MPJ

Let me answer with what I think right away. To me, this is not one of those yes-or-no questions because it's impossible to tell. Simply put, the theory behind the question is most likely unprovable. Not from the inside anyway. 'Simulation Hypothesis' and the phrase 'Non Playable Characters' are concepts relatively new, born not that long ago, when digital computing came to be fast enough to produce graphically demanding multi-player games sophisticated enough to hint at this question and the probability that we might also be inside one of those simulations. And to dispute the question about the nature of reality is quite useless, because everything that surrounds us, no matter how strange we think it is, can also be real and not part of the code. Even if our reality were simulated, its origin would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove. By design, nothing inside the simulation could be able to see the lines of the code, only the outcome of its work. In...

"You gotta be kidding!" - I was inspecting my father's face in search for any hint of a concealed smile that would explain a joke he was telling me. "You are actually suggesting that there is a two dimensional balloon surrounding our universe where real life is located and the 3D cosmos inside a balloon is just a holographic illusion? You are saying that you and me are actually living at the end of the universe and all these here are just holograms? That we are made of... what exactly.. light? Energy?" Revelation of Life - part one Are We Holograms? Revelation of Life - part three Revelation of Life part two Phil Sometimes after lunch my father and I enjoyed talking about different things and on many occasions we exchanged opinions about science fiction, movies and mysteries of the universe. That warm October day...

Most of famous movies and novels that are dealing with remarkable and bold scientific ideas in existence, like plotting the script behind the most intriguing property in the latest string theory called "Holographic principle", lack one main attraction I am always looking in science fiction. The plausibility of the story. To get to the wider audience, science behind is somehow always pushed below the main layer and the result is either too philosophical, ridiculous or unnecessary too complex (like planting humans for energy in 'Matrix' by AIs) or simple love story, like in case of "The Thirteenth Floor" or other simple and proven Good-vs-Bad chases in virtual realities, like those portrayed in Caprica. The Thirteenth Floor* But, if I had to choose one of those Hollywood fictions, maybe you would be surprised if I preferred "The Thirteenth Floor" over all the others I had chance to watch or read. For one simple reason. Like with holographic p...

Indeed, this should be a provocative post because of it's oxymoron in title. Surely I will not going to try to comprehend what I can't explain myself, just to put couple of thoughts on paper. So let's start from the word itself. God. What could it be?  There is one widespread theological simple explanation where all nowadays religions and the ones extinct in the past define this divine being(s) as extra powerful entity(ies) capable of the creation of everything. The mighty one(s) if you will. The history of God in all religions are more or less the same. It is full of wonders and love but also violence especially when two cultures collided or shared the same habitat with each other. Good thing today the habitat now is the whole planet and there are no big crusades any more, just small sparks here and there, but the danger of big explosion is always in the air and it is everywhere, Europe, Middle East, Far East, Americas.. The Creation of Adam, Michelangelo The big ...