 8-dimensional mathematical object that for some, strange reason, appears to encode all of the particles and forces of our 3-dimensional universe.”. Also discussed theoretical physicists Garrett Lisi and Klee Irwin and illustrated in the film is “Quantum Gravity Theory” or “Point Space” in E8; being distinguished from String Theory.  See also the website of Quantum Gravity Research | Home of Emergence Theory and its Research Director Klee Irwin:  https://quantumgravityresearch.org/   

At 21:44 in the film quasi-crystals in E8 are discussed as a “shadow” in the 3D world.  This word “shadow” and its observation has great significance in PART 3 of this Review.

https://youtu.be/vJi3_znm7ZE?feature=shared 


Abstract
Many researchers have conjectured that the humankind is simulated along with the rest of the physical universe – a Simulation Hypothesis. In this paper, we do not evaluate evidence for or
against such claim, but instead ask a computer science question, namely: Can we hack the simulation? More formally the question could be phrased as:  Could generally intelligent agents placed in virtual environments find a way to jailbreak out of them. Given that the state-of-the-art literature on AI containment answers in the affirmative (AI is uncontainable in the long-term), we conclude that it should be possible to escape from the simulation, at least with the help of superintelligent AI. By contraposition, if escape from the simulation is not possible, containment of AI should be, an important theoretical result for AI safety research. Finally, the paper surveys and proposes ideas for hacking the simulation and analyzes ethical and philosophical issues of such an undertaking.

Keywords: AI, Box, Escaping, Hacking, Jailbreaking, Sandbox, Simulation, Matrix, Uplift.

The following videos are offered to begin this PART 2 of our Review.  

It’s All a Simulation

https://youtu.be/4wMhXxZ1zNM?feature=shared


Simulation Hypothesis | Rogan and Virk
https://youtu.be/4iCPYVQ9ICQ?feature=shared 















Perhaps counterintuitively, I begin this second article of our Review with an EXCERPT revealed toward the end of Dr. Yampolski’s second paper.  This begins to set the stage of critically thinking through some deep thought ramifications.

YAMPOLSKIY EXCERPT CONTINUES:

“… We can already observe that we are dealing with the type of simulators who are willing to include suffering of sentient-beings into their software, an act which would be considered unethical by our standards [180, 181]. 












Moravec considers this situation: “Creators of hyperrealistic simulations---
or even secure physical enclosures---containing individuals writhing in pain are not necessarily more wicked than authors of fiction with distressed characters, or myself, composing this sentence vaguely alluding to them. The suffering preexists in the underlying Platonic worlds; authors merely look on. The significance of running such simulations is limited to their effect on viewers, possibly warped by the experience, and by the possibility of ``escapees'' ---tortured minds that could, in principle, leak out to haunt the world in data networks or physical bodies. Potential plagues of angry demons surely count as a moral consequence.” [182]. 

If we get to the point of technological development which permits us to create simulations populated by sentient-beings we must make sure that we provide an option to avoid suffering as well as a build in option to exit the simulation, so finding an escape hack is not the only option available to unhappy simulated agents. There might be a moral duty to rescue conscious beings from simulations, similar to an obligation to rescue animals from factory farms.

If simulators are abusive to the simulated, we can argue that the simulated have a right to escape, rebel, fight back and even seek revenge and retribution including by harming the simulators and taking over their reality. Concerns which are frequently brought up within the domain of AI boxing. [183]. 

For example, from the point of view of simulators our escape can be seen as a treacherous turn [184] and may qualify us for punishment [156], even at the attempt stage warped by the experience, and by the possibility of ``escapees'' ---tortured minds that could, in principle, leak out to haunt the world in data networks or physical bodies. Potential plagues of angry demons surely count as a moral consequence.” [182]. If we get to the point of technological development which permits us to create simulations populated by sentient-beings we must make sure that we provide an option to avoid suffering as well as a build in option to exit the simulation, so finding an escape hack is not the only option available to unhappy simulated agents. There might be a moral duty to rescue conscious beings from simulations, similar to an obligation to rescue animals from factory farms.  If simulators are abusive to the simulated, we can argue that the simulated have a right to escape, rebel, fight back and even seek revenge and retribution including by harming the simulators and taking over their reality. Concerns which are frequently brought up within the domain of AI boxing [183]. For example, from the point of view of simulators our escape can be seen as a treacherous turn [184] and may qualify us for punishment [156], even at the attempt stage. Some have speculated that the purpose of the simulation is to punish/rehabilitate misaligned agents, so an escape may cause you to be placed in a stricter or less pleasant simulation.”











[COMMENT ANNOTATION:  It is self-evident the observations of angry simulator(s) or demons, are speculative for which no current science has been or possibly coud be adduced.  During the last six months to a year, there has been an Internet craze on YouTube concerning this subject by many many popular platforms, such as Trey Smith, the Why Files WF and many others.  Many are couched in terms of historical, and archaeological contexts regarding the “fallen” angels, Nephilim, the Annunaki And other groups taken from the actual Bible, and extrabiblical texts, such as the book of Enoch.  Yet, the references by Yampolskiy to angry sentient beings or demons frustrating, punishing, abusing; or worse, for attempting to “jailbreak” hacks to escape the simulation is an understandable concern to consider.  It is one which may make a great screenplay for a feature film or book, and at the same time, it may also be simply an anthropomorphic projection by those struggling in the third dimension with various very real challenges and suffering. This subject is further looked at in terms of an ancestral tribal, historical context, which is addressed in PART 3 of this Review.  There are both philosophical and spiritual aspects to these subjects which we will examine below in greater detail.

As to the YouTube video craze, in my research I have assembled a playlist with well over 50 such videos regarding the Nephilim, Annunaki, the Book of Enoch, and related matters which can be viewed here:


YAMPOLSKIY EXCERPT CONTINUES:

“4. AI Boxing VS Simulation Escaping

4.1 AI Boxing XOR Escaping from the Simulation must be Possible
AI confinement [183]/containment [185, 186], aka AI boxing [187], is an AI safety tool, which attempts to limit capability of AI to impact the world, including communication and is meant to make it possible to study AI in a controlled environment. There are strong parallels between predicament of an AI agent placed in a containment box and humanity in a simulated environment.  By extension, to an AI, our simulation is just another confinement layer in a containment box. This implies that we can use well-analyzed AI box-escape techniques to escape from the simulation, perhaps with assistance from the AI itself. This type of analysis can be used to establish limits of AI boxing. Researchers should study specific AI box escape approaches [183] (Social Engineering, System Resource Attacks, New Physics, External Causes, Information In-Leaking, etc.) in order to identify possible simulation escape routes.

Chalmers notes parallels between AIs in the virtual environment and humanity in the simulation [145]: “If we ever create artificial intelligence within a simulation, it may be hard to keep it contained. At least if we communicate with the simulated beings, they will presumably become aware that they are in a simulation, and they may become interested in escaping the simulation. At this point they may try to figure out our psychology in order to see what they need to do in order to convince us to let them out, or at least to give them unfettered access to the Internet where they can do whatever they want. And even if we do not communicate with them, they may take seriously the possibility that they are in a simulation and do their best to figure the simulation out. That would be a form of simulation theology. We could in principle do the same thing.” [145].  With respect to boxing AI, it is either possible or impossible to successfully contain an AI, with literature suggesting that it is not a sustainable long-term solution [188]. If we expend the notion of the AI-box to include the whole simulation, we can conclude that either it is possible to successfully box an AI, or we (with the help from AI) can escape from the simulation. Either AI boxing can work, or the simulation can be hacked. Complimentary conclusion is that if we (even with help from AI [111]) can’t escape from the simulation AI containment must be, at least theoretically, possible. If AI can escape from simulated world-sized-box it can help break us out as well. Conceptually, there is no fundamental difference between an AI escaping from its box, and us hacking the simulation. Current state-of-the-art analysis of AI boxing suggests that AI will eventually escape [189], which is good news for our attempts at escaping from the simulation.

However, if escape from the simulation is not possible it gives hope to AI safety researchers, at least in theory, for successful boxing of AI. One or the other must be true, either we can escape
from the simulation, or we can successfully box an AI. In general, it may be impossible to escape from an arbitrary simulation, but possible to escape from a particular one.

We must be careful, in our analysis, not to confuse theory with practice …

“5. What Doesn't Work

Some common ideas for attempting to hack the simulation have been already tested and didn’t produce any measurable impact: …











Knowing about the simulation hypothesis doesn’t seem to make any difference, and doesn’t lead to the simulation termination as we can observe.


Communicating with the simulators via magical thinking or even praying out loud doesn’t produce measurable impact [193]. So, if such communications are scanned/heard they are apparently ignored, at least while the simulation is running.


Unethical behavior, such as torture, doesn’t cause suffering reducing interventions from the simulators.


Increasing overall computational burden of simulation, as with bitcoin mining [194], doesn’t crash the simulation, but it may simply not be sufficiently demanding computation to overwhelm simulators resources.


Religions don’t seem to have influence over simulation as indicated by their inability to outcompete each other.


Breaking out of your routine, such as by suddenly traveling to a new location, doesn’t result in unexpected observations.  Saying "I no longer consent to being in a simulation" [195].


Crashing the simulation by running the Large Hadron Collider at current levels [196]. …”


[COMMENT AND ANNOTATIONS:  With respect to the list above, I would add one further point to the list. This comment applies to each of them listed. Earlier in this Review, a graphic was presented of a glass where water and oil being poured into the glass do not mix. 

The metaphor presented dealt with people in this dimension, having habitual thoughts where 80% of them are negative and 95% of them are repetitive. Those numbers were taken from a study linked from psychology today. The question posed is whether self-aware entities in the third dimension with habitual thought patterns such as these, could ever mix or, be prevented from mixing with dimensions, which simply do not have those habitual patterns. Were they to mix, with three dimensional beings, would we not simply adulterate, or otherwise negatively impact those in higher dimensions of existence? 

The question is rhetorical, but worthy on the topic of a perceived indifference of the simulators(s) to these simulated beings in this third dimension.  It would seem we are embodying the story line of “Westworld”, “Total Recall”, the “Matrix” and many other feature films.  And on the question of hacking the simulation, would those simulator(s) allow the simulation to be hacked, where these habitual lower dimension hackers import habitual negative thoughts and behaviors into the higher dimensions? Would this not be a form of perceived threat of adulteration of the higher dimensions?

The following videos, introduced in the beginning of this Review, are provided again in the case where they may not have been watched previously. Each of them bears upon my Comments offered above.]

A RETURN TO:  Klee Irwin’s “Are We In a Simulation” Series?  Trailer to 3 hour series.

https://youtu.be/2UiYlwHS8LI?feature=shared 

Three hour Series on YouTube:  https://youtu.be/k2VVuvSwY2U?feature=shared 

YAMPOLSKIY EXCERPT CONTINUES:

“… The reason our attempts to escape may remain fruitless, is because our model of the simulation … makes too many anthropomorphic assumptions - that we are a simulation in the conventional sense of computers, that the creators themselves are living organisms akin to us, that we might live at the same time-speed as them, that they are fallible enough to make glitches that we'd be able to notice, etc. Something with the complexity and power to make our universe is probably wholly unlike anything we can even comprehend." [197].

6. Conclusions
Hundreds of eminent scholars [198] take the simulation hypothesis seriously enough to invest their valuable time into researching it, therefore it makes as much sense to take the idea of escaping from the simulation equally seriously and to devote some time and resources to researching such possibility, particularly given immense benefits if the project is successful. It may be impossible to escape from a particular simulation, but it is still worth while investigating general approaches to escape from arbitrary simulations. We see our escape research as a natural continuation of research on the simulation hypothesis and serious consideration of the former. The purpose of life or even computational resources of the base reality can’t be determined from within the simulation, making escape a necessary requirement of scientific and philosophical progress for any simulated civilization. If the simulation is a personal universe [86] it may be significantly better than the base reality as it is designed with our optimal well-being in mind. 

Alternatively, base reality might be much better if the simulation is a confinement/testing box for intelligent agents. In either case it would be good to know our true situation. As the society moves deeper into the metaverse, this work attempts to move us closer to reality.”
_________

PART 3 | HACKING THE SIMULATION | “FIRST PRINCIPLES” | BRIDGING TO A SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS PERSPECTIVE




We now turn in the Review of a discussion of “First Principles” defined in the Introduction; and walk together over a bridge into the more philosophical and spiritual sciences.

With no offense intended to readers, I believe we also need to now have an “adult conversation” at THIS table of discussion.  Several reasons for the need for peer discussion begin within the next 10 paragraphs or so.

Books can and have been written regarding a perceived and prevalent division between the “sciences” and spiritual concepts; artfully pitted as against one another in false dichotomy constructs; and most of which are argued in anthropomorphic terms such as:
  • Natural vs. Supernatural,
  • Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism
  • Determinism vs. Free Will (Choice)
  • Materialism vs. Consciousness
  • And many more…
EXAMPLES INCLUDE:  In an assumed simulation in which we are living … only intuited or hypothesized … but cannot see (as in a video game on a computer) … is the simulation natural or supernatural?  

Are the simulator(s) and the dimension(s) in which they inhabit natural or supernatural?  

Are the simulated beings natural or supernatural?  Are some or all if us “augumented” upon birth or afterward?

Are we both simulators and the simulated?











Do the simulated beings have rights, including free will to hack and escape the simulation; such as is presented in the story line in “Westworld”?  Is this not the same question slaves in this 3D world of our ancestral past have had; and now have, throughout the world?  

Do genetically enhanced humans (augmented) (Super Soldiers) have rights?  Since 2001 this “augmentation” has been deployed real science; complete with nano-tech synthetic (SYNBIO DNA) and hardware upgrades.  Do these experiments remain remain “human”; or are they the new homoborgenesis “products” of their patent holding earthly creators?  Do these chimeric (part human - part synthetic) beings have rights the same as humans?  Before answering, please read the following carefully.  Your answers are likely to change.

“… The correct spelling is homo borgiensis — and the term wasn’t created by NASA or DOD or any other government. It’s not, as far as I know, used in relevant government or NGO reports.  The term homo borgiensis was coined by author Elva Thompson, as described in her 2014 essay Requiem for Humanity. … 

Governments and NGOs refer to these hybrid organisms as cyborgs, borgs or augmented humans.  
     
One example is the May 2021 UK and German Defence Ministry report Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm: A strategic implications project, which is replete with examples of experiments and augmentation procedures already undertaken. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/986301/Human_Augmentation_SIP_access2.pdf

In recent interviews, of Attorney Todd Callender has referred to a 2001 NASA Langley report on h generation warfare as the source of the homo borgiensis term.
These two reports are related to the issues:

January 2001 - Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Counter-Terrorism, Dartmouth College Institute for Security Technology Studies, edited by Joseph Rosen, MD, and Charles Lucey, MD, JD, MPH

July 2001 - Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025]: The Bots, Borgs and Humans Welcome You to 2025 AD. NASA Langley Research Center, Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist.  

One of several observations in the second document of many data points of this 113 slide powerpoint deck is its provenance and its date in 2001.  




“In 1950, Alan Turing proposed a test for the ability of a machine to exhibit intelligent behavior that is indistinguishable from that of a human being. Over the 70 years since, artificial intelligence (AI) has become more and more sophisticated, and there have already been claims of computers passing the Turing Test. As AI applications, and especially AI-enabled robots, continue their evolution, at what point do humans begin to, in fact, perceive them as living beings? And as this perception takes hold, will humans begin to feel obligated to grant them certain rights? …”.  “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: SHOULD ROBOTS HAVE RIGHTS?”. October, 2020 By Karina Parikh


The foregoing when read and fully digested reifies the opportunity to overcome historical squabbles from compartmented silos of sciences, philosophy and spiritual neighborhood turf wars.  I would suggest a polymath approach is not only indicated but required for any meaningful discussion.

Recognition of the social engineering programming codes of a “divide and conquer” strategy is also needed.  That engineering not new but a playbook of deception.  

In this PART 3 of the Review, I open with a call to action reminiscent of the “Dropping Knowledge” worldwide movement from 2003-2006 culminating in a 9 hour outdoor event “TABLE OF FREE VOICES” in Berlin.  At that event, many fairly well-known figures (112 voices)  across many disciples met to answer “at the same time” 100 questions bearing upon “Deep Mind” issues in public discourse of that time frame.  The effort resulted in many popular segmented video segments, documentaries, and a feature length documentary film: “Problema”.  “… dropping knowledge became an interactive platform for questions, concerns and initiatives from around the world, as well as a meeting place for concerned world citizens striving to turn apathy into action.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropping_knowledge .  Watch a 5 minute cut here:  https://vimeo.com/187626618 and full film here:  http://ralfschmerberg.de/film/problema/film/ 
The following title is offered for “discussion purposes only” and has not been cleared for use by the current Dropping Knowledge organizations or their management:  “DROPPING KNOWLEDGE | 5 SIGMA”.  The content of Dropping Knowledge was distributed with a copyleft license with the restriction if no commercial use.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft 

At the beginning of this review, an introduction was made to the word heaven and a book I author in 2004 entitled:  “Shallyt Shamayim - Heaven Rules”.  Nine years of intensive research, through a number of different Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons, source manuscripts, and other texts, proceeded the publication of that 588 page book.  A synopsis appears below. 


 A second 460 page book was published in the same year entitled:  “Plain Wrapper Insights into the Scriptures”.


As a final reference, I have maintained a website entitled BibleStudyNH where I have written and published a number of TRACTS and other writings which can be accessed for FREE as PDFs at this link:














SYNOPSIS: This 588 page Lexicon represents 9 years of intensive research and experimentation by Jeffrey Thayer into ancient Biblical languages and scripts. Shallyt Shamayim is the culmination of that research and is the foundation of his novel: ReGenesis, A Galilean Manner of Speech. The prophet Zephaniah in Chapter 3.8-10 prophesied the return of a language by God in these very days to mankind that would be based on truth. Jeffrey believes this language in the Lexicon which was brought out of the Garden of Eden and then confused at the Tower of Babel is that very language. The first 180 pages of the book is an easy to read foundation blending cutting edge developments in physics and genetics with the holographic sciences in sound and light frequencies. The book will add insight and depth to any Bible study (beginner and advanced). Practical suggestions are given in Shallyt Shamayim of how to incorporate this language into one’s every day prayer life and thought.”
_________












The following Hebrew word studies from the Brown-Driver Briggs Lexicon of OT familiar passages of Genesis Chapter 1 and Psalm 23 rendered: “make”, “image”, “likeness” and “shadow” are instructive and revealing.  I am reluctant to any form of exegesis leading to one interpretation.  That said, I do perceive a clear bridge to that which is presented by scientists quoted above proposing a simulation, simulator(s) and simulated beings.  Using critical thinking faculties, perhaps readers will as well.  The prepositions “b” (in) and “k” (after) are prefixes added to the actual Hebrew words and di represent interpretations.  I do believe one relevant question is “when”?  Did this “making” of the image occur once … or each time one is conceived but “before” birth?

“ 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”.  (Genesis 1.27-27, KJV) [Emphasis added].

SOURCE:  Interlinear version of King James Bible (1611) at Biblehub.com.

Make:  Brown-Driver-Briggs
I. עָשָׂה2622  verb do, make (Late Hebrew = Biblical Hebrew; MI23, 26עשתי, l.3; l.9 ואעש, l.24 Imperative עשו; Old Hebrew proper name עשיו, אלעשה, מעשיהו; not Aramaic, and not certainly found in South Semitic languages; on Sabean see especially DHMSB Berl. Akkadian 1886, 849); —

II. 1. make (670 + t.): 

a. with object concrete, arkGenesis 8:6, altar Genesis 13:4, idols Judges 18:24,31 +, etc. 

b. often of God's making (creating) Genesis 3:1 (J), Genesis 1:7,16,25 (P), Nehemiah 9:6; Job 9:9; Proverbs 8:

26
; 2Chron 2:11; Psalm 95:5 +; making man Psalm 100:3; Psalm 119:73 (made by God's hands), in the womb Job 31:15(twice in verse);

Image:  Brown-Driver-Briggs
צֶ֫לֶם  noun masculine

2 image, likeness, of resemblance, ׳בְּצ (בָּרָא) עָשָׂה, of God's making man in his own image, Genesis 1:26("" כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ), Genesis 1:27; Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6, ׳כְּצGenesis 5:3 ("" בִּדְמוּתוֺ; all P).

Likeness:  Brown-Driver-Briggs
דְּמוּת  noun feminine likeness, similitude (mostly late) (according to LagBN 12. 147 ff. mispunct. for דִּמְוַת from דִּמְוָה; according to WeProl. 413. Eng. Tr. 389 an Aramaic Loan-word, but see Di Genesis 5:1, DrJPh xi. 216 CheOP. 474) — absolute ׳ד Isaiah 40:18 3t.; construct ׳דGenesis 5:1 16t.; suffix דְּמוּתוֺGenesis 5:3; דְּמוּתֵנוּ Genesis 1:26; 

_________

In writing this article post, I was struck by Dr. Keel Irwin’s use of the term “shadow” to describe the eighth dimension labeled E8 casting a “shadow” upon what we observe with our senses as 3D which we label as Earth, natural and “reality”.  When I heard Irwin’s presentation I immediately thought of Psalm 23.  Refer back to shadow and 3D in Irwin’s video “Hacking Reality” at 21:44 mark.

4Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.  (Psalm 23.4, KJV). [Emphasis added.]

Shadow:  Brown-Driver-Briggs
צַלְמָ֫וֶת  noun [masculine] death-shadow, deep shadow, in poetry (probably = צֵל + מָוֶת, ᵐ5. (usually) σκιὰ θανάτου, compare ᵑ6 ᵑ9, so Thes SchwLeben n. d. Tode, 194, see especially NöZAW xvii (1897), 183 ff.; Ew Br and most modern (after older commentaries) read צַלְמוּתdarkness, deep darkness, compare Arabic  IV, Assyrian [ƒalâmu], Ethiopic  be black, dark); **compare  darkness; WeKl. Proph. ed. 3, 81 would read feminine plural צְלָמוֺת, like  Qor 2:16; 2:18; and frequently. — death-shadow, often "" חשֶׁךְ, לַיְלָה etc., and opposed to בֹּקֶר, אוֺר. 

1 = deep shadow, darkness(compare הַרְרֵי אֵל, אַרְזֵי אֵל): Amos 5:8; Job 3:5; Job 12:22; Job 24:17a Job 28:3; Job 34:22; of eyes heavy with weeping Job 16:16; ׳בַּלְהוֺת צJob 24:17b terrors of the darkness.  … 

 b. of extreme danger Jeremiah 2:6; Psalm 23:4; Psalm 44:20. 

3 characterizing world of the dead, ׳אֶרֶץ חשֶׁךְ וצ Job 10:21,

_____

In both PART 1 and PART 2 of this Review, Dr. Yampolshiy addresses the propriety of hacking the simulation in a variety of ways. He does address the concerns one might have before, considering whether to use AI to do it, or other use methods for jailbreaking the simulation. He also addresses the suffering of those who are simulated within the simulation as a motive to hack or “jailbreak” their way out of the simulation.  In his 760 page book “Reality Transurfing” Russian Physicist Vadim Zeland discusses (from a science, psychological, and philosophical basis) this escaping the simulation in great detail.  https://zelands.com/











In writing and assembling this article post, many texts read over the last 30-40 years came to mind.  A very few of them are quoted in PARTS 1-3, but there are many more.  Among them include the following.  Some would perhaps label the arcane, esoteric, metaphysical or other such terms.  I prefer Philosophical sciences; read along the journey I have taken by choice:  

The Kybalion (full title: The Kybalion: A Study of the Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece) is a book originally published in 1908 by "Three Initiates" (often identified as the New Thought pioneer William Walker Atkinson, 1862–1932)[1] that purports to convey the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kybalion

William Walker Atkinson 
Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World. Chicago. 1906, The Inner Teachings of the Philosophies and Religions of India. 1909.  Mystic Christianity: The Inner Teachings of the Master. 1908 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_Atkinson
Scriptures.  



“The Force”. AUDIOBOOK FREE:  https://youtu.be/Q54Rcgyx1oQ?feature=shared

“Thirty Nine Steps Beyond the Earth Plane” AUDIOBOOK FREE:  https://youtu.be/GuU6MAuQvSI?feature=shared










Anthropomorphism is an ancient Greek word which describes, among other things, scientists, philosophers, lawyers, doctors, clergy, and the general public, observing the world from the perspective of three dimensions, labeling it, defining it, and more. It is a part of human nature, both to understand the nature of what we observe; in this case, the simulation, and even those simulated. 

It does make sense using computers as a metaphor for this question.  This issue of being us (those being simulated as “captive or bound in prison” in three-dimensional space time) is something spoken of by the prophet Isaiah in chapter 61:

1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; 3To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.”  (Is. 61.1-3, KJV)  [Emphasis added]

Word Studies from Interlinear version of King James Bible (1611) at BibleHub.com:

Captive:  Brown-Driver-Briggs

שָׁבָה  verb take captive (Late Hebrew, Old Aramaic id.;Arabic (); Aramaic שְׁבָא, ) — … 

c. participle in periphrastic conjugation (לְשֹׁבֵיהֶם) וְהָיוּ שֹׁבִיםIsaiah 14:2; participle with suffix = their captives, etc., 1 Kings 8:462Chronicles 6:36; Isaiah 14:2; Jeremiah 50:33, +5 t.; Passive participle Isaiah 61:1 = captives; כִּשְׁבֻיוֺת חָ֑רֶב Genesis 31:26 my daughters as captives of the sword

Opening Prison:  Brown-Driver-Briggs

מְּקַחקֿוֺחַ, read מְּקַחְקוֺחַ  noun [masculine] opening (of eyes; compare Comm., Ges§ 85n, proposes wide, or complete, opening); — לַאֲסוּרִים Isaiah 61:1, figurative of freeing from dark prison; but ᵐ5 cheHpt read לְעִוְרִים, compare Di-Kit.

Bound:  Brown-Driver-Briggs

[אָסַר]  verb tie, bind, imprison(Arabic , Assyrian asâru, compare COTGloss, Aramaic אֲסַר, , Ethiopic ) — …

bind, with cords, fetters, etc., as prisoner, Simeon Genesis 42:24(E), Samson Judges 15:10,12,13 (3 t. in verse); Judges 16:5,7,8,11 (twice in verse); Judges 16:12; בַּנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם ׳א 2 Kings 25:72Chronicles 36:6 = Jeremiah 39:7; Jeremiah 52:11; also 2Chronicles 33:11; compare (without ׳בַּנ) 2 Kings 17:4 (בֵּית בֶּלָא ׳א "" עָצַת), 2 Kings 23:33; compare of divine chastisement Job 36:13 & see also Ezekiel 3:25; Psalm 149:8; figurative of absolute authority Psalm 105:22; especially Passive participle 2 Samuel 3:34 thy hands were not bound ("" and thy feet not put in fetters); בָּאֿזִקִּים ׳א Jeremiah 40:1 compare בַּזִּקִּים ׳א Job 36:8(probably figurative "" חַבְלֵיעֹֿ֑נִי); metaphor of king held captive by a woman's tresses Cant 7:6; perhaps = imprisoned (whether bound or not) Genesis 39:20; Genesis 40:3,5 (all J E); as substantive plural prisoners Genesis 39:20 (Kt, see above); so (late) as distressed, & object of divine compassion Isaiah 49:9; Isaiah 61:1; Psalm 146:7; בֵּית האסי֯רים prison Judges 16:21,25; compare Ecclesiastes 4:14.

Does this occur only once in the Scriptures?  No. When Christ Jesus is brought to the Temple in Jerusalem, it is there recorded again in Luke chapter 4 in this manner:

16And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20And he closed the book,  (Luke 4.16-20, KJV) [Emphasis added.]

So to better understand the meaning of “captive” in this NT passage, we turn to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon as follows:

Captive: Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 164: αἰχμάλωτος

αἰχμάλωτος, (from αἰχμή, a spear and ἁλωτός, verbal adjective from ἁλῶναι, properly, taken by the spear) (from Aeschylus down), captive: Luke 4:18 (19).

As to the intricateness and preciseness of the simulation, and each of us simulated within it in three dimensional so-called “reality”, I would offer the following observation. It seems noteworthy to me that Christ Jesus refers to each of our hairs being numbered in relation to the Father watching over each of us. I recognize some readers may not understand the Father to be the simulator tour of the simulation. Vadim Zeland in “Reality Transurfing” refers to the Guardian.  Others, myself included, refer to this as the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.  Some describe this as Consciousness, myself included.

28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. (Matt. 10.28-31, KJV). [Emphasis added].

I will not do a word study on Christ Jesus words to Nicodemus in chapter 3 of the book of John. However, the bolded portion of it does relate to a possible incompleteness of our current understanding in sciences. Perhaps that due to a human tendency toward anthropomorphism or simply, the incompleteness of our sciences. I leave that to the readers’ critical thinking. 

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.  9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you ofheavenly things? 13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3.4-16, KJV) [Emphasis added]

Finally, on the subject in the graphic above where oil is poured into a glass of water, and the observation was made about 80% of some peoples thoughts being negative and 95% being repetitive; was provided as a predicate for the question of three dimensional Simulated beings, mixing with beings of another dimension … Keel Irwin’s E8 or otherwise. While I cannot speak for others, and particularly for readers, I would offer this passage for critical thinking purposes.  The passage does speak of sciences of light not mixing with darkness alalogous to oil and water not mixing.  and it does speak to the Simulator, neither being angry vengeful nor any other anthropomorphic term.  And it also speaks to the Simulator dwelling within and walking with the simulated being.

14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness.  15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?  16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,  18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.  (2 Cor. 6.14-18, KJV)  [Emphasis added].

_________



The Simulator(s) and Those Simulated:  Avatars.  The “Westworld” storyline revisited.

“The Bible Codes” by Michael Drosnin | Ontological Debates between Quantum Physicists | Free Will vs. Determinism | Self-Referential Symbols & and “First Principles” based Language | Quasi-Crystal Codes | The Evidence
“Is Reality Code Theoretical?”. Klee Irwin

https://youtu.be/Z9SfV4BDdHg?feature=shared 

PDF of paper discussed in video: “The Code-Theoretic Axiom: The Third Ontology”, Klee Irwin, Quantum Gravity Research, Los Angeles, CA 90290, USA, klee@quantumgravityresearch.org , Received 12 August 2019, Accepted 14 October 2019, Published 7 November 2019
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S2424942419500026 

EXCERPT:  “1.1.  The code-theoretic axiom.  Reality is neither deterministic nor random. Instead, it is code-theoretic, wherein spacetime and particles are discrete and built of a Planck-scale geometric code a finite set of shape symbols, ordering rules and non-deterministic syntactical freedom. Broadly speaking, there are three axioms for a physical ontology one can assume.  One is the idea that the universe is a deterministic causal chain or algorithm playing itself out. An example of this is the model of the Newtonian clockwork universe, which postulates that if one knew the starting conditions, a powerful computer could predict every event.  A second option is the axiom of pure randomness, where aparticle can appear anywhere in space and time according to probabilities dictated by quantum mechanics.  The third possibility is what we will henceforth refer to as code theory, where, e.g., the Planck-scale fabric of reality operates according to a geometric language with syntactical freedom creating order and preventing the existence of particles at certain spatiotemporal coordinates. Today, deterministic models are widely believed to be false, while the axiom of randomness is generally presumed to be true. This virtual consensus is due to two ideas. The ¯rst is the vastly popular Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which stipulates thatthe universe is fundamentally random. The second is the widely accepted opinion that consciousness and freewill are real.  This opinion paper argues for the code-theoretic axiom, a logical alternative to the two older ideas of determinism and pure randomness. Reality would be non-deterministic, not because it is random, but because it is a code finite set of irreducible symbols and syntactical rules. Herein, we adopt the popular and reasoned view that freewill is real. Accordingly, we will not focus on deterministic models butinstead consider the code-theoretic and randomness axioms. …”

Some Additional references referred to in this Review post.
Nephilim | Annunaki Craze on YouTube

See:
Trey Smith,  Why Files and others 
Seed Wars in  - “The Genesis 6 Conspiracy” by Gary Wayne

Nick Clark Windo
“The Feed” Prime Video ten episode series


Daniel Galouye:  “Simulacron-3” Book, 
“The Thirteenth Floor” Feature Film
“Dark Universe” Book by Daniel Galouye:  

Philip K. Dick
“Total Recall”, 
“The Man in High Castle”, TV series
“Counterfeit Worlds. Book

“Flatland” by Edwin A. Abbott Free Audiobook
https://youtu.be/pivnpMohki0?feature=shared 

“Westworld” by Michael Crichton | overview of philosophical concepts in HBO series:

VIDEO:  53 mins.  Start video at 2 mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/live/HX6NPNUOSWQ?feature=shared 

Recent BBC Earth production 60 minutes | Are You Ever Real?:



Thank you for your patience in reading through this Review post.  Jeffrey Thayer 🌀


https://www.etsy.com/shop/changethethoughts/?etsrc=sdt&dd_referrer=








on

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)