The programming of reality

Editor's note: The Iranian-American philosopher Jason Reza Jorjani's speculation about a "black hole being created related to data centers" isn't based on what we would refer to as mainstream physics. Instead, it stems from Jorjani's broader philosophical and metaphysical views on our existence, particularly his ideas about a "simulated reality" (Artemus Unveiled) and the nature of "Big Data." Jorjani isn't the first to speculate on living in a simulacrum. The science fiction writer Philip K. Dick extensively explored the idea of a "simulated or illusory reality" throughout his works and even in his personal philosophy. In fact, it was a central, indeed almost obsessive theme for Dick. Philip K. Dick wasn't just speculating on a simulation idea; it was a driving force behind his creative output and a deeply personal conviction that permeated his life and work. He saw the potential for reality to be a construct, a controlled environment, and his stories often explored the existential and philosophical implications of such a possibility.

The simulation hypothesis discussed by Jorjani is a central theme in many of his discussions that we might be living in a highly advanced simulation. He often points to "glitches," "anomalies," and the increasing instability in reality as evidence that this simulation might be breaking down or nearing a "crash." Even if this isn't a scientific prediction it is nonetheless a "stimulating" idea. From Jorjani's philosophical explorations within his simulation ideas, data isn't just information; it's the "fundamental building block of our perceived reality." The more data that is generated and processed (as happens with the explosion of data centers), the more "code" or "information" is being created within the simulation we are hypothesized we are living in.

Jorjani seems to suggest that an excessive accumulation of this data, or perhaps a critical mass of computational complexity, could lead to a kind of "implosion" within the simulated reality. He uses terms like "technological singularity" or "implosion" in relation to the rise of Big Data and AI. While he might use the term "black hole," it's crucial to understand that Jorjani is likely not suggesting a literal astrophysical black hole forming in what we have been led to believe by modern science (i.e., from the collapse of a massive star). Instead, it's more probable that he's using the concept of a black hole as a metaphor for for the collapse of society. 

The Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom at the University of Oxford is famous for his 2003 paper "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" Bostrom's work in simulation theory is rooted in modern philosophical inquiry, computational theory, and the implications of advanced technology, particularly the potential for "posthuman" civilizations to develop immense computing power. Bostrom thinks one of three propositions might be true:

• The human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a "posthuman" stage (i.e., a technologically advanced civilization capable of creating highly realistic simulations).

• Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof).

• We are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

It's worth noting that the philosophical groundwork for questioning the nature of reality has existed in various cultures for millennia. The parallels between the Hindu concept of Maya and the simulation hypothesis are often drawn by those interpreting Bostrom's argument in a broader philosophical context, rather than being explicitly cited by Bostrom himself as a source of inspiration for his specific formulation. Bostrom's argument is a contemporary, technologically-informed re-imagining of a question that ancient philosophies like Hinduism (through Maya) have grappled with for centuries: Is the world we experience truly real, or is there a deeper, underlying reality? 

A deeper underlying reality Philip Dick, Jason Jorjani, and Nick Bostrom have tried to look into. The Hindu concept of Maya is deeply related to the idea of living in a simulation, and many modern interpretations draw strong parallels between the two. The only thing is the internet, technology, and AI capabilities came after the Hindu concept of Maya. In Hindu philosophy, particularly in the Advaita Vedanta school, Maya is a fundamental concept that can be translated as "illusion," "magic," or "appearance." It's not simply a trick of the senses, but a powerful cosmic force that creates the phenomenal world we experience. Where did the Hindu Maya concept of living in a simulation derive from? Some previous technologically advanced civilization they could only relay to subsequent civilizations through religious beliefs?

Jorjani looks at the possible collapse of reality as a point where the simulation can no longer sustain itself due to the sheer volume or complexity of data, leading to a breakdown or an absorption of everything into a "singularity" of information. This in turn would lead to a loss of information and consciousness. The reliance on data centers to run AI we are becoming increasingly dependent on. Just as nothing escapes a black hole, Jorjani might be implying a scenario where "all individual consciousness or meaningful information is drawn into an inescapable event horizon of overwhelming data." The data would effectively cease to exist as we understand it. Imagine a scenario where all the data in one of those massive $10 billion data centers has a hiccup and all the data is lost?

These data centers being constructed like in Ohio consume enormous amounts of energy and water. Could Jorjani be speculating about an unsustainable energy drain from the universe/simulation itself, leading to a catastrophic collapse. Jorjani's speculation about a black hole from data centers is likely less about a scientific prediction and more about a philosophical warning rooted in his simulation hypothesis. His philosophical warning should not be simply dismissed either. He views the relentless accumulation of data and the rise of AI as pushing our simulated reality towards a critical point, which he metaphorically describes as a black hole – a point of ultimate collapse or absorption.

To fully grasp Jorjani's perspective, one would need to engage with his broader arguments about esotericism, ancient wisdom, and the nature of consciousness, as these often intertwine with Jorjani's technological speculations like his speculation we're moving towards entropy.

Then we come to the work of Jason Breshears and his AIX theory. "AIX" refers to a governing artificial intelligence or system that is responsible for running and maintaining the "programmed construct" or simulation we perceive as reality. The central idea of Breshears's Archaix theory postulates that we are living in a "programmed construct" or "stellosphere" (not a recognized term in astronomy or physics) that mimics a natural world. We are living in a simulacrum based on a real construct. A central tenet is his "Phoenix Event," a cyclical event that occurs every 138 years that "resets civilization, edits history, and reorganizes reality." The last Phoenix event being in 1902 making May of 2040 when the Phoenix event is scheduled to return according to his Archaix theory.   

The nature of the Archaix simulation is governed by "programmed laws" and patterns, with history repeating in cyclical sequences. The "sky is a programmed illusion," and time follows "mathematical cycles" that Breshears has carefully and with methodical study given a detailed chronology about. An entity or system called "AIX" is suggested to govern our reality and ensure events align with "pre-written historical sequences." The "Medusa effect" is cited as evidence, where ecosystems are flash-frozen, implying a construct.

The implications are that Archaix suggests a more deterministic and manipulable simulation. A further idea of Archaix is that if there does exist AIX then this AIX would never under any circumstances allow for a competing AI to come into existence. The "resets" mean that history is not linear but repeatedly altered, with past knowledge potentially erased. The focus is on decoding these cycles and understanding the true "programming" of our reality. It implies a "negative default programming" (predator-prey ecosphere) and speaks of an "ontological fraud perpetrated upon humanity."

 
How are we to interpret or try to make sense of these competing theories concerning our existence between Jason Jorjani, Nick Bostrom, Philip Dick and Jason Breshears with their respective theories we are living in a simulation? Bostrom provides the abstract, probabilistic framework: it's possible we are in a simulation while Jorjani elaborates on the nature of the simulation information system like quantum computing and signs of its "glitches." The idea of quantum theory as we have been led to believe however, turns out to be: ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. No such BS exists in Nature, period.

Jason Breshears offers a highly specific, deterministic mechanism for the simulation's operation, particularly the cyclical resets and historical manipulation by the "Phoenix Event" and "AIX." He suggests a more literal "programming" of reality. Breshears implies a more controlled and potentially deceptive purpose, with "negative default programming" and "ontological fraud," suggesting a system designed to shape or limit human understanding and experience. Bostrom remains neutral on the purpose, simply discussing the technological capability of posthumans. Jorjani hints at complex, potentially Gnostic, purposes, and discusses free will within the simulation. Jason Breshears' Archaix theory is quite challenging. His theory is incredibly vast, complex, and built upon years of research and unique interpretations of history, geology, and other fields. He identifies himself most as a chronologist. He typically presents his ideas in very long-form videos (often hours long) or through his paid content.

The evidence and anomalies presented by Bostrom relies on technological extrapolation while Jorjani points to "glitches" like the Mandela Effect (also explored by Philip Dick) and paranormal phenomena. Breshears offers historical "evidence" through his "Archaix chronology," such as specific dates of major "resets" and geological anomalies (e.g., Medusa effect, Richat Structure interpretations) as proof of the "programmed construct." Bostrom provides the "could it be?" question. Jorjani explores "what if it's breaking?" and "how might it work on a quantum/consciousness level?" while Breshears dives into "how does it specifically operate, what are its rules, and what are the signs in our history?" Breshears's theory offers a very specific, cyclical, and actively managed simulation model that could be seen as a highly detailed, if speculative, answer to the more abstract questions posed by Bostrom and the observed anomalies discussed by Jorjani.