Programming Reality (or how occult knowledge and magic aren’t what we think they are)
A programing language is a formal language comprising a set of instructions that produce various kinds of output. Programming languages are used in computer programming to implement algorithms.
That statement is profound, in ways that aren’t yet apparent — and we’ll circle back to that in a bit…
My writing style is different. I’m not a creative writer. In fact, I’m the exact opposite of one. I am, a technical writer for a prolific defense contractor; dealing in UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) in roughly 14 different countries and a few domestic locations. I mention this for two reasons: 1) because my writing style may throw a few of you off, and 2) because I know, more than most, the capabilities of drones, unmanned aircraft, and other types of remotely piloted systems — I write the capability statements as well as the project management proposals for this defense contractor to the US Government for drone activities.
The Quick Backstory:
In 1995, I was deployed with the US Air Force to Jordan — and I saw something that I could not explain with my understanding of physics. Twenty-six years later, I still don’t have a definitive answer for what it was I saw in the Jordanian skies. That incident lead me to appear on Season 2, Episode 3 of History Channel’s “Unidentified: Inside America’s UFO Investigation” where I met Luis Elizondo.
My encounter with Mr. Elizondo would leave a lasting impression and help to shape and guide my approach with the phenomenon. Though, I will admit early in this writing that I don’t fully subscribe to everything that he (or anyone for that matter) has postulated. Not out of spite or a difference of opinion; simply because I’ve not had the same experiences or accesses which they have.
Early this year (2021) I worked with Lue and Sean Cahill and several industry professionals on a proof of concept for an “infotainment” production revolving around my creation of what Lue called “the world’s first civilian owned mobile UAP tracking platform” and my search for answers to the 1995 incident. (You can follow that project on Twitter @UntitledUAP
I will write about this UAP tracker in another article soon; however, this isn’t about the tracker — I’m simply setting the stage so you can better understand where I’m coming from.
When I first was unceremoniously initiated into this world by the phenomenon back in 1995, I wasn’t a “UFO guy.” I loved Sci-Fi books and movies, but I left the ideas in the realm of fiction and didn’t have them as intrusive thoughts. Even post witness, I’ve not fully climbed down the rabbit hole of research into what is termed as “Ufology” — I just didn’t feel the need. For me, it seemed as if the research was, for the most part, speculation and theories without the ability for the testing of hypothesis and the providing proof thereof. — I needed something tangible. Public accessible information that would show tangible evidence of the existence of non-human and sentient intelligent life — and I wasn’t getting it from the standard fair of information.
However, now I find myself presenting a theory in a similar vein as those which caused me angst previously — a non-testable, non-provable (with my understanding of technology or access thereof), non-tangible idea that my gut tells me is more correct than not.
We live inside of a synthesized construct created by a programing language that is recognizable and readable by an ancient artificial intelligence.
What does this mean? What is a construct? Intelligence, motivation, anxiety, and fear are all examples of constructs. In psychology, a construct is a skill, attribute, or ability that is based on one or more established theories. Constructs exist in the human brain and are not directly observable. To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality. The idea that time is not real is also counterintuitive to us. However, none of those things are synthesized constructs.
That’s a rather confusing paragraph — so let’s re-evaluate this a bit.
A simulation — that’s exactly what I’m talking about. However, it’s also exactly what I am not talking about at the same time. (Hello Schrödinger.)
We’ve adopted the term of “simulation” into the lexicon of the zeitgeist regarding the phenomenon; however, I believe that we should strike the word “simulation” and replace it with “construct” to help avoid many pre-conceived ideas which prevent meaningful conversation into this theory.
I personally take a bit of offense when someone tells me we are living in a simulation. Why? Well, it’s quite simple — a simulation is the process of creating models that mimic the behavior of a device. I don’t feel that I’m a small part of a model in a larger device. Simulations are used to verify code predict processes. This would mean that someone/(thing) somewhere(when) wants to know how I, you, we, will react to certain situations for behavior or physical control. Simulation infers, to me, a restrictive hell where we are all constrained by the limits of the programmer of the sim — and I do not feel as if humanity is under this lock-and- key… nor do I feel that we exist elsewhere/elsewhen (not counting the multiverse theories.)
Synthesis, on the other hand, is a productivity mechanism for developing software by which the implementation is generated rather than created manually.
The key words to grab onto here are “productivity”, “developing”, and “generated.” Terms which, I believe, are more relevant to our reality than we realize. (Ironically, these words are “constructed” and imbued with a meaning.)
I have no issues with thinking that our reality was synthesized and that we (the implementation) are generated instead of being manually created — in fact, this seems to actually fit without contradictions to most of the zeitgeists of modern physics, religion, and metaphysics. But rest assured, a synthesized construct is NOT a simulation.
James Gates, a theoretical physicist from the University of Maryland, claims that hidden within the mathematical models of supersymmetry theory we can find the underlying DNA of the cosmos. Gates claims that buried in the equations themselves we can find a recognizable form of computer code. Gates isn’t merely finding information, he is finding a very specific kind of error-correcting computer code that is very much like the kind of code used in internet browsers. Error Correction Code (ECC) is used for controlling errors in unreliable or noisy communication channels. In telecommunication, information theory, and coding theory, forward error correction (FEC) or channel coding is a technique used for controlling errors in data transmission over unreliable or noisy communication channels. The central idea is the sender encodes the message in a redundant way, most often by using an ECC.
The redundancy allows the receiver to detect a limited number of errors that may occur anywhere in the message, and often to correct these errors without re-transmission.
Gates claims he is finding code similar to ECC in mathematical models of supersymmetry theory — and simulation theorists have locked onto this discovery as “proof” that we live in a simulation. They believe that there is some kind of information that underlies physical reality. Rather than inferring that there must be a Divine Mind behind the existence of this information, secular thinkers have become proponents of the simulation theory.
However, I personally am departing from the simulation theory as a plausible explanation of reality and, instead, grasping at the idea of synthetization. I fully understand that the differences may be lost on most, however I feel that humanity is too powerful of a force to be relegated to being a simulation; a copy for predictive analysis. I can, however, get behind the thought that we are constructed from a synthesized reality — but a reality in which we still maintain our uniqueness.
What does this have to do with “programming reality” as stated in the title?
Well, let’s link that together. Prepare yourself as I’m about to stray into the “weird.”
The notion that magic and witchcraft or the occult have some relationship with reality and science was most famously formulated by the Scottish anthropologist Sir James Frazer in “The Golden Bough,” published in 1890. Frazer states, “In short, magic is a spurious system of natural law as well as a fallacious guide of conduct; it is a false science as well as an abortive art.”
Earlier, I scribbled down the following statement, “A programing language is a formal language comprising a set of instructions that produce various kinds of output. Programming languages are used in computer programming to implement algorithms.” So now it’s time to circle back to that.
Assuming that our reality is a synthesized construct and assuming that Gates is correct in his accounting of ECC in supersymmetry theory, then one must come to the conclusion that there is a set of interactive controls which can change parameters, or…affect reality — and I believe these controls have been confused and conflated with occult symbolism.
In computing, an input device is a piece of equipment used to provide data and control signals to an information processing system. Input devices can be categorized based on 1) modality of input (e.g. mechanical motion, audio, visual, etc.) 2) whether the input is discrete (e.g. pressing of a key) or continuous (e.g. a mouse’s position) 3) the number of degrees of freedom involved (e.g. two-dimensional traditional mice, or three-dimensional navigators designed for CAD applications such as the one shown below.
If our reality is a synthesized construct, then there would necessarily be a control element to that construct — a set of laws…physics if you will — that define how items in the construct interact. It would also be necessary for a process similar to what Gates proposes in an autonomous Error Correction Code to combat systemic entropy. Finally, any construct, unless it is designed to specifically prevent it, allows for outward communication.
Sure, think of this — imagine any terrestrial manmade construct; a zoo, a fish tank, a prison… everything has a process by which the occupants can somehow communicate with the outside world. We can see fish swim to the top of their bowl in a search for food — and we feed them. We can interact with animals in zoos. Prisons even allow for inside to outside communication via postal mail and phone calls. Every construct mankind has ever designed (with noted exceptions) allows for some kind of control by the occupant through a type of communication with the “outside” world. So, why would our construct be any different. There should be, by design, an ability for us to communicate with, interact with, or receive information from the construct creator… and I propose that the ideas presented in occult knowledge and rituals are the bastardized and entropic versions of this communication protocol.
I believe that history has been cruel to knowledge. We have lost our understanding of how to communicate with the outside. Was this the result of the Younger Dryas event? Was this the result of apathy? I do not know — but it appears that some aspects of the interface language survived through the ideas of sacred geometry and occult symbolism.
The how and where to utilize the occult symbiology and ritual to communicate with the “outside” or to affect our reality, I do not know — however I believe it may well be time to start looking at the occult not as a nefarious act of Satanism or black magic — but instead, a misunderstood interface with the construct in which we live. There may well be locations on this planet where the placement, use, or display of specific symbols cause the triggering of an algorithm in our construct.
Is there a hidden interface language that affects our reality? I have no idea. However, this cursory theory holds weight for me and I’m pursuing the idea. This is a constantly evolving theory which I have and I may well abandon it in favor of a more informed personal theory. I highly suggest that each and everyone of you do the same with your theories. Until there is irrefutable proof of -anything- accept and be willing to change your mind. Politics, religion, family dynamics…everything is subject to change and you should be willing to accept that.
- Jeremy McGowan — @JeremyUnidenti1 on twitter — @osiris_uap on Instagram.