War and the Great Reset in the Social Imagination...

 

 

 War is war...

"War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.” – Hawkeye ~ M*A*S*H

Why is that?  At least with 'hell' you know what is, why it is and why you are there...Dr. Efgallion 

You should ask, "What does war have to do with the Great Reset?" Well, lets talk about the later, the Great Reset.   

According to Klaus Schwab, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism...

• Who is Klaus Schwab? Well, Klaus Schwab is a German economist and engineer. He founded the World Economic Forum, the conference where the worldwide 'global elite' meets up each year in Davos which is the luxury Swiss ski station, to talk about poverty and the struggle of the working class. Schwab is also the author of “The Great Reset” which came out in June 2020, in the midst of the plandemic.

Now, we have to ask why are the world's global elite (powerful/wealthy) trying to decide what is good for other people in the world who are not powerful and wealthy. The answer is this... they (not the elites) represent the useless eaters/producers which results in too many people worldwide. This group (useless eaters/producers) are a blight to the power elites and their families.

    *The Power Elite is a book written by American Sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1956. In his book, Mills calls attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggests that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities.

Indeed, ordinary citizens are a blight on the earth which cause social unrest, disease and pollution not to mention tying up money, consuming energy and land as if they (useless eaters/producers) had a right to own any.  This is the view of the power 'global' elites.

The Great Reset is a way forward for the power 'global' elite and for their hand picked extra-ordinary citizens that are useful and productive according to the Great Reset and its priorities: wealth and health for the global elite who in their own vain imagination 'eyes'... deserve more than anyone else on the earth. 

Now, this agenda is in motion... make no mistake. Its first major weapon was the plandemic and now its war. Then will come famine and death. Sounds like the book of Revelation. I guess they can read too. After all, the global elite don't need God or maybe they do but access to Him must be limited... at least in the church of the Great Reset.

Well, it seems that their plans are coming along at the expense of innocent and ignorant people. Those extra-ordinary people that make it through will be rewarded based on their talents and their ability to go along to get along because it will seem like the right thing to do given they made it through... and, they will even like rat in their pig. 

What does that mean? It means that they will eat what they are told or what they are given... GMO modified food including meat. It could even taste good or at least just ok. You see, only the best food or real food will be reserved for elites. 

This will cut down on green house gases, housing, energy output and certainly cut down on land and grain waste. And, of course there will be 24 hr. matrix surveillance for everyone's protection... a safe prison society for the 'extra-ordinary' (the ordinary will be gone) but not for the power elites. Its all been (war) gamed out... their means to your end in their social imagination!

     "But, let me end on a note of hope. Because he goals of the Great Reset depend on the obliteration not only of free markets, but of individual liberty and free ill, it is, perhaps ironically, unsustainable. Like earlier attempts at totalitarianism, the Great Reset is doomed to ultimate failure. That doesn't mean, however, that it won't again like those earlier attempts, leave a lot of destruction in its wake... which is all the more reason to oppose it now and will all our might" ~  Michael Rectenwald 

    *Rectenwald is chief academic officer for American Scholars. He has a B.S. from the University of Pittsburgh and an M.A. from Case Western Reserve University and a PhD in Literary and Cultural Studies from Carnegie Mellon University. He has taught at New York University, Duke University, North Carolina Central University, Carnegie Melon University, and Case Western Reserve University.

 

 

 

 

*Online Source ~ https://baos.pub/i-read-klaus-schwabs-the-great-reset-so-you-don-t-have-to-e335416a1feb

Living in a Simulation in the Social Imagination...

 

What if we live in a simulation, then our universe should have an artifact? Before trying to answering that, we have to clarify what an ‘artifact’ or ‘residue’ of living in a simulation- a program is? Well, within the abstract world of programmed mathematics, the processing speed of operations per second will be observed, felt, experienced, noted as an artifact of underlying physical computing machinery.

This artifact will appear as an additional component of any operation that is unaffected by the operation in the simulated reality. The value of this additional component of the operation would simply be defined as the time taken to perform one operation on variables up to a maximum limit that is the memory container size for the variable.

So, in an eight-bit computer, for instance to oversimplify, this would be 256. The value of this additional component will be the same for all numbers up to the maximum limit. The additional hardware component will thus be irrelevant for any operations within the simulated reality except when it is discovered as the maximum container size. The observer within the simulation has no frame for quantifying the processor speed except when it presents itself as an upper limit.

So, to answer “What if we live in a simulation” … then our universe should have an artifact. We can begin to articulate some properties of such an artifact that would help us in our search for such an artifact in our universe.

• The artifact is as an additional component of every operation that is unaffected by the magnitude of the variables being operated upon and is irrelevant within the simulated reality until a maximum variable size is observed.
• The artifact presents itself in the simulated world as an upper limit.
• The artifact cannot be explained by underlying mechanistic laws of the simulated universe. It has to be accepted as an assumption or “given” within the operating laws of the simulated universe.
• The effect of the artifact or the anomaly is absolute. No exceptions (Tree of Knowledge)… indeed!

Now that we have some defining features of the artifact, of course it becomes clear what the artifact manifests itself as within our universe. The artifact is manifested as the speed of light.

Space is to our universe what numbers are to the simulated reality in any computer. Matter moving through space can simply be seen as operations happening on the variable space. If matter is moving at say 1,000 miles per second, then 1,000 miles worth of space is being transformed by a function, or operated upon every second. 

If there were some hardware running the simulation called “space” of which matter, energy, you, me, everything is a part, then one telltale sign of the artifact of the hardware within the simulated reality “space” would be a maximum limit on the container size for space on which one operation can be performed. Such a limit would appear in our universe as a maximum speed.   

You know the movie The Matrix, right? Well, it has done its part to popularize the notion of simulated realities. And the idea has deep roots in Western and Eastern philosophical traditions, from Plato’s cave allegory to Zhuang Zhou’s butterfly dream.

Astronomer David Kipping of Columbia University decided to resort to Bayesian reasoning. What is that? Well, its a type of analysis named after Thomas Bayes, an 18th-century English statistician and minister. Bayesian analysis allows one to calculate the odds of something happening (called the “posterior” probability) by first making assumptions about the thing being analyzed (assigning it a “prior” probability).

Kipping began by turning the trilemma into a dilemma. He collapsed propositions one and two into a single statement, because in both cases, the final outcome is that there are no simulations. 

Thus, the dilemma pits a physical hypothesis (there are no simulations) against the simulation hypothesis (there is a base reality—and there are simulations, too). “You just assign a prior probability to each of these models,” Kipping says. “We just assume the principle of indifference, which is the default assumption when you don’t have any data or leanings either way.”

So each hypothesis gets a prior probability of one half, much as if one were to flip a coin to decide a wager.

The next stage of the analysis required thinking about “parous” realities—those that can generate other realities—and “nulliparous” realities—those that cannot simulate offspring realities. If the physical hypothesis was true, then the probability that we were living in a nulliparous universe would be easy to calculate: it would be 100 percent. Kipping then showed that even in the simulation hypothesis, most of the simulated realities would be nulliparous. 

That is because as simulations spawn more simulations, the computing resources available to each subsequent generation dwindles to the point where the vast majority of realities will be those that do not have the computing power necessary to simulate offspring realities that are capable of hosting conscious beings.

Plug all these into a Bayesian formula, and out comes the answer: the posterior probability that we are living in base reality is almost the same as the posterior probability that we are a simulation—with the odds tilting in favor of base reality by just a smidgen.

These probabilities would change dramatically if humans created a simulation with conscious beings inside it, because such an event would change the chances that we previously assigned to the physical hypothesis. “You can just exclude that [hypothesis] right off the bat. Then you are only left with the simulation hypothesis,” Kipping says. “The day we invent that technology, it flips the odds from a little bit better than 50–50 that we are real to almost certainly we are not real, according to these calculations. It’d be a very strange celebration of our genius that day.”

 The best part of Kipping’s analysis is that, given current evidence, Musk is wrong about the one-in-billions odds that he ascribes to us living in base reality. Bostrom agrees with the result—with some caveats. “This does not conflict with the simulation argument, which only asserts something about the disjunction,” the idea that one of the three propositions of the trilemma is true, he says.

But Bostrom takes issue with Kipping’s choice to assign equal prior probabilities to the physical and simulation hypothesis at the start of the analysis. “The invocation of the principle of indifference here is rather shaky,” he says. “One could equally well invoke it over my original three alternatives, which would then give them one-third chance each. Or one could carve up the possibility space in some other manner and get any result one wishes.”

 

*ONLINE SOURCES~ The above texts have largely been cut and paste and integrated here on this blog to stir the social imagination about what reality is. I have posited numerous times on past posts that we live in the social imagination... an agreement reality based on incoming and outgoing (shared) information that has an absolute source; but, one that has been strained over time and or strained due to our living in an entropic universe, a fallen condition. Having fallen away or fallen farther from that absolute source causes glitches in the matrix but there is a reboot coming...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/