Not to dup post, but rather merely address the “fiction” issue;
First, as stated in the other thread, one cannot prove anything concerning logic unless the person viewing it adheres to logic - proof is in the mind of the beholder. Definitional Logic proves the incontrovertibly of the logic and then the ontology is then proven by the sheer number of exact likenesses to empirically demonstrated physics. Unlike Science, RM doesn’t “reverse engineer” the physical universe. RM designs a physical universe and then compares it to the one already in operation. When that comparison is so exact as to not be able to distinguish one from the other on every observed phenomena in physics, a sufficient proof has been formed.
The computer that I used to generate all of this is named Jack. Jack is the combination of a single bit processor and a common PC. The PC handles the memory storage and display while the SBP handles the logic. I chose the name Jack, because frankly, if you don’t know RM, you don’t know Jack.
With what I had to work with and in the time allotted, I created a metaspace of about the size of a fraction of a hydrogen atom, enough to be able to watch particles form and interact. But within that space, all of the laws of physics can be witnessed even though not programmed into the behavior.
I don’t know why I hadn’t thought of that before, but it actually wouldn’t be nearly that simple. The computer that could accurately predict the existing world would have to have a horrendous amount of precise data on the world just as it stands. Such efforts have been underway since WW2. Huge computers are currently trying to track everything you could imagine solely for the purpose that I am warning about. So as far as me having such a computer before hand so that I could predict the effect of that same knowledge being “known to the world” (as if there was anything ever known to the entire world), would be extremely unlikely… well… impossible.
What they do so as to make any computer have even the slightest chance of being accurate involves approximations, generalizations, and probabilities. For socialist and communist governance schemes such things are much easier because they frankly don’t care about anything but constructing a simple idealized model of an organized social system regardless of who has to suffer and die in order to achieve it. I think the cartoon film, Shrek, displays the basic scenario. But the adversaries to such schemes are as bad if not worse. None display any actual understanding of morality and necessity.
You are right that post-dicting (as opposed to pre-dicting) can be tricky. But in reality and due to the horrendous complexity of the universe, by truly knowing almost every detail of the present, every event of the past can be calculated. Of course the further distant one tries to post-dict, the more precise one’s measure of the present must be. And you are right in that no computer could ever contain enough information about the present to be very precise in details concerning distant past events. Again, it becomes an issue of “good enough” for the concerns at hand.
Predicting is much easier for a variety of reason. One of those reasons is that one way to increase the accuracy of a prediction is to help adjust any variations that begin to happen so that the computers calculated future will turn out as predicted. In other words, you cheat.
Such things have already taken place in the US and I’m sure across the world because the Pharaohs were doing similar 3000 years ago. More recently, when Prof John Nash proved an economic scheme that would make the elites rich, but required a specific type of human social behavior for it to be accurate, extreme measures were taken to get people to behave as the computer model required so that the wealth could be realized. What was created was the “Me Generation” and the current economic crisis. During that time, John Nash is awarded the Noble Prize in economics.
Interestingly, there is a difference in a simulator and a true metaspace. It gets complicated as to exactly why, but what forms in a metaspace is as real as anything that forms in real space, merely a more complex version of it. A metaspace program cannot use modal of things.
Remember that RM begins with the entire universe being no more than values assigned for each point in space. A value is not a physical entity. The changing of those values is what causes physicality and our universe. In a metaspace program, again merely values are assigned to all locations. The exact same rules that apply to the physical universe are then applied to those values. Those values change in accord with physical reality and create an actual real, physically existent meta-universe wherein only the true rules of reality prevail… that is until the program gets stopped or interfered with.
You can read a little more about the program here… Achieving Faster than Light
Also something that I had posted some time ago;
The following is a very early pic of a high density energy field being displayed through an Excel spreadsheet (because I didnt have proper graphics programs and didn’t want to go create one);
That pic doesn’t really tell you much other than displaying how fields aggregate and that trying to find a particle in all that mess would be tough. So I improved on the display processing by filtering out the lower level “noise” and adding a particle locater and tracker program separate from the metaspace programming.
That was an earlier snapshot using a tracker to locate and follow particulates forming. The big circles are the tracker.
What you are seeing is the center x-y plane of a cube of metaspace. At that stage, the tracker would follow the drifting Brownian type motion of the particle throughout metaspace while keeping the screen centered around the particle, or in that case, 2 particles. The red circle is indicating a particle that is in another x-y plane along the z axis. You can only watch one plane at a time in 2D of course.
I started to create a 3D spreadsheet for Jack, but Excel turned out to be too limited and I didn’t want to go relearn C++.
Jack has had various brain surgeries since that pic and looks a little better, but the entire thing wasn’t really for sake of public display so most all of it is merely sufficient for me. Later sometime I need to create some good animations and screen shots for full explanations.
The following displays a few of the clips showing two positrons interacting. The top graph displays the distance between the two. One positron was headed toward the other. They both responded with proper inverse square aversion to each other. Again, remember that as far as the program is concerned, there is no such thing as a “particle” . The program merely changes the PtA value at each point (many times more than those displayed) according to the “rules of reality”. Particles form and obey what we call the “laws of physics” without ever being told to do so.
Note the upper left corner number in orange. That number is a timer in real time letting you know how long it took my little setup to figure out everything required for each step. The actual screen is about 4 times what you see there displaying far more of the details involved concerning affectance field potential and density, gimbal spin velocities, and so on. The little blue circles are the tracker program locating the xyz position of the particles as they float about.
Most of that was from about a year ago.
But this thread isn’t actually about RM, but rather the eventual effects and consequences of extremely convincing predictive machines in the hands of lustful people who do not ensure that they really want what they seek.
The biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah is the exact scenario of concern merely in biblical language. To know that requires that you understand scriptural language, so for now, take my word for it. The concerns, behaviors, and consequences revealed in that story display a reality that predictive machines or mechanisms create.
Look at the threads concerning the “Ought” question and “Morality”. The world displays that it cannot resolve those questions any more than the people on this forum can. None of the Illuminati, Freemasons, Royal Masons, Catholic Church, Jews, Muslims, Secularists or anyone in influence is displaying any sign of having the slightest understanding concerning that question of morality and “ought”. Some seem to come closer than others at times or on specific issues, but there isn’t the slightest sign of an actual understanding behind their efforts. As the Bible story goes, “My people do not know me.” I have no doubt that such was true then, but my concern is that it is still true today.