The image translators work FOR the construct program PART 2

In part one I talked about experiences being produced on demand in a simulated reality, and how this leads to the most computationally inexpensive simulation. Now for the next question: Since an act of observation collapses a probability vector defining the realm of possibilities into a single unique experience, information must be produced in this act. (see previous posts on information for explanation of information collapsing prob. space) An act of observation must increase information entropy. But where does this new information come from?

Well, it could be the effect of a total random process. The Matrix chooses a location, and random shape for a snowflake and records it. If it were truly random, the process would be pretty invisible to us, unless there were some kind of bias on the randomness. But what bias might the Matrix have? Its so minimally defined for us, the only motivation it has we know of is to preserve the illusion of the simulation. So if there any bias in its random choices of manifestation, it would be toward the expectations of the viewer. So if a viewer expects snowflakes to look a certain way, and finding them looking differently might cause them to question reality, then all other things being the same the Matrix will make them look the way they expect. Note that this does not rule out surprises. If a weather scientist observed trends of weird snowflakes in North Greenland, and observed it without surprise, then a layman might be shocked to see them, but researching it he would find the scientists paper, and his sense of reality would return, a scientific explanation exists, even though the weird snowflakes are the product of the scientists observation shaping the construct program.

But the main thing about this is that for the individual (not the collective, which defines scientific truth) these things have an experimental signature: If an individual where able to shape his mind, control his expectations, or have a cosmology where he there is some expectation of internal or external relation with the observed shape of snowflakes as they form, then those expectations, all other things being the same, could be observed in snowflakes. You could do this for years, photograph it, make valid sounding theories to convince yourself as to why it happens, even write a book on it:

But in the end, even after years of seeing the obvious spelled out time and time again in the ice crystals, the predictive scientific power needed for a theory would not be there. This because scientific laws describe the behaviors of the construct program in broad terms of ranges of possibilities, but the expectation bias of the experience translators operate fundamentally at a lower priority, and are unique for each individual and overridden by the construct program. So the bottom line is while you yourself can see these effects, even photograph the beautiful snowflake you made by directing love at it, even share the pic so the world can see, you can not create a general law of love shaping snowflakes that the construct program will follow. Its simply too computationally expensive for the Matrix to have to work in accordance with these arbitrary laws each time somebody observes a snowflake. In the realm of science, the matrix prefers the computationally inexpensive, and thus the wise scientists are the ones who follow the law of economy (as it used to be called) in proposing structures for the construct program: Simple theories equal less computation.

Now what other laws might dictate the shape of viable theories? Well, clearly no theory could prove the existence of the Matrix itself. Entire crops could be lost. However no theory could also prove its non-existence. How could you disprove its existence in a non-simulated world? One way would be to make preserving the illusion of the Matrix require impossible amounts of computer resources for a finite system. If a simulated scientist were able to take any small physical system, and then determine the states of every electron, proton and other tiny thing therein leading up to its final observed state, then the Matrix would clearly have to predetermine these vast amount of tiny state transitions not just for the small system he observed, but for every system he might choose to observe. This would be intolerable in its computation cost. However if the scientist were able to observe the particles acting in ways inconsistent with the final state, it would actually reveal the illusion of the physical laws, of the Matrix. To protect against this kind of attack, the Matrix would have to actual partially reveal itself, it would have to say that at some point tiny particles don't have locations, they only (like the snowflakes above Greenland) exist as probability density waves until they are observed. Thereby, no paradox is created regarding physical laws, but the scientist is unable to crash the system with her observations that would be too computationally expensive to resolve.

The end result is that the scientists must declare an end to the very idea that these systems can be determined, and accept some absurd rules, like that by observing a system enough times, it won't change, (as having to calculate the nuances of certain tiny changes again and again would be too expensive). But the vital illusion of the Matrix hasn't been disproved. We can come up with theories consistent with a physical world, or an information driven illusion world, and both will be consistent. We have been shown the door, but we can choose whether or not to walk through it. Whether or not we do depends on how we collapse probability vectors we are presented with. The words are given to you: But whether 'the image translators WORK - for the construct program' or whether they 'work FOR the construct program', is up to you.