Saturday, April 18, 2026
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries Support Us
You are viewing: Home > Columns > William B Stoecker > Column article
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
William B Stoecker

The virtual reality universe

January 9, 2008 | Comment icon 10 comments
Image Credit: Midjourney
William B Stoecker: Those of us who are more conspiracy oriented have long believed that the global elites have lied to us about things like the Federal Reserve, the Kennedy assassination, Oklahoma City, 9/11, and so on. But suppose that these are just their smallest lies, and that above these is the ultimate lie. Suppose that they have lied to us about the basic nature of reality itself, about that and about who and what we really are, and what are our true origins. Suppose that what we call the "real world" is more like virtual reality, a world composed entirely of data, of information.

Subtly and not so subtly the elites for decades have pushed the idea of philosophical materialism and atheism, using the schools and universities and the controlled media to indoctrinate people in the belief that the prime reality is matter, or, in the parlance of modern physics, mass/energy/space/time, the observable, measurable physical universe so beloved by our logical positivist scientists, or what passes for scientists these days. They believe that consciousness is a mere secondary manifestation of matter, with the brain being a sort of electro chemical computer. Of course, in such a universe, there is no place for God, so they also promote atheism and attack religion at every opportunity, conducting, these days, a virtual war against Christianity and Judaism, and promoting the insidious doctrine of moral relativism. Of course, the schools exclusively teach the Darwinian view of evolution, and exclude all mention of intelligent design, which, after all, requires a Designer.
This doctrine, until the time of the French Revolution, was rarely accepted, an early exception being the Epicurean poet Lucretius, who wrote De Rerum Natura. It is important to note that, ultimately, the materialists cannot define matter, but only describe it, and that they are a bit hazy on the details of consciousness.

All along, however, there has been an opposing view, philosophical idealism, which claims that the prime reality is mind/spirit/soul/consciousness/thought, which, ultimately idealists cannot define. In this philosophy the physical universe (and much more) consists of the mind's thoughts .If this view seems unrealistic to most people, it is because we have all been programmed to think it so. Actually, simple logic can show that the idealist view is almost certainly the correct one.

Suppose that a materialist has before him a table. How does he really, truly know beyond all doubt that the table has a reality independent of his mind? This is no mere sophistry; it is vitally important that we understand what the real certainties are. The materialist will say that he sees the table. Asked how, he will say that light is reflected from it and is focused by the lenses of his eyes upon his retinas, causing the optic nerves to send a signal to his brain. But how does he know with absolute certainty that light exists, or his eyes, or that his consciousness is composed of a physical brain? The materialist may argue that he can touch and feel the table, but, again, how does he know for sure that he has physical hands? All he knows with certainty is that he thinks he sees and feels the table, and he thinks that light exists, and he thinks that he has eyes, hands, and a brain. In other words, all that any of us can be sure of is that we think, in other words, we are minds and consciousness exists. The physical universe out there may or may not have an independent existence.

And yet materialists insist that the physical universe, whose very existence is unproven, is the prime reality, and that thought, the only thing we can be sure of, is secondary. Isn't this backward reasoning? Isn't it vastly more likely that the reverse is true?

The implications of idealism are far reaching. For us all to more or less perceive the same reality around us, to see the same objects, for example, our minds must be interconnected at some level. But if we are all connected, we are all part of a vast, universal mind, which means that there is some kind of supreme being. In other words, as Jews and Christians insist, God is a being, not just a concept. But, as Eastern mystics insist, we are all part of God. Understand that there is also a Christian mystical tradition, and that I am not advocating here the kind of perverted pantheism that leads to nature worship. As to the true nature of God, that remains a mystery. Also, if our minds are the prime reality, there must be some kind of afterlife, either reincarnation or existence in a spiritual realm. And if there is a supreme being, it is likely that there are moral absolutes.

And, if the universe is a great mind, a consensus reality or virtual reality of which we are all components, thought and symbol matter. In other words, we live in a magical universe. When the elites do their monstrous acts on certain dates and on certain parallels of latitude, this enhances their power. They at least partly understand the nature of things and use the magic against us.

And the one thing that they fear above all else is that we will awaken to the true nature of reality, remember who and what we are, and send the elites and their henchmen back down into the darkness from whence they came.

William B Stoecker

Comments (10)


Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #1 Posted by Zamor 19 years ago
With this kind of reasoning you can prove or disapprove anything and if you are right about this I can't see that anything really matters, we are all figments of our own imagination in the end. Those that die in accidents like car crashes and so doesn't really do that since there are no real physical objects you can't possibly get killed by one, please elaborate on what really happens.
Comment icon #2 Posted by William B Stoecker 19 years ago
With this kind of reasoning you can prove or disapprove anything and if you are right about this I can't see that anything really matters, we are all figments of our own imagination in the end. Those that die in accidents like car crashes and so doesn't really do that since there are no real physical objects you can't possibly get killed by one, please elaborate on what really happens. As I said in the article, there will be some sort of afterlife, but, since I cannot remember my own near death experience when my heart was stopped, I am not sure about the nature of that afterlife. And everythi... [More]
Comment icon #3 Posted by Yetihunter 19 years ago
It makes for an interesting discussion. Surprised you didn't mention the French Philosopher Rene Descartes who explored this issue with logic and mathematics. His "I think therefore I am" summation makes for powerful reading. There is a mathematics professor from Tulane (me thinks) named Frank Tippler (?) who expressed a theory that the Supreme Being is a gigantic supercomputer that controls the universe. His opinion is that the universe is real and will reach a point of maximum equillibrium that will cause it to reverse and eventually implode into a single point, thus beginning the entire eve... [More]
Comment icon #4 Posted by positron 19 years ago
William B Stoecker: Those of us who are more conspiracy oriented have long believed that the global elites have lied to us about things like the Federal Reserve, the Kennedy assassination, Oklahoma City, 9/11, and so on. But suppose that these are just their smallest lies, and that above these is the ultimate lie. Suppose that they have lied to us about the basic nature of reality itself, about that and about who and what we really are, and what are our true origins. Suppose that what we call the "real world" is more like virtual reality, a world composed entirely of data, of information. Subt... [More]
Comment icon #5 Posted by chemical-licker 19 years ago
you said spastic
Comment icon #6 Posted by DOUGGERMANE 19 years ago
i think David Deutsch put it best in his book The Fabric of Reality,in the chapter titled Criteria for Reality In this chapter Deutsch addresses the problems of how we decide what we accept as reality, and what are the criteria for doing so. He looks at two related cases - that of the the displacement of the Geocentric Theory by the Heliocentric Theory, and that of the refutation of solipsism. In the first case, he argues that Galileo came into conflict with the Inquisition, not because they refused to accept that the Heliocentric Theory of the universe gave more accurate results, but that the... [More]
Comment icon #7 Posted by SoCrazes 19 years ago
Descartes came immediately to my mind as well as another philosopher, I beleive Berkley, who said that the only reason something exists is because it is in someone's mind. I write this post as I examine the two dimensional type and other figures being projected by energy onto the reverse side of the screen. My Platonic analogy: Couldn't we be three dimensional figures being projected "here" by energy from reality?
Comment icon #8 Posted by An Urban Legend 19 years ago
Wow, I read that, and basically all its asking is "what are we, why are we hear, and how did it happen"? I find some of the questions in the article Nilhistic to some extent but Im currently not a believer in the position the article seems to advocate. The universe isnt real? Everything outside our own minds could just be illusionary? Sorry,....I wont be holding this position. Personally, I find it kinda silly. You want to know if a rock is real? Go smash it against your head....and when you wake up, if you dont bleed to death, there will be little doubt left in your mind. But hmm, lets go eve... [More]
Comment icon #9 Posted by Traveler_Dante 19 years ago
Urban Legend said it all. While this article is thought-provoking, it's self-refuting and its claims are unfalsifiable. I believe that our subjective realities are determined by the senses and the mind in reaction, but just because our realities are based in the complex chemical interaction in our brains, it does not mean that their is no objective reality, no "real" universe. For you to believe that all the ways we can interact with and affect change on our environment, to observe and predict, to come into contact with and experience things in the world around us is disheartening, to say the ... [More]
Comment icon #10 Posted by Rogerscott 18 years ago
Urban Legend said it all. While this article is thought-provoking, it's self-refuting and its claims are unfalsifiable...snip...The only people you can convince with this type of skewed logic are those people that already believe it anyway. Go home and try again, Mr. Stoecker. I wouldn't be so quick to relegate what Mr. Stoecker is saying is merely vain speculation, or falls into the category you ascribe it as "unfalsifiable". That is one of the bugaboos of critics of the "vitalistic" hypothesis. That is, that what is called "life" can be separated from what life "manipulates", i.e.: matter an... [More]


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


 Total Posts: 7,573,692    Topics: 329,836    Members: 204,502

 Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!
Recent news and articles