The first time I ever heard of a so-called “hole in reality,”
was when I heard the following, plausible anecdote. A fellow walked into a small convenience
store to pick up a couple of food items.
He noticed that there was no one else in the store besides him, except
for the cashier. He soon had the items
in his hands and turned to pay for them, when suddenly he noticed that there
were several other customers in line, waiting to pay for their purchases. He was astonished. How could so many people have arrived unseen,
done their shopping, and formed a line, in so short a time? It seemed impossible, yet there it was.
Upon hearing such a story, or even having a similar
experience oneself, the first thing one does is to consider ordinary
explanations. There must be one, one
assures himself. After all, people
cannot just appear suddenly out of nowhere.
Therefore, something mundane must have happened. Numerous reasons can be proposed. Did the customer who told the story become
distracted, lose track of time, and then regain his focus minutes later,
without realizing it?
Yes, something like that must surely have happened. End of story.
But wait.
One can explain a single event in ordinary terms. It is more difficult to explain such events
when they begin to accumulate. It is even
more difficult to explain such events when groups of people report having
shared such an experience, especially when there are large numbers of
witnesses. Such things are reported—for
example, the Mandela Effect.
The question then becomes, what is the threshold? How many such experiences, and/or how many
witnesses, are required, before the ordinary explanations no longer are
plausible? Is there a point at which we
come to believe that there is something extraordinary at work, not imaginary,
not illusory, but physically real? Is it
worth investigating, researching, analyzing?
As preposterous as it seems, we must seriously ask the
following questions: can people actually
appear out of nowhere, or at least, could the witness himself have experienced
a discontinuity in reality? Could he,
not them, be the anomaly?
It is possible that each and every one of us has experienced
what we think of as a lapse in our attention to our surroundings. Certainly, it is commonplace, and ordinary
explanations are probably valid in most of them. But if we were to pay constant attention,
would we discover that some of our own experiences, which we dismissed as ordinary
lapses, could not possibly be explained in ordinary terms?
There is, it turns out, a scientific basis for thinking
so. Let us hasten to recognize that
quantum physics is too often the whipping boy for crazy ideas. Let us avoid that. The only point to be made here is that what
at first seems impossible may later be found to be ordinary, even if it violates
our accepted rules of common sense. The
sudden appearance and disappearance of quarks in seemingly empty space does not
conform to our experience, because we are not tiny enough to live at that level
of reality. Quantum physics is not
magic. It is science. It is as real as the transistors which
quantum physicists invented.
Having said that, let’s stick to the facts. The fact is not, that people (or other large
things) can spontaneously appear or vanish, but rather, that we all experience
events which seem impossible if we take them at face value. The question is, are any of these experiences
what they seem to be, experiences of events for which there is presently (or
evermore) no scientific explanation?
If even one such event ever happens in all the universe,
then that one event is a violation of what we think is natural law. As far as we know, nature never has any
exceptions to its rules. If something is
impossible, then it can never happen. If
something happens even once, then it is not only possible, it also tells us that
there is an underlying principle which makes it possible. As scientists, or as laymen interested in
science, we seek to discover and understand those rare events, and to
incorporate them into our larger view of reality.
Premier scientists are not bashful about proposing ideas
that seem ridiculous to ordinary people, at least at first. A very respected theory in cosmology is the
many universes theory. It is based in
mathematics, and (here we go) in quantum physics. If one follows the line of reasoning that led
to the formulation of the many universes theory, the idea seems entirely
plausible.
At first.
Not all scientists find the many universes theory to be
plausible. Some even scorn it as
unscientific. How did this disagreement
arise?
It arose when science found evidence of a theory of the
universe that did not fit their philosophical basis of science. Let’s be careful here not to disparage the
proponents of multi-verse theory. At the
same time, we can criticize the theory itself as being wrong.
The physical observations of the universe overwhelmingly
suggest, very strongly suggest, that the universe is intelligently
designed. Even those who disagree with
the theory of Intelligent Design admit that the chances of our universe having
the properties it does, are so small as to be infinitesimal. Scientists deem it unreasonable to assume
that our life-sustaining universe is random—unless, there are so many
universes, so many chances, that eventually, our one in a mega-trillion-kazillion
universes becomes probable. Problem
solved.
But no. Elsewhere, I
have demonstrated that, even if there are many universes, this only increases
the case for Intelligent Design. How did
the multi-verse get the properties it has?
The scientists who scorn the many universes theory as unscientific
point to the fact that there is, quite literally, no direct physical evidence
for it, but only an extension of mathematical models, hardly what we would call
scientific proof. (Yes, I know, science
has no proofs, but I am speaking colloquially.)
The point is, again, that even premier scientists can
propose weird theories. They may or may
not be correct.
For now, let’s focus on the question of glitches in reality.
Much has been said and written about holes in reality, and
as one might expect, many of the people who pontificate on them have no clue. Too many of them are overly eager to believe—to
believe in nearly anything, it seems, but not rigorous and disciplined in their
thinking. Money is a big factor for some
of them.
One of the more popular hypotheses concerning glitches in
reality is the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. There are so many reasons to oppose this idea
that one hardly knows where to begin, but it is useful to ask, why do people
find it plausible?
Part of the reason is that we live in an age of electronic
computers and other devices. Computer
glitches are annoyingly common. Let’s
blame them on quantum physics. I say
that half-jokingly, because actually, in some cases, the random fluctuations in
electrons can actually have an effect in the kinds of micro-circuits that are
numerous in computers.
Our experience with computer glitches is that, once in a
while, a computer can error out, that is, make a simple error in arithmetic
that cascades across the many calculations the computer makes, resulting in
such error conditions as for example, division by zero, a mathematical
violation. This can send the computer
into a repetitive logic loop, causing what we call, locking up, or freezing.
The idea that we are living in a computer simulation
supposes that, in whatever computer we reside, there will be errors. Furthermore, we should be able to detect
those errors. However, the error itself
might generate errors in our thinking that prevent us from noticing that an
error (or discontinuity) had occurred.
However, the computer simulation theory cannot address the
question of who built the computer, who programmed it, and whether or not the
computer itself (and its operators) are themselves part of an even larger
simulation, extending upward infinitely.
Many other problems abound.
Modifications of the computer simulation theory include the
idea that physical reality itself operates on the same principles that
computers do, including information theory, information integration, and many
more. These ideas, when applied to the
topic in question, are too vague to lend themselves to rigorous analysis. They could mean anything to anybody, and are
therefore not useful in forming a solid theory.
Other theories of glitches in reality include such ideas as
travel between universes, travel between dimensions beyond our three spatial
dimensions, and time travelers. These
are almost entirely speculative at best, and prove unproductive in the end.
Perhaps the most bizarre theory is that reality itself has
no hard and fast rules. Literally
anything, it says, can happen at any time.
Our existence only seems to obey rules, either by random chance, or
because our minds impose a sensation of order where there is none, such as for
example, when we look at clouds and think we see an image of a horse.
To conclude this portion of our discussion (which may be the
last portion) we must acknowledge that there are mysteries of the universe that
remain unsolved, and which perhaps can never be solved, at least not in terms
of our ordinary thinking. Indeed, our
thinking itself is one of those mysteries.
I am referring to the famous maxim by Renee Descartes who, when asked
how could he prove to himself that he exists, replied, “I think, therefore I
am.”
Life, consciousness and free will are ultimate mysteries,
which I address in my book, The God Paradigm.
If we cannot solve those mysteries, we have not much hope of
solving the paradoxes of glitches in reality.
We can study them, we can catalog them, and who knows, doing so may lead
us to somewhere useful. But along the
way, let’s not go nuts. Let us remain
reasonable and disciplined.
Some mysteries, we should acknowledge, should simply be
enjoyed.
.
.
