Are We Trapped In The Matrix?! What Are The Odds?

So, there's this Huffington Post article that's been floating around for the past few days asking us to ponder the possibility that the Universe is not a physical reality but rather a virtual simulation that we are all experiencing simultaneously - an idea very much like that presented in The Matrix.  I can't say that I've never pondered this question (there I go with those double-negatives, but hey, it's my blog!!), both from a purely aesthetic point of view and from a spiritual one.  I don't have a problem with the idea, and I'll get to that.  But like most of my blog posts the germ of it begins with a problem.

In the article the author states the following...

Any civilization which could evolve to a 'post-human' stage would almost certainly learn to run simulations on the scale of a universe. And that given the size of reality - billions of worlds, around billions of suns - it is fairly likely that if this is possible, it has already happened.

And if it has? Well, then the statistical likelihood is that we're located somewhere in that chain of simulations within simulations. The alternative - that we're the first civilization, in the first universe - is virtually (no pun intended) absurd.

It's that last line that bothers me.  Really bothers me.

Having grown up in what is likely the first modern generation that not only simply questioned the existence of a Creator but is also working vehemently on a global level to disprove the idea of one (I know I'll get criticism for that statement, but just roll with me for a minute), I was taught that it was through an incredible coordination of nearly impossible circumstances that an amazingly large number of inanimate particles somehow managed to come together over an inordinately long period of time and then, under super-extraordinary conditions the inanimate not only became animate, but that single animation has morphed into countless variations with amazing capability for intelligence and of incredibly complex form and construction.  The statistical likelihood that this could truly happen all by itself as was always suggested is, well, virtually absurd!!

Absurd is either absurd or it isn't. So, if you find yourself agreeing with the premisses of this article after having personally spent most of your life thinking that the post-Big Bang formation of the universe followed by Darwinian evolution is far more practical than the account of Biblical creation please, PLEASE, do not attempt to point to this as another possible alternative to existence, for you look the fool in doing so.  Folks, you can't play the same statistics both ways. 

And so ends the "I've got a bone to pick with you" portion of my essay - and here starts the section where I embrace what I have just alluded to absurd and run with it.

The story of Biblical creation has been long ridiculed as impossible (or at least improbable) allegory, passed down by humans devoid of modern intelligence in an attempt to explain something they did not and could not possibly understand, and so instead attributing it to a Being of ultimate power and knowledge that they could then worship in fear because they knew no better.  With that in mind, how much more practical does the 6-day creation story become in a virtual world, particularly when you first consider what a teenager can do in Minecraft in 6 days, and then consider existence's greatest programmer doing the same?  Could not that god-like programmer build all this in six days?!

I am by no means advocating a position that our lives as we know them are merely some unreal (virtual) set of circumstances played out for the amusement of some greater form of existence, so please hang with me.  When I consider the soul of a man, that thing that since my youth I have believed to exist forever, is it not unreasonable for me to posit that it is this soul that is somehow temporarily plugged into the matrix, locking it's eternal nature down to the four dimensional limits that we currently experience?  Could that idea in any way impact my faith in a God who may be the great programmer, who exists beyond the virtual reality that I am currently experiencing?  And should it in any way impact the way in which I spend this existence in a way that honors and worships Him for who He is?

I say it doesn't, shouldn't and can't - particularly if I do not impose my personal limitations on what the idea of a "programer" is, what they can do, or what "real vs. virtual" means.  The truth is it actually helps me formulate answers to the myriad questions I have about what happens when life as I know it ends.  For in a physical, four-dimensional world there is no room for an eternal soul, only what is in the here and now.  But in an existence where life as I know it is a merely a set of parameters through which my autonomous soul must navigate while interacting not only with other like-souls but also other levels of existence that the Programmer has allowed to interact with it extra-dimensionally, it's no longer a mystery at all.  The end of this reality is merely a transition to the next, and there now exists room within this paradigm for any other level of existence.

So the question of the existence of God becomes less problematic, but it still leaves me with the problem of this thing I have labeled my "autonomous soul".  This thing that gets connected to these levels of reality must have both a sentient nature, an existence outside of them, and the ability to make its own decisions based on its own experiences and convictions (i.e. the soul is not some pre-programmed subroutine).  It is the crux of my existence - that piece that simply is.

In the Bible, the Apostle John says that when I pass from this life a transformation occurs that makes me god-like (Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. - 1 John 3:2).  I am not suggesting that we become gods, only that this transition leaves us on a level of existence equal with that of our Creator.  Me move outside the box.  We jump out of the Matrix.  Until then I am stuck inside.  But I am also responsible for working within it in a way that honors the instructions given me by my Creator.  In other words, for me as a person of faith, this idea changes nothing.

I truly hope that haven't you've reached this point believing I've just spent several paragraphs belittling this existence, or suggesting that we are something less than we are because of the idea that all this may just be some virtual simulation.  To quote the Apostle Paul, "God forbid!!"  The mind of God is so much bigger than I can ever understand (at least within this existence).  To impose on Him any restrictions on how He chose to speak creation into existence, and maintain that creation through time, would be ludicrous.  But creation as we know it had a beginning and will have an end, and if we do exist beyond that as I believe we do, isn't it really virtual in some form?  Does it not take something that is somehow other and impose limits on its experience?

I say all this in the hope that people of faith will not look at this as just another article pointing away from the existence of God.  Instead I hope it causes them engage in a dialogue with those who would use it in that way and ask them to think about all the ways in which it points directly towards Him.  How it provides reasonable answers, within the foundational arguments of the article, to all that "silly nonsense" in the Bible about creation and the afterlife.  It is by no means proof, but it takes away the virtually absurd notion of a God they may have rejected and sets Him in a framework they may accept.  For if this is all His creation, isn't it inevitable that the better we understand it the more it points back to Him? 

Those Four Words

I have no idea why I woke up this morning thinking about this, but I did. I woke up thinking about it very specifically. I woke up knowing that I could care less whether or not this phrase is ever said in the Pledge of Allegiance ever again or not. Mostly, I woke up thinking about the people who have hit this sentence and already stopped reading because they are so incensed by the previous one.


Too many good people have been spending far too much time worrying about these four words, and yet not giving a fig about any of the rest of them.


If you're still paying attention I invite you to follow along with me.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

and to the republic for which it stands...

Let's just stop right here for a moment and, forsaking the argument about whether or not we should be reciting pledges or not, I would venture to say that regardless of anyone's view on the existence of an Almighty Creator the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree that there's little to disagree with up to this point. It simply lays down the framework, reminds us which flag it is we're pledging to, and what country it is that it represents.


You with me so far? Are we OK? Cool.


So, here is where it becomes problematic, and not for the reasons you're thinking. Those next four words have become a mountain that must be claimed. A hill that must be won. A matter of life and death. Without the proper phrasing and number of words we are in mortal peril as a nation, right?!


Wrong!!


Those four words mean nothing - they are utterly devoid of any power or authority. Say them or don't say them, I don't care, because they are pointless.


Why, you ask (assuming you haven't started hunting for your pitchforks and torches)?! Great question!! They are meaningless because every word after them is a lie, and by invoking the name of God, or anyone or anything else, you do nothing to change that.


Let's go back to the beginning and start over...

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

and to the republic for which it stands,

(those four words),

indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.

Lies!! Damn lies!!


Those words, the ones after those four words, are the words that woke me up this morning. Who cares whether or not we want to keep God in the pledge or take Him out, when every single word after Him is utterly false and without meaning?!


Let's parse it out. “Indivisible” - not divisible, incapable of being divided, not separable into parts. That doesn't sound like any country I live in. We're “Red” or “Blue”, “Republican” or “Democrat”, “Holy Roller” or “Godless Heathen”, “Patriot” or “Terrorist”, “Christian” or “Muslim”, "Animal Killer" or "Vegan", “Fox” or “MSNBC”.  We are as divided as we can possibly be. Just look at the photo at the top – One Nation Under God brought to you by the loving, god-fearing people at www.dirtyliberal.com, who seem to be working tirelessly to save those four words while simultaneously utterly destroying the next one. Does that make any sense whatsoever? Not in any way I can fathom. And yet those whose faith rests in a Saviour who said things like, “Blessed are the peacemakers”, who asked us to deeply contemplate “Who is our neighbor?”, and who taught us to pray in a way that would see our trespasses forgiven in the same manner in which we forgive those "who trespass against us", seem to believe that it's their responsibility to bludgeon their neighbor into seeing things precisely their way.  I don't get it.  And it's not that much easier for me to justify similar actions from Agnostics, Atheists and Intellectuals either, so don't think you're off the hook.


And the horror is “indivisible” isn't the most broken part!! The last 6 words have been long since forgotten and ignored because they were never true in the first place. At best they were a grand hope, but never true – at least since Congress decided they should be back in 1942 when the pledge was adopted.


I'm going to play hopscotch with this line and take just the even numbered words since arguing about “with” and “for” would take me away from my point, and “and” could be replaced by your conjunction of choice and bring you no closer to truth.


“Liberty”. It's what the terrorists hate, right? Our “freedom” to do whatsoever we want. Here's the full-blown Webster's definition:

1 The quality or state of being free:

a :  the power to do as one pleases

b :  freedom from physical restraint

c :  freedom from arbitrary or despotic control

d :  the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

e :  the power of choice

Yeah, that's the ticket. USA!! USA!!


Except, have you been to an airport lately? Have you ever had a TSA agent pull you aside for an arbitrary pat down, only to let you know that your refusal to comply would likely involve you, at a minimum, missing your flight while they lock you in a room, go through your things, and ask you questions before giving you a full body inspection? Has the NSA read your email, listened to your phone calls,or started a file with your name on it because you used one of their trigger words like “pork”, “Tucson” or “exercise” in your Facebook post? Have you been told that you can't enter a building with your cell phone or purse because it's federal property and you “pose a threat” with those on your person? Have been turned away from a voting booth because you don't have proper identification, even though your signature shows that you've voted in every election for the last 30 years? Have you been harassed by police because they didn't like the way you were walking, the length of your hair, the color of your skin or the clothes you were wearing? Say “God” all you want, but it don't mean a thing when “liberty” is gone.


And that's still not the worst of the lies! How can you be angry over removing those four words and yet say nothing about the fact that the last 3 have never been true at any point in this nation's history, let alone in the 71 years since the pledge was adopted?! “Justice for all”. Justice for All!! Let's just kill any discussion on the last word up front. I take it to mean “at the exclusion of no one”, but if you want to put a limit on it so that it applies only to those natural born and/or sworn citizens of this nation I'm perfectly OK with that, because no matter how you fence "all" of us in, it's still broken.


Justice. Just what the heck is it, and have we ever really seen it?


I would venture to say that most of you who are still reading this have at some point in time experienced true justice. You've had someone sort out a situation you've been involved in and, after seeking out the truth with due diligence, seen that things were sorted out according to that truth. Whether it was Mommy deciding that your sister did take your toy when it was yours to play with and handed it back to you while meting out some form of punishment (from which you no doubt derived some level of satisfaction), a judge finding in your favor in a lawsuit, or anything in between, we've all experienced it. Just as likely, we've all experienced injustice at some point. From the unfair punishment Dad doled out when your brother broke the window but wouldn't confess so you both got the belt, to not getting the part in the play because the other actor was the teacher's pet, to getting a 2% cost of living adjustment in your yearly review while the guy who sits next to you gets 5% plus a bonus even though he barely worked 20 hours a week. Life's not fair, though it's not always that way.


But that's not what this speaks to. It's speaks of equity of treatment, blindness to race, creed, color, social or financial status, and the expectation that in the eyes of those charges with implementing the laws of this land that no one person is treated differently from any other. This idea has been held in contempt for as long as power has been wielded by people in authority, for if there is one constant it's that there are pockets of our society that are less worthy of justice than others. People are allowed to suffer merely because they could not manipulate a system stacked against them due to their lack of income, biases within the community “their peers”, or as a result of utter fabrications by their accusers from within a system corrupted. While at the same time there are those who are guilty under the law and yet escape justice because of the privileges of wealth, position and societal connection, premitting them to commit lawless acts daily and without concern, for they are immune to prosecution.


Do you really need examples, because I can list them? How about the young black man who was in the right place at the wrong time and stood accused, tried, and was convicted because a witness, bought by law enforcement, pointed a finger in order to avoid similar prosecution – and who later recants, only to watch this young life snuffed out by the death penalty law he was tried under because no one would file or hear his appeal. How about the family that stands in court and watches their daughter's rapist walk away because a prosecutor decided to suggest that, somehow, “she asked for it” by dressing a certain way? Or what about the football player whose multi-million dollar defense team plants a seed of reasonable doubt in a jury awed by his celebrity? Or how about the company that poisons a family's drinking water, driving them from the land they have been on for generations, paying a minor fine as part of a sealed settlement, never actually admitting guilt while reaping profits countless times more than their fines and legal expenses, and being allowed to continue the practice that caused the damage?


You get my point.


So, as far as I'm concerned, do whatever you want to with the pledge, because with or without those four words I, personally, am not about to say it (though I wish to God that I could).


And that's what woke me up this morning. I woke up to the idea that these people I know, whom I call friends, have been pulled into a meaningless debate over four words in a pledge that's already full of lies. Pulled in to an extent that they will spit venom at those who disagree, regardless of side. Who funnel that hatred into actions that run so counter to the faith that they claim as to strip it of any real meaning, while blinding them to the effects on those around them, and to themselves. Who ignore the far more important words that follow as if they somehow matter that much less.


Go ahead, say those four words, or only the two, whatever you want, I no longer care.  I still love my country, and I pledge to honor and defend it, with both word and action, and in spite of itself, until it forever turns its back on us - which I pray will never happen - but this pledge I can no longer say.  But if you would, please, if you choose to recite it at least be honest with the rest of it, because frankly, when I look at it in the light of day I wonder if it's even worth saying at all?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation (under God),

hopelessly divided into countless unjoinable factions,

with a few remaining, though constantly monitored, liberties

(including whether or not to use the words “under God”, even if only for now)

and justice for those who are privileged enough to afford it

or are otherwise able to arrange for it.

You Can't Stand On One Leg

So, I’m finally getting around to my resolution to write more this year.  Writing, not just typing, just for writing’s sake.  Now it’s not like I haven’t gotten around to fulfilling any other resolutions.  I’ve sold off a bunch of musical gear, some of the proceeds of which went to fund the camera equipment I wanted to get to start doing some photography this year.  That’s one down.  But as my Dedushka (that’s “grandpa” for the uninitiated) used to say after the first round of vodka at the Sunday dinner table, “You can’t stand on one leg!!”

I’ve also hit a few open mic nights with just me, a guitar, this voice of mine and no other safety net.  And while I can’t make the claim that, “No animals were injured during the filming of this event”, in spite of my best efforts, I’ve at least been able to stay committed to inflicting additional pain on whatever captive audience decides to stick around.  And with that we have two down.  But once again, Dedushka and the other old Russians around the table will let you know, “Two?! You can't have only two!!  How many legs does a stool have?!”

Now, I can guarantee most Americans are at least a bit confused, right?  “Stools have four legs!!”  Sure, at least in most bars they do.  But a good stool, a real stool, only needs three.  In fact, the three-legged variety is a lot more stable than what you, or I, might have fallen off at one time or another.  It’s a tripod, not a “quadpod”, that you’ll find supporting cameras and other equipment worth thousands of dollars, because of the stability.  For stability sake then, if for no other, I will finish my To-Do-List with this third task.  Provided that this isn’t the last thing you read on here.

But I won’t limit my family’s contribution to my inaugural blog to that of a drinking-related analogy, though for some people that might merit sufficient content for its own post and a reason to brag about your family.  But family has been on my brain lately, no doubt due to the fact that every living relative from my Dad’s immediate family was gathered around our kitchen table yesterday.  Every aunt, uncle and cousin I've ever had on his side (there aren't any), my mother, father, brother, and his family.  Eight chairs were all that was necessary – though perhaps eight stools might have been more appropriate.  How many people do you know that can hold a reunion for an entire side of their family in one kitchen?!  I would have roasted a pig for the occasion if I could have gotten all of them to at least eat some of it.  

It doesn’t happen much, maybe every other year or so, which is a real shame.  But it’s the way things are now that we’ve spread ourselves around the state and around the country.  We don’t necessarily talk as much as we should – or even as much as we need to.  We’ve learned, rightly or wrongly, to go about our lives independently, while keeping each other clued in when necessary – or at least when we remember.  Our own excuses as weak and yet as acceptable as anyone else's for why we can’t make it up, down, over, under or whatever. But not this week, and not this time.  For five hours on Sunday it was like we'd never been apart.

To anyone reading it probably doesn’t sound like much of a big deal.  But I can guarantee that to those gathered around that table yesterday it was everything.  And the joy of being together far outshines the melancholy that sets in the moment we part company.  That hangover will stick around, in one form or another, until we’re all together again, three small family units at one table.  So, while there may not have had a bottle to pass around the table with our meal yesterday the words of my Dedushka wouldn’t have been out of place.  You can’t stand on one leg.