Docu: Are we living in the Matrix in the future?

How does your life change when you spend most of it in a virtual world, like Second Life? Some of the earth's inhabitants already spend their lives online and are, as it were, pioneers for the rest of the world population.

In the future, will we mainly spend our time in a virtual world?

Or not. The popularity of urbex, urban exploring, shows that especially among young people there is a greater need for authenticity. Not the online fake world, but the harsh reality. Will humanity opt for fake, or will we still go for the real thing? The full documentary is below.

29 thoughts on “Docu: leven we in de toekomst in de Matrix?”

  1. We have agreed that “the truth” does not exist. For example, the truth about what really exists and what doesn't. We have agreed that everyone can know for themselves what really exists, and that means that we no longer know which way of thinking to take to determine what really exists and what does not. We no longer have any criteria to determine that. That means that what is real is no longer collective but individual.

    If a new frog is discovered tomorrow, there cannot be any question of its existence today. Only after scientific observation by humans can there be any question of the existence of the new frog. It seems as if tomorrow it can be said that the frog already existed the day before yesterday, but then we forget that we can only know that after the observation. So existence does not mean that something is just there, as a property of the thing, but existence can only mean that it has been perceived by humanity. Although it seems exactly the other way around. No one can prove that something that has not been observed exists, try it.

    I think this is the missing way of thinking to determine whether something really exists or not. (Perception means the collective scientific perception, not the individual impression, of course.)
    We already live in the matrix that makes us think that we all live on our own islands of reality. I think we should try to agree on what that realm really is and what that means for how we interact with each other.

  2. Dear Judith,
    The question of whether something exists or not is actually a kind of occupational therapy. I don't mean this hurtful but the question should really be, “what are we perceiving?”. And if you look closely at the outer reality, you actually only see 2 things, namely:
    processes and ideas. Processes are all that lives and ideas are all materialized things that should make our lives easier. Now you should know that our outer reality is the end product of tenfold inner reality that quantum physics is slowly but surely uncovering.
    This sounds rather woolly, but let me give an example with our processes and ideas.
    What is the deeper reality of an idea, in other words, how does someone arrive at an idea.
    The answer is quite simple, namely through insight, What then is the deeper reality of insight, or how does someone arrive at a certain insight, namely through synthesis, What then is the reflection of synthesis? Creativity etc.
    All these realities are mirrored together to ultimately what we perceive. And that is our reality
    So you have to look inside what is nothing to be found on the outside.
    Greetings Erwin

    1. Erwin,

      You say:
      Now you must know that our outer reality is the end product of tenfold inner reality.

      I think that would mean that everyone has their own reality, which of course is not the case.
      We all perceive the pebble and the chestnut in much the same way, and we agree that that perceived stone and tree exist. Only through joint perception, not yet through inner processes.
      I am merely saying that what we consider to be real in everyday life cannot be anything other than what we have observed together. We have made a mistake in thinking that existence means that something is just there, for we can only speak of existing after we perceive it. (see the frog)
      A nice consequence of this new definition of existence is that it can now be proven that something does not exist, for example. Because perceived and existing cannot mean anything else. The not yet observed frog does not exist because it will not be seen until tomorrow. So God does not exist because it has not yet been perceived.

      The matrix that allows us to live on our own islands where reality can be different for everyone, must be dismantled and removed ...


  3. dear Judith,
    Now I understand where you want to go, but it is very simple replace the name god with life and you will get a lot further.
    And of course everyone has their own reality and therefore their own truth. Because that is the problem with the truth, that everyone will experience their own truth. But the moment you start doing that, starting to experience your own truth, your evolution stops. Because man only evolves in consciousness from about 18 years of age.
    For example, if you believe that Darwin is right, you stop thinking about life, but resign yourself to someone else's truth; the same applies to religions, if you believe that there is a being (god) who created everything, your evolution also stops here for the same reason.
    It is best to always evaluate your inner truth against the light of the outer reality. Because the saying is not "as above, so below" but more "as inside, so outside."
    Which means that if, in your thinking, you don't agree with the outside world, you are probably doing wrong.

  4. Erwin,

    You say, “It is best to always evaluate your inner truth against the light of outer reality. ”

    An inner truth is not a truth but an opinion. You want to talk about opinion. I want to talk about facts, not opinions. Not about inner truth, but the common truth of what exists in everyday reality.

    But as I said, we already live in the matrix that says there is no common truth. You do exactly as I predicted. Whoever thinks that there is only inner truth, allows himself to be guided by the matrix without realizing it….

  5. sorry Judith,
    my mistake i should have explained what i mean by inner truth.
    And I will immediately reassure you, for what you mean by common truth is your (our) inner universal common truth that lies outside the "matrix". And in that you are also right that a matrix has indeed been placed on top of reality and ensures that there is so much confusion.
    In other words, there really is a "false" reality in the real true universal reality so that we would never realize who we really are. You will find this false reality in the coding of the material (study the numbers between 1 and 9, search for the references in each field and your eyes will fall open.
    at your service

  6. ps Judith,
    To the extent that your eyes weren't already open, of course.
    And that's why we have to be on our guard all the time because as you can see the truth is mixed with the lie.

  7. Our observable reality: This always consists of the extractions we accept, (images, impressions, culture dependent) of individually observed or shared, interpreted combinations of chaos and order information. This arising from the personally available individual / intellectual qualitative information supply (your capacity, what can you take in)) or the shared knowledge tools, the resources available to them, and the choices we make in this regard. So reality arises from the chaos of information that we classify as species. Since this kind of depends, the “truth” as Judith rightly described it cannot exist, it is relative.

  8. antares,

    How, then, can we determine whether something really exists for humanity, even if it is shared subjective?

    That is only possible through human perception. There is no other way for us to know reality than through perception, so we may call the pebble really existent. Even though we have discovered that our new sense organ shows the electron microscope that it consists of mostly empty space. New insights. It remains human perception.

    The only possible truth about the real existence of things is common human perception. Individual observations can only be regarded as normative if they have been verified by fellow observers. So: the frog to be discovered tomorrow cannot be said to exist today. God, whatever that may be, can be proven not to exist, because like the frog, it has not been observed until now.

    Because people are constantly discovering new things, the truth is time-bound, it changes with the new discovery. Truth is subjective, but collectively human. Objectivity is unknowable by definition, because it means independent of human perception.

    Let's agree that real existence is the same as perceived and vice versa. Then we live in the same world and not on separate islands that are mirrored by the matrix.

    1. Judith.

      1. "How, then, can we determine whether something is real to humanity, even if it is partly subjective?"

      2. And at the bottom it says: “Let's agree that real existence is the same as perceived and vice versa. Then we live in the same world and not on islands that are mirrored by the matrix. ” Agree, and agreed.

      Answer 2 offers the solution to what is stated in question 1. Incidentally, we can also describe partially subjective but possibly valid, relevant information as information that we ourselves cannot, or cannot yet interpret properly. Which is then a matter of trust. That is the case with the exceptionally brilliantly talented few among us humans. I am not one of them, but I have learned to listen. ;)

  9. Dear people,
    and here we go again, Occupational Therapy, you are asking the wrong questions.
    the mere fact that all three of us think differently about reality is proof that everyone has their own reality and thus their own truth.
    But in my opinion that is quite normal because the more knowledge and insight you collect, the different reality will look like.
    That is what you call growing in consciousness.
    Another example of how does a teenager feel about reality and how does an older person feel about it. A world of difference I would say. So please stop saying the truth is the same for everyone. And I agree that only outer reality can be taken as a point of reference. Tis only the interpretation of this reality, which is different for everyone.

  10. the question must therefore be, what is the highest universal truth that can contain all other truths
    in other words what is the truth of everything?

  11. antares.

    So we have agreed that real existence is the same as perceived and vice versa. That is a step forward.
    So something only exists because it has been perceived by humanity, and not in any other way, for example, in itself independently of human perception. Because that is the result of our statement.
    Then we have thus provided scientific proof of the non-existence of god. This has quite a few social consequences.
    Moreover, it means that that objective reality that would precede our perception, and is taken as a starting point by physics, does not exist, but is made up with it.

    Would you agree with this, because then we have a good argument against the caliphate, for example, and a nice explanation for the discovery that observation in quantum theory plays such a decisive role in how reality appears to us.

    1. Judith.

      Observations in quantum theory only raise more questions than we can answer at present, and for the time being certainly in the predictable, near future. Furthermore, I do not presume to have scientifically shown that God does not exist. I find the existence of a man-explained (subjective, doctrine-based, so absolutely relative and unproven) God illogical. This is based on our current scientific insights and agreements based on empirically proven (repeatable observation). This on the understanding, however:

      Man is inescapably currently within the vicious, evolutionary knowledge boundaries of her own comprehension. If, in time, the possibility of transhumanism emerges scientifically, ethically, and morally accepted, then any individual who does not participate in this process will be subject to the consequences of a supreme new knowledge society. Knowledge is proven, actual power !!!

      1. Antares,

        We had concluded that nothing can ever be said to exist without something being perceived. So existence does not mean that something is there in itself without our having perceived it, because that is unknowable. So as long as something has not been observed, there can never be any question of the existence of anything, be it the undiscovered frog or god. The frog does not exist, scientifically, and so neither does God.
        I don't know what transhumanism could be.

        By definition, knowledge is never possible outside of human comprehension, made possible by perception. We are participating observers and can therefore never know everything. Our comprehension is not the limitation but the condition by which we know reality.

        1. Judith.

          "I don't know what transhumanism could be."

          This is an interesting statement from you, hahaha… .. On the one hand; without detours and apparently irrefutable, you have given a naughty (presumably naughty, humorous set-up) but correct answer, which can certainly be true in relation to your immediately preceding argument. I wrote; "Really can be right" because I can never maintain in my assertions that you should be aware of some transhumanism, at least theoretical content. I may now be making an error of judgment of your intellectual capacities, (humor), but I suspect that you have indeed learned about this area. Strictly speaking further; you cannot have experienced it in practice and therefore not perceived it. Will I then literally keep to our agreement, "We had concluded that there can never be spoken of the existence of something without something being perceived." at the same time I am forced to accept this subtle adjustment of reality, I don't want to be a monkey ... .. Hahahahaha, I call that a sharp sense of humor :) :) :) My girlfriend sitting next to me at her computer laughed at it like that, LOL ...

          Let's stay real Judith.

          Artificial intelligence for example; it has been proven to exist, and will certainly develop unstoppably far beyond the limits of the current human comprehension, if this is not a secret reality for us humans. The knowledge associated with this is first of all a combination of facts and data that the human brain can never link. This creates a combined unknowable problem if we do not adapt (knowledge is power, we can be overcome by it) and the social consequences of this are also recognized in practice. Michio Kaku, for example; he recently discussed in an interesting documentary the possibility that an under development way to compensate for the dangers of this is to apply in practice the adaptation of man to this situation by means of transhumanist methods. In anticipation of the developments in this field, I remain happy with my poor comprehension, fascinated by how this knowledge process will develop. With best regards. ;)

  12. Judith, Antares,
    I also fully agree with this
    By the way, that's what I've been trying to say here all along.
    although I doubt whether those Caliphate men have ever heard of particle physics, let alone logic
    you will have your job.

  13. Antares,

    We humans make things that outgrow us, such as artificial intelligence. The atomic bomb can also be fatal for us.
    Everything we make of it ourselves as humanity we can of course say that it exists. Making naturally implies perceiving.

    I am not kidding that existence and perceiving are two terms, which are interchangeable and that existence can never mean anything other than perceived to us. But I don't think I can make that clear. Sorry.


  14. Antares,

    Physics assumes the existence of objective reality, which precedes our perception.
    I have the impression that you agree with this, despite our dialogue as it has been conducted here.

    If you do believe in the existence of this objective reality, we keep talking about each other.
    Do you agree with this premise of physics, or am I mistaken?


    1. Judith.

      I orient myself (on average, but certainly flexible in my conclusions) on those objective observations which repeatable, thus demonstrable and measurable, form a theoretically justified description of reality. The manifestation that is so objective and afterwards (as real-appearing) always predictable reality as it appears to us, however, requires flexibility in our thinking. This in the sense with regard to the described reality, that measured results may deviate from what the theories describe and predict. An example of this can be the measured deviations in the radioactive decay times of elements. These kinds of deviations already indicate that our theories, and thus predictable results, must always be adapted to new objectively measured differences. We must therefore start from a relative, but as objectively agreed and described reality, unfortunately peanut butter. My conclusion: The deviations have been measured, we know that objective reality is not perceived, other than as a widely agreed assumption.

      1. Antares,

        You say, "we know that objective reality is not perceived…."
        We agree on that. Strictly logically speaking, it is impossible for us as humanity to know anything else, in a scientific sense, than what we perceive. Predictions must be confirmed or denied by observation.
        As you say, objective reality is not perceived, so it is by definition unknowable, there is no other logical possibility. The concept of 'objective reality' will never be perceivable, which is why it has been invented.
        By that something exists, we as humanity can never mean that it is situated in objective reality, in other words it is there in itself. To us humans, existing therefore means exclusively perceived. That something has not been observed can be proven, something therefore does not exist.

        It does not mean that there is nothing, but that a sensation arises along with our perception. Our ordinary everyday reality. The nature of the senses thus determines which sensation arises.

        That is why matter looks so different when perceived with a different sense than with the human eye. The electron microscope mainly shows empty space. It is not because it perceives the world of the very small, but because it is another sense organ that does the perception. Anyone who blocks light and thus changes it does something completely different than anyone who shoots at something with electrons. That is why the theory of the small particles, the Quantum field theory and the Theory of General Relativity do not tally with each other. By using different 'senses' very different worlds of experience arise.
        Partly for this reason, the new insight into how existence should be better defined seems important.
        But also because we can finally prove scientifically that god does not exist.

        Please think for yourself, and don't take what I say.


  15. Judith.

    God is a thought creation of man, and originated from the existential, evolutionary vacuum from which an evolving, hierarchically oriented, intelligent brain explores its environment. It follows that; In order to prove that God does not exist, you should only be able to convince man of the workings of the processes that precede the procedure of seemingly creating those conscious thoughts. Therefore the following: In the absence of information, our brain itself will generate images of the environment (eg pareidolie-pareidolia works like this). Without species-related (in this example, humans only trust humans) environmental criticism, the brain has no reason not to fixate its individual development that is nourished in this way. Within the social hierarchical structures, necessary to be able to operate successfully as a group / species in nature at all, man discovered at the time that not perceived but interesting aspects (manifestations, unknown dangers, etc.) for the group, the informed individual has a certain status. of prestige. A number of individuals then rally behind these claims, after which the status of that person can become hierarchically untouchable. Those who are not strong must be smart, and knowledge is power. Spread knowledge and balance is regained.

  16. antares,

    I quote you, but replace God with objective reality:

    Objective reality is a thought creation of man, and arises from the existential, evolutionary vacuum from which an evolving, hierarchically oriented, intelligent brain explores its environment. It follows that; In order to prove that objective reality does not exist, you should only be able to convince man of the workings of the processes which precede the procedure of the ostensible creation of those conscious thoughts.

    I'll try that:
    New animal species are regularly discovered by humans. The frog to be discovered tomorrow cannot be said to exist today. The day after tomorrow, we, the people, can say that it already existed the day before yesterday, that is today. But today there cannot be any question of the existence of the frog to be discovered tomorrow. Always, in everything we know as humanity, there can be no mention of its existence until it has been perceived. It seems as if we can say the day after tomorrow that the frog already existed the day before yesterday, regardless of our observation, but then we forget that we can only say that after the observation has taken place. In other words: we think that there is objective reality (the frog exists on its own, independent of our perception) but then we forget that we can only say that after the perception.
    In short: something does not exist because it is simply there, but something exists because we have observed it.

    It's about logical reasoning. The objective, self-existing reality has been conceived, just like that God.

    If I am wrong, would you please argue it, using my logical reasoning.
    (I realize it's a very anti-intuitive thought and therefore meets with resistance, but I'm squatting for reason that connects us as humanity)


    1. Judith.

      I currently (consciously avoiding the intuitive in my line of thought) cannot find any counterarguments based on any logical reasoning. Here I share your opinion in all modesty.

      I don't know if you know Frans Couwenberg's work “Humanosophy”. This one appeared here earlier with an interesting article about being for others, and myself interesting and innovative insights. As far as I know, this gentleman is still very busy perfecting his work, and is open to logically reasoned contributions. Hereby estimating that a train of thought such as yours can be of no small contribution, herewith my suggestion to contact them if you wish.

      With best regards.


      1. Antares,

        Thank you for your serious response. And also for the tip. Frans Couwenbergh, he seems inspiring at first sight.
        You show that you appreciate the problem of defining existence.

        For now: thanks for the dialogue,


Leave a Comment