11-06-2018, 10:35 AM
It’s like you can’t really totally discount the theory because there are certain aspects of it that are basically accurate.
Hmmm...
I think the issue here is the lack of complexity implied in the repeating pattern itself. The pattern has to be intricate enough that when you’re in the middle of it, you don’t notice it’s repeating.
To notice and plainly see the repeating pattern would negate the purpose of the (how ever illusory) existence in the first place.
It’s all relative... and from any point within it, it seems as though the repeating pattern must APPEAR complex enough so as to not be noticed. Therefore it must have to be much “bigger than” that which is observing it from any given point. Much “smaller” could also be a possibility.
The framework (lattice) is a very simple pattern... but the ‘illusion’ is projected upon/within that framework, and its appearance is much more complex than an obviously repeating pattern of light inside a cube.
Hmmm...
I think the issue here is the lack of complexity implied in the repeating pattern itself. The pattern has to be intricate enough that when you’re in the middle of it, you don’t notice it’s repeating.
To notice and plainly see the repeating pattern would negate the purpose of the (how ever illusory) existence in the first place.
It’s all relative... and from any point within it, it seems as though the repeating pattern must APPEAR complex enough so as to not be noticed. Therefore it must have to be much “bigger than” that which is observing it from any given point. Much “smaller” could also be a possibility.
The framework (lattice) is a very simple pattern... but the ‘illusion’ is projected upon/within that framework, and its appearance is much more complex than an obviously repeating pattern of light inside a cube.
