I believe that the Simulation Hypothesis - a hypothesis that we 'live' as virtual beings inside a simulated landscape in the computer - may be the most probable hypothesis when it comes to choosing between differing possibilities of reality. However, the main element 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 focusing on that. Thus, I must keep an open mind to the possibility that our reality isn't virtual but really real. In the meantime my pontificating on the aliens-are-here, the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis and related, is usually to be examined here in that virtual reality scenario. # Virtual Aliens: If the Simulation Hypothesis is correct, what would it not mean for aliens to be here? It would mean no more and no less than what would it not mean for a simulated couch to be in 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 concerning the motivation of whoever programmed into our simulated landscape the this, and the that and the next thing too including the idea of simulated anomalous lights in the sky and simulated extraterrestrials having their wicked way with a select few of us. I have no idea what their motivation might be. I suggest though that certain must perhaps look at things through the eyes of our personal simulated beings part-and-parcel of our simulated landscapes inside our video gaming. What would these virtual beings that people have programmed think of all the bits-and-pieces that we have included in their virtual world? How come he shooting at me? Why is this monster lurking in the shadows? How come this Little Green Man abducting and raping my daughter? Do we not include aliens, and all manner of alien interactions in our own video gaming? Have we not created video gaming that revolve around Star Trek and Star Wars and their associated extraterrestrials? So, if we take action, what's the issue using what someone (or something) might include 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 now in what you will call our really real reality. # The Supreme Programmer: It might well be the proven fact that as far as our Supreme Programmer - the they / it / them in charge of creating our virtual reality - can be involved, we are just trivia. If this Supreme Programmer has designed hundreds or a large number of simulated universes and landscapes, then yes, we're trivial. But then so to is any simulation or video game that we create. You get an off-the-shelf video game and isn't really all of the contents really trivial? But back again to simulated aliens. Since we've programmed hundreds of video gaming that feature aliens, and produced a huge selection of movies and TV episodes (cinema being yet another type of simulation) that featured ET, some made even prior to the start of modern UFO era, why should we (Royal We) and just why should you (as in just you) raise eyebrows at the idea 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 obtain here. Well actually they have to travel via 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 video game or simulation characters (or characters written right into a novel or who appear on the silver screen) - and as you note, we can't, yet - they could 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 point out when addressing the Simulation Hypothesis that no free will exists. The characters in our novels have no free will; the characters inside our films have no free will; the characters inside our video games have no free will. If we're the creation of a Supreme Programmer, we have no free will. We may haven't any free will whenever we boldly go, but so long as we think we have 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 an extremely real reality. But if anyone has digested anything I've ever posted about the Simulation Hypothesis, they'd take note there's 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 next thing 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 would not continually be perfect and may possibly contain anomalies and absurdities. The proof of that pudding is it the constant updates and upgrades you obtain for your PC plus the news stories that surface every once in awhile about security programming flaws in software that permit the less than ethical among us to do relatively nasty things to our privacy, our bank accounts, our databases, our private and public institutions, like hacking into 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 responsible for our Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe supernatural, that's fine by me as long as it isn't an omni-supernatural he / she / it / they. But what this nitpicking actually contributes to the main topic of E.T. and whether aliens are, or are not here, inside our postulated virtual reality quite escapes me. I doubt if the readers here provide a damn whether a computer programmer can be explained 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 point 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. Crop circles 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 can be an absurdity nonetheless it happened. There are all types of archaeological absurdities, but I'll mention just one single - The Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek in present day Lebanon. There are many things that are absurd when it comes to the human species: here's one - humans will be the only species where the saying don't shoot until you see the whites of these eyes makes actual sense. If photons cannot escape from a Black Hole then neither can gravitons. Gravitons convey the gravitational force which means 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 the past is both theoretically possible (General Relativity) and theoretically impossible (paradoxes) - it's an absurdity to possess both something that could be and not be concurrently. Ghosts are absurd yet you can find probably more sightings of ghosts going back to ancient times than there were sightings of UFOs. Perhaps UFOs, the Greys and related are also absurdities, but they exist in good company with the others of what passes for the simulated cosmic 'Twilight Zone'. Here are some more absurdities to ponder over. You can find three generations of elementary particles, yet only one plays any significant role in the cosmos. The other two contribute nothing of substance and structure, so why is there a second and a third generation of the elementary particles? In https://www.adventure-vault.com/deerfield-beach/virtual-reality , the Mesoamerican Olmec massive multi-ton stone heads scream out 'made in Africa' or 'we're African', yet there shouldn't have already been any cross-cultural contact between Africa and Central America way back in Olmec days. This type of scenario is deemed an absurdity. Lastly, turning again to human anomalies, we alone in every the animal kingdom have a bipedal gait without good thing about a balancing tail. A bipedal gait without the 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 all of those other animal kingdom. That Mother Nature would select for this absurdity, is, well, an absurdity. Exceptions to the rule, like the human bipedal gait, require extra special scrutiny since initially lone exceptions appear highly out-of-place and anomalous. Another example has been 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 looking out, as virtual beings, we're able to never know for absolute certain that anomalies or absurdities weren't designed deliberately or built into the system. But it doesn't mean we (Royal We) can't damn well have suspicions, particularly when the anomalies or the absurdities just keep on mounting up. So there is no such thing, as some might suggest, of a successful 'oops', but there certainly could 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 no longer the only real creation scenario game around. I repeat, our Universe may be deliberately designed to be considered a 'Twilight Zone' cosmos, but the odds appear 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 few things up. No-one can prove that, but one certainly can suspect that not absolutely all is right with the cosmos; you can have one's doubts! The end result is that anomalies and absurdities most certainly argue against an omni-God but support the idea of a fallible creator, just like a computer programmer.
https://www.adventure-vault.com/deerfield-beach/virtual-reality
