Are there Glitches in Reality?

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.

.

.