Right, like it would be fine to assume something you're told is most likely true, but you need to realize you don't know it in a scientific way (that the scientific process isn't "these people said so").
Maybe it's all just some big simulation type thing.
Could be, but then a spherical earth or a flat plane caved in by mountains and whatnot would still be expressed in the simulation, right?
Like whatever simuation we're in, something would happen in our experience when we walk thru Antarctica, either it would be a globe or there'd be an edge.
Maybe it's like they know the people who are simulated aren't ever gonna bother to go lol :p and it isn't anything
The whole idea of a simulation type theory is really a fascinating rabbit hole. This could allow for both a flat and round earth, it would really depend on the creator of the simulations will. One persons perceived reality would not have to be shared by another.
For example two individuals could go to the the end of the earth and find different conclusions. While one could find that they just wound up back on the other side of Antarctica, the other could find a hidden island filled with tech savvy Nazis. Anything could be possible.
Now I'm not saying that, this is the case. But it is very interesting to ponder different possibilities. It allows the awe and adventurous mystery seeking of our youth to return. That being said there is the danger that if one spends to much time contemplating the possibilities, they could find themselves lost in a sea of their own mental fantasies convinced that they are truth.
I believe that this is what has happened in the realm of "theoretical sciences." There is a rather limited amount of research, actually utilizing the scientific method that can be preformed in many areas. So many just theorize and use math to create possibilities and models. Once enough of their peers agree it could be, they tend to accept these as though they are in fact true.
I think we actually know very little. But only the bravest of scientists are likely to admit it, as it in many ways devalues their life's work.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. " - Nikola Tesla
Ya definitely fascinating!
Would we have to split off into different simulations when this happens? Like, I can't walk into the park and see a zebra and you walk in and see a dolphin. So similarly, I shouldn't be able to see the Nazis and you go and see something different.
I believe an implication of the super freaky double-slit experiment is that things don't seem to exist unless they're observed.
So ya, it could be that both flat or sphere both physically "work", and then it's a matter of going to the edge and seeing what actually shows up, but either would be a viable possibility and "fit" within the construct.
But I feel like whatever I see, you'll have to see too, right?
Like if for you the Earth is sphere, if I go to the edge, it would have to be worked out where I'm removed from your reality? like to you, I got lost and died in the arctic. Or maybe it can work where you just think I'm insane, but still, we'd never be able to go there together, or something would have to give.
Or maybe it could be like the controllers of the simulation just don't ever let us get there? Like, the physical difficulty of either walking thru Antarctica or building a space shuttle is essentially a "wall", where then if there are a few drones in the right places, you can basically close off the possibility of anyone pushing for an answer. So it could be non-determined.
Maybe that's even the whole "game"? lol. Like if we get thru to the boundary, then they have to get off their lazy ass and expand the simulation? 😆
Have you read the book "THE FLICKER MEN"by Ted Kosmatka. If not I would recommend it, is was a fun read.
In my example I was thinking of the two different people being separated and their perceived reality changing to them as it was being observed.
But it could be speculated that each "real" or "player character" operates within their own frame work. This would still allow for PC's to interact with each other but would not necessarily mean that each PC is seeing the same things. I think that this is rather unlikely, but I have had experiences that people have claimed to witness events involving myself that simply did not occur in my reality. This could be accounted for in much simpler explanations. Like maybe they were just lying, or under the influence of some sort of drug, or a memory was implanted into them by some means, but perhaps they did witness something the just didn't happen in my reality.
Even the term "simulation" is a bit misleading because we tend to think of it in our own understanding of things. We tend to think of things like sim city, the matrix, a research model, or like one of the many games or movies most of us have played or watched.
I tend to think of it more as a world that is fully in the control of the maker of the said world. Where we as PC's also have a rather significant impact on our surroundings. I often wonder about the idea of NPC existing, as this could account for many seemingly explainable behaviors from the "masses." I don't put much stock into it, as I would fear the implications if people began to treat others as though they were somehow less than themselves, but I do ponder it.
Our reality seems to "pliable" to be purely of a physical construction. Things like the double slit experiment, and the quantum mechanics, in the scientific circles. Mixed with the many explainable phenomena within the spiritual, paranormal, and metaphysical circles, leads me to think that things are not at all what they seem.
Wouldn't that be the kicker. "Congratulations you made it to the end, now allow me to show you behind the curtains." LOLz
Right, if I'm following you correctly, it could be like you and me are in the kitchen and in your mind there's a green elephant in the closet, but so long as nothing happens that brings this information into play, for that stretch of time we can both exist or "overlap" and be useful and consistent with each other and both be real.
Right, there are totally worldy reasons for why they might report these discrepancies. And if it's the separate realities thing, "the universe" or whatever should be expected to have some mechanism to keep the discrepancies out of it. But I suppose it could be like every once in a while at the margins there are errors.
Kind of like building a house, it's generally good, but even great architects can make little mistakes here and there. So I suppose there can be little cosmic glitches.
Interesting. I've thought before that it could be like "the range of everything possible" is pre-determined (by the maker, I guess), and then we choose what path we go down and what our experience is.
And then a twist off of that is we actually help build the reality as we go. Like as we show an experience, the maker can build off that and expand it. Like we essentially are the process of expanding reality. (And maybe it's like most of the things you do are going down the same already understood roads, but once in a while you push something new.)
And then it's an interesting paradox where the power of "God" or the universe or the maker etc is kind of actually a function of us, and vice versa.
I don't know if that's similar to what you mean at all.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.