[THEORY] All glitches are 4th dimensional glitches.

Thank you very much for the clear and lengthy reply, my friend. You have really articulated my exact thoughts on this with precision. I have problems with Tom's Big ToE too and for the exact reasons you've outlined.

As you say, a mysterious, non-human creator is just another synonymous term for God. As such, I truly believe we are actually objectively no closer to 'finding' said God, and subsequently realise that we already had all of this (and more; unfortunately lost to the corridors of time and destruction, but that's another discussion) figured out thousands of years ago.

I think your assumptions are entirely on track. I understand the benefits and why we do it, but I do feel that there are limitations imposed upon our quest to discover more when we utilise human invention to describe a more ethereal process than we could begin to comprehend.
I am unsure if we are going about it in a slightly misdirected way with the migration of computational ideas to describe an impossibly complex structure far beyond our comprehension, potential or faculty. I understand it's terminology to aid description of something we know we don't understand, but I feel there are limitations nonetheless. Perhaps it's just me. I can't doubt the clarification it can give when trying to understand it, but I think it's being taken too literally by many who don't quite understand how to appropriate the nomenclature.

You may completely disagree, and I may be proposing what could be considered jejune, but I feel that the world's religions (pardon the broad inclusion - also, I do not subscribe to any religion) have already hit the nail on the head in a roundabout way if you can pardon the contradictory description. By this, I mean that they "got it" but don't quite know what "it" is, how they got "it" or how to replicate or describe "it". And this is where we must marry science and religion yet further. The astute scientific mind wants rational, logical evidence to prove. The two are heading in the right direction, just on different paths.

I must apologise for being so vague and slightly off-topic, it's early morning where I am and I am insanely tired.

Back to the topic: May I ask, what do you think happens to us when we die? This is a question for you!

Thanks again for you reply, I really enjoyed reading it. Can I say one more thing? Some aspects don't seem consistent with a virtual reality theory, I agree, but wouldn't it be unfair to dismiss it entirely since we can only decide what is consistent with our idea of a virtual reality, and how our computation has evolved/how our VR would perform? Correct me if I'm wrong. I want to be totally certain in my conviction that VR theory is incorrect.

/r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix Thread Parent