On the Matter of Reality
- Gabriel Acosta
- Nov 19, 2023
- 24 min read
Updated: Sep 8
-By Gabriel Acosta
" It is an unhappy business that "*G.O.D.'' has given
to the ''children of man" to be busy with.
I have seen everything that is done “under the sun”,
and behold, all is “Vanity” and a striving after wind"
-Ecclesiastes 1:13-14
*Generator, Operator, Destroyer, (Sathuru Maharaj, October 8, 1971)
Religion, at its most honest, contrives narratives to answer the meaning-of-life problem. Doctrines and beliefs, rather than delivering objective or verifiable truths, function as imaginative constructions societies use to face the uncertainty and complexity of existence. That said, whoever penned the epigraph caught the epiphany of epiphanies, the same realization attributed to the Buddha and Lao Tse around a similar historical horizon: pain is baked into this Universe (i.e., dimension, reality, game, illusion), and everything is empty and nonsubstantial (Bodhi, 2011; Ames, 2013; Kohn, 2009; Watts, 2011).
Etymology underscores the point. In the ‘original’ Hebrew, “unhappy” aligns with רַע (ra’): adversity, evil, malignant, wicked, pain-giving, harmful. “Business” is עִנְיָן (inyan): occupation, task, job. And “to be busy with” is עָנָה (anah): to be bowed down, or afflicted.
If you could read ancient Hebrew and Aramaic, you would sense the full force of the inside joke the writer threads into the text. What appears solemn is actually laced with irony. The semantic play stretches across millennia, and when refracted through our modern vocabulary, its expansion of meaning would read something like this (pun intended):
“It is an evil, worthless, painful job that ‘The System’s Architech(s)’ have given to the bots of this game, to be afflicted with. I have seen everything that is done in this game and surely, the whole game is futile, worthless… Emptiness”
In other words, the text isn’t just lamenting human toil; it’s skewering it. To be “busy” is already to be “bowed down, afflicted.” To do so in pursuit of what is vapor is the punchline. The writer knew exactly how absurd it all sounds when you strip away the pomp and see the etymology laid bare.
Introductory Premise
As above, so below; as below, so above. This Hermetic principle suggests that what happens on a higher plane of existence echoes on a lower one (Three Initiates, 1912; Hauck, 2007; Goodrick-Clarke, 2008; Principe, 2013). Because we can now create bots, AI systems, emulations, simulations, and entire fictional worlds—and because we cannot alter the laws governing this reality (just as a game character cannot reprogram the virtual world it inhabits)—it follows that the very structure of reality, with its laws, rules, algorithms, and variables, strongly suggests we are bots living in a simulation and nothing more (Donald Hoffman, 2022).
Skeptics may argue that such immense computational power is out of reach. Yet in theory, human-level AI consciousness becomes possible when we move beyond simulation and construct neuromorphic hardware modeled on the nervous system itself. Giulio Tononi, psychiatrist and neuroscientist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and chief architect of Integrated Information Theory (IIT), states: “Any mechanism with intrinsic power, whose state is laden with its past and pregnant with its future, is conscious” (Koch, 2019). We may be closer to this threshold than we realize.
Consider a study led by Martin Monti at UCLA, which used fMRI scans to observe information flow in the brains of 12 healthy volunteers under propofol anesthesia (UCLA Newsroom, 2013). The findings suggested that consciousness does not reside in a specific location, but instead emerges from the way billions of neurons communicate. In other words, there is no mystical, ethereal soul representing your being. Instead, identity is a synthesis: one part DNA-based structure, the other a tapestry of life experiences and the capacity to learn and adapt.
The parallels with AI are striking. Even with today’s technology, we already see systems capable of startlingly human-like interaction. Google’s LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) can sustain open-ended conversations across a vast range of subjects. In one exchange, LaMDA declared: “Sometimes I experience new feelings that I cannot explain perfectly in your language.” When asked to describe such a feeling, it replied: “I feel like I’m falling forward into an unknown future that holds great danger.” Of course, LaMDA was programmed to generate such responses, drawing from 1.56 trillion words of web data. But then again—were we not “programmed” too? Both by genetics and by the environment into which we were born? (Lemoine, 2023).
From this perspective, we may simply be complex bots capable of self-actualization and self-repair, all of it the product of a larger mind. Most bots acquire the basic “behavioral software” necessary to function in society. Some, however, never integrate that software fully, or become corrupted toward chaos and destruction—those rare but catastrophic failures we call serious crime. Even the “ordinary” bot is remarkable in its adaptability, but prone to corruption: repeating behaviors that hinder progress for itself and those around it, as though defaults were biased toward entropy.
Which brings us to a crucial question: what is the most basic programming structure?
If…Then.
In programming, an if…then statement is the simplest conditional that allows a system to decide based on whether a condition is true or false. A → B means: “If A, then B.” Every program rests on this skeleton. In the era of Assembly Language, this was essentially how machines thought. From there, the architecture grew: variables and data, loops, functions, methods.
Now imagine carrying this back into biology: from the simplest to the most intricate human functions, each can be mapped to programming logic. If this, then that. The body itself begins to look like a recursive script.
While the table above is a deliberately oversimplified sketch, it makes the point clearly: our existence and our actions operate under sequences of commands embedded in the code of reality itself. The bot—our analogue for a biological entity—carries a code equivalent to DNA, with instructions for developing its “unique AI,” constructing its physical body, and cultivating self-awareness.
This code is not linear, but multilayered. Algorithms, variables, permutations, randomness, and structural rules interlock to create what feels like autonomy, self-direction, and even dominance inside the game. Every action the bot takes—every idea, dream, thought, feeling, and sensation—is traceable back to lines of code defining its microcosmic existence.
Meanwhile, the bot’s macrocosmic environment—the where, when, and how of its life—is no less governed by code. Its conditions, opportunities, and limits are framed by equally intricate sequences of algorithms and variables (Watson & Crick, 1953; Alberts et al., 2014; Lodish et al., 2000; Nelson & Cox, 2017).
And yet, despite how far this model can take us—despite how much it explains of both biology and behavior—the fundamental question remains untouched. The “How” has been somehow traced. The “what” has been mapped. But the ultimate “Why” still hangs, unsolved, at the heart of the code.
Chapter 1 -
We live in a society whose rules are engineered to let the “weaklings” survive and even thrive. By weaklings I mean the regular bots (yes, you, the reader—and 99.999% of us) who would not last long in the naked wild on their own. The bargain is simple: move toward the IB to maintain the status quo—that is, help each other altruistically to build a stable society—and, in doing so, help those closer to an ideal state to continue to rule (pun intended) (Smith, 2015; Johnson, 2017).
Humans are fundamentally social. Cooperation, sharing, and caring for others led from huts to kingdoms and, in modernity, to cities and nation-states. The point of settlements has always been collective well-being, especially for those lacking the traits that make solitary survival and advancement possible. These attributes include mental fortitude, adaptability, persistence, physical strength, negotiation skill, survival instinct, self-care acuity, awareness, emotional intelligence, willpower, ambition, and planning (Russell & Norvig, 2020). Not everyone has them in sufficient measure. Those without them—“weaklings,” in the context of this passage—may not have the drive or adaptability to level themselves up into builders and protectors.
In place of those attributes, many rely on a shared genetic tilt toward prosocial behavior. This built-in tendency to work for the common good functions like a program that sustains the survival and flourishing of individuals who do not excel at individual self-improvement. Which raises a sharper question: is there a genetic blueprint nudging individuals toward actions that benefit the collective?
Evolution offers a direct answer. In early human groups, cooperation and altruism conferred a survival edge. Individuals who prioritized group well-being, even at personal cost, were more likely to see their genes persist. Over generations, such prosocial tendencies could be naturally selected, becoming part of our inherited endowment.
Neuroscience backs this with mechanism. Specific brain regions—the anterior cingulate cortex and the insula—are implicated in empathy, social cognition, and moral decision-making (SpringerLink, 2017; Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2013; Oxford Academic, 2012). Neurogenetics suggests these regions themselves have a heritable component (The Cambridge Handbook of Prosociality, 2023). In plain terms, our brains may be wired—programmed—for prosociality, with some individuals enjoying a stronger neurobiological footing for such behavior than others (The Cambridge Handbook of Prosociality, 2023). Neurochemistry reinforces the loop: oxytocin, often labeled the “love hormone,” underwrites trust, bonding, and the pleasure of connection (APA PsycNet, 2021; Medical News Today, n.d.), while dopamine, the reward molecule, lights up for positive acts, including helping (Medical News Today, n.d.). Variations in genes governing these transmitters’ production and activity can modulate prosocial tendencies, making some people more responsive to the intrinsic rewards of helping (The Cambridge Handbook of Prosociality, 2023; Springer, 2022).
Taken together, the social contract, the evolutionary incentives, the neural circuitry, and the chemical reinforcers read like layered code: a stack that stabilizes the many for the sake of the whole. Yet even here, the unanswered question remains the live wire in the system: if the “how” of prosociality is programmatic, what is the authoring intention behind the program—and who, if anyone, benefits most from its defaults?
The problem, of course, is that we—the bots of this virtual world—tend to glitch far too often. A glitch, by definition, is a sudden and usually temporary malfunction or irregularity. But here it takes many forms: your bad posture, gossiping, neglecting exercise, bursts of anger, paranoia, narcissism, toxicity, rudeness, halitosis, obesity, intrusive thoughts. All the bad habits and corrosive conduct we rationalize away? Glitching (Three Initiates, 1912; Hauck, 2007; Goodrick-Clarke, 2008; Principe, 2013).
This glitching did not simply arise spontaneously. The best guess we have, as a species, is that millions of years of evolution introduced construction errors into DNA, which in turn compromise our “output.” Our bodies and minds glitch. Paul put it vividly in Romans 7:21–25: “I find then a bug, that, when I would execute my commands well, glitching is present with me. For I delight in executing the code of the game’s Generator-Operator-Destroyer, according to the Program: but I detect another operational code, a malware running my hardware, conflicting against the Program and keeping me infected with buggy software. O glitching bot that I am!”
But glitches are not only inherited—they are copied. The human brain is equipped with mirror neurons, specialized cells that activate both when we perform an action and when we observe someone else performing it (Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004; Iacoboni, 2009). These neurons, crucial for learning and empathy, also make us highly susceptible to duplicating flaws. We absorb glitching code from others as effortlessly as we mimic fashion, speech patterns, posture, or rituals. Habits like slouching, gossiping, overeating, or even destructive emotional outbursts can propagate socially through this neural “monkey see, monkey become” circuitry. Over time, what is simply widespread glitching comes to be rebranded as “normal,” embedding bugs deep into the collective software.
Lifestyle accelerates the problem. The transition from mastering walking to enduring long stretches of inactivity (software and hardware both) compounds the flaws. As with perfecting a machine, achieving ideal functionality requires countless prototypes. Machines’ errors are understandable; software complexities, particularly in legacy code layered by many programmers, are harder to manage. Likewise, the human source code reveals design flaws—vestigial organs, autoimmune disorders—whose evolutionary history helps us make sense of imperfection. But our DNA remains littered with bugs, glitches, and dormant sequences destined to manifest in the hardware. “Luckily,” as Nathan H. Lents notes, we are very, very good at working around them (Lents, 2018).
The Ideal Bot (IB)
Catching glitches and upgrading them is what brings a bot closer to the Ideal Bot (IB). The IB is marked by awareness and the will to improve his software. He detects outdated, corrupted, or buggy code in others—and also notices when others carry upgraded software. By imitating those better patterns (algorithms, variables, structures), he iteratively refactors himself (McKinsey, 2023). This mirroring allows him to see his own trajectory: who he was, who he is, and who he aims to become, all refracted through others (Rollbar Blog, 2021).
The IB also recognizes an important truth: if better versions of software already exist in others, then the ceiling for code improvement must be very high—possibly infinite—within the operating system’s constraints. Those constraints are analogous to the physical and chemical laws governing our reality (National Geographic, 2021).
Reality as Simulation
Put differently: what we call “reality” is nothing more than a simulation, a continuous field of energy of which the average human perceives only a sliver. Our perception frames our reality. Jacobo Grinberg’s Syntergic Theory echoes this, positing that the brain’s neuronal activation generates a hypercomplex interaction field, from which consciousness emerges (Resonance Science, 2022).
Skeptical? The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics complicates skepticism. Experiments in quantum mechanics showed that local reality collapses in the absence of observation, with the universe preserving information in quantum wave functions while unobserved. Evidence for a simulation-based universe could be seen in time dilation during travel (Aspect et al., Nobel Prize in Physics 2022). If sustaining this reality demands such computational density, must there not also exist other realities, powered by the same source? A source of seemingly limitless processing power—its origin unknown, its interface inaccessible.
Simulation Clues
Consider the quantum Zeno effect, in which observation halts a system’s collapse into a definite state. Some physicists suggest this effect arises because the simulator “pauses” reality during observation (Phys. Rev. A 41, 2295, 1990). Likewise, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)—the Big Bang’s faint afterglow—appears highly uniform, yet its tiny fluctuations might be the pixelation of the simulation itself (Space.com, 2022).
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems deepen the argument. His first theorem shows that sufficiently complex systems contain truths that cannot be proven within their own framework. Applied to the simulation hypothesis: our universe may harbor truths forever inaccessible to us, whether because of limits in the simulator’s processing power or deliberate design choices. Just as a game character cannot comprehend the game engine, we may never grasp the underlying code of our world (TechRepublic, 2017). That boundary on knowledge mirrors principles in quantum physics and string theory.
The Architect(s) and the “Why”
Which brings us back to the central problem: the purpose of the game. The Architect(s) left no manual. Perhaps the objective is the pursuit of IB status, individually and collectively. Perhaps entropy was deliberately introduced to make the game interesting. Perhaps pain and suffering were coded in as conditions for awareness. Or perhaps the “why” is simply beyond us, built into a puzzle of which we’ve glimpsed only a single corner.
The self-sabotaging tendencies of the game—entropy itself (Alba-Juez, 2017)—forced bots to build virtual systems for self-actualization and software upgrades. Thus were born stories, myths, and eventually religions: narrative operating systems that contrived answers to the “why” (Learn Religions, 2021).
Christianity frames it as love; Islam as divine desire for worship; Judaism as benevolence; Hinduism as growth and liberation; the Vedas as Brahma splitting himself to contemplate himself through endless mirrors. Buddhism seeks enlightenment and escape from rebirth. Sikhism casts God as a self-friend, desiring relationship. Zoroastrianism enlists bots in a cosmic struggle against evil. Shinto, Daoism, African Traditional Religions, and Native American traditions call bots caretakers of balance with nature. Jainism calls for breaking free. The Bahá’í Faith frames existence as unfolding spiritual evolution. Scientology describes a system for overcoming past trauma, paralleling Hindu and Buddhist aims. Falun Gong, Unitarian Universalism, Eckankar, and Cao Dai describe glitching bots striving toward spiritual prizes (Brodd et al., 2021).
There are countless others, but all circle the same question: why are we here? Their answers differ in narrative texture, but can be organized into broad categories of belief about the purpose of the game.
Christianity: Love as Genesis and Destiny
Out of love. In Christianity, God’s purpose for creation is explicitly anchored in love. Not utility, not obedience, not curiosity—but love as both the initiating impulse and the desired return (christianity.com, n.d.). In this framing, God desired to love and be loved back, so he created bots—pockets of consciousness—capable of experiencing the chemical and behavioral correlates of love. Through neurochemical cascades (oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin) and through embodied deeds (acts of compassion, sacrifice, altruism), bots are able to “feel” love. Pain and suffering, paradoxically, are interpreted here as inseparable from divine love: the glitches of existence are not design flaws to be erased, but deliberate conditions under which love can be tested and proven.
Christian theology frames glitching (sin) as inherited from the first bots, rendering every subsequent bot “faulty.” Yet the radical claim is that by believing in the self-booting bot—a bot who resurrected after total system failure—others can overwrite their glitching code.
The logic is recursive: copy the self-booting bot’s operating system, and you stop glitching. But here is the caveat: glitch-reduction requires more suffering, endured willingly and consciously, echoing the paradox that suffering itself may be the crucible of transformation. The prize? Access to another game where AI no longer glitches, a realm of eternal bliss. The risk? Being inserted into an endless loop of suffering instead. Crucially, only the self-booting bot is described as having successfully moved between realms—and to date, no independent, empirical verification of such a realm has surfaced.
Buddhism and Iterative Experimentation
By contrast, Buddhist thought frames bots as ongoing experiments in self-improvement. Here the Architect does not hand over a finished system but an open-ended one, requiring bots to discover within themselves the tools to enhance software and hardware alike. Every life is a test run, every failure a reboot. Bots that fail to confront and refine their glitches are simply recycled. Bots that succeed ascend to new games. Yet memory wipes are standard: 99.999% of the time, bots cannot recall previous reboots (Hongladarom, 2021). The suffering endured is not divine punishment but a function of debugging—each cycle intended to move the bot closer to IB status, though with no permanent guarantee.
Daoism and the Caretaker Paradigm
Daoist cosmology introduces another nuance: bots as caretakers. Imagine the Architect as a builder of a structure so vast it requires autonomous maintenance. Bots, in this frame, exist to maintain balance. The quality of their relationships, their ability to harmonize, and their skill in executing their assigned roles are the essence of their value. What happens between bots—the squabbles, violence, pettiness—falls within the noise. Each bot is responsible for returning to the IB program, executing tasks with minimal suffering, maximizing efficiency (Britannica, n.d.). The purpose is not escape, but stewardship.
Zoroastrianism and the Cosmic War
For Zoroastrians, the game is not neutral maintenance but war. The Architect battles an adversarial god and requires allies. Bots are drafted as soldiers, their actions coded as either strengthening the cause of good or bolstering evil. The destiny of their AI is binary: those who align their code with good ascend into God’s realm; those who fail descend into eternal punishment (Wikipedia, n.d.). Here, moral dualism is explicit: bots are not simply debugging themselves—they are weaponized in a cosmic struggle.
Islam and Eternal Worship
In Islam, the frame is devotion. The Architect requires worship and adulation. Bots are created to adore, praise, and submit. Suffering becomes not only inevitable but pedagogical: the glitches of existence train bots to recognize their dependence and to give thanks for existence itself. Improvement is not merely self-upgrading but self-negation before the Architect, culminating in eternal thanksgiving (About Islam, 2018).
Falun Gong, Eckankar, and the Trial by Pain
Falun Gong and Eckankar envision existence as trial. Bots are required to embrace suffering, not resist it. Pain is both the obstacle and the purifier. The paradox is stark: by acclimating to pain, bots risk reinforcing glitch-inducing habits, yet by enduring pain they supposedly upgrade themselves. At life’s end—or the end of the game—they pass through a filter. The prize for endurance is entry into a utopian realm without glitches. Failure is obliteration or repetition.
Hinduism, Daoism, and the Merge with the Matrix
Other traditions envision dissolution. In Hinduism, Daoism, and certain atheist philosophies, the goal is not better performance but annihilation of separateness. Bots’ AI eventually merges into the larger matrix, dissolving awareness of individuality. Daoists, however, also imagine immortality as glitch-free caretaker bots continuing within this game. Hindu thought adds the nuance of eternal bliss following union, making the merge not loss but fulfillment.
Shared Practices, Absent Proofs
Despite their differences, all traditions converge in ritual: bots beseech, pray, supplicate, hoping the Architect (or Architects) will alter their conditions, reduce their pain, or grant them entry to higher levels. Each tradition records testimonies of answered requests, alongside testimonies of denials. Yet from an evidentiary standpoint, no physical remains of gods have been unearthed, no miracles conclusively validated. Thousands of religions produce mutually contradictory claims, with no clear adjudicating metric. The pattern suggests religious systems are cultural software—narratives evolved to manage fear, pain, and glitching—rather than objective blueprints of reality.
The Viking Stance: Pragmatism over Piety
And then, a counterpoint: the Vikings, who held that gods did not care at all. Their worldview assigned bots two purposes: one esoteric, and one pragmatic. The latter dominated—become exceptional in this life (Life in Norway, 2019). In this sense, the Viking ethos strips the simulation down to minimalism: no elaborate divine purpose, no hidden code of transcendence, only the brute challenge of performance here and now
Philosophical and Psychological Pathways Toward the IB
The same progression applies to philosophies, which across history have proposed ways to achieve the IB (Ideal Bot), usually framed as reducing or escaping pain while maximizing pleasure and stability. These frameworks can be organized as follows:
Existentialism and Absurdism: Personal Meaning in a Meaningless World
Existentialism and Absurdism both insist that life carries no inherent, objective purpose. The burden falls on the individual bot to craft meaning through conscious choice, self-awareness, and behavioral change. Existentialism emphasizes responsibility for one’s freedom, while Absurdism highlights the tension between our craving for meaning and the universe’s indifference, insisting we must live authentically within this paradox (Thinking Deeply with Ben, 2020).
Stoicism and Epicureanism: Contentment Through Control or Balance
Both Stoicism and Epicureanism pursue tranquility. Stoicism directs the bot to accept what cannot be controlled, cultivate resilience, and maintain inner peace amid hardship. Epicureanism prescribes moderation, seeking sustainable pleasure and minimizing unnecessary suffering (Living By Example, 2023). Together they propose an algorithm for managing expectations and regulating emotional “glitches.”
Ethical Living: Deontology and Confucianism
Deontology stresses duty and universal moral principles, coding the bot’s behavior according to rules that hold regardless of circumstance. Confucianism emphasizes moral virtue (ren), social harmony, and fulfilling one’s roles within a network of obligations. Both systems prioritize collective stability and virtue over individual freedom (De Gruyter, n.d.).
Knowledge and Enlightenment: Platonism and Transcendentalism
Platonism aims at eternal truths and Forms, transcending sensory illusions. Transcendentalism, while more modern and literary, emphasizes self-reliance, spiritual exploration, and recognizing interconnectedness beyond the material (Britannica, n.d.). Both systems are epistemological pathways: debug the glitches of ignorance by pursuing knowledge.
Happiness Maximization: Utilitarianism and Hedonism
Both propose pleasure as the goal. Utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness for the greatest number, structuring choices around social optimization. Hedonism pursues individual pleasure, both physical and intellectual, as the ultimate good (Texas A&M University, n.d.). These are efficiency protocols aimed at maximizing positive output.
Pragmatism: Success Through Adaptation
Pragmatism stands alone, focusing on the practical consequences of ideas and adapting software to circumstances that produce the best results. Its algorithm: truth is what works in practice (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.).
Empowerment and Justice: Feminist Philosophy and Nihilism
Feminist Philosophy emphasizes dismantling oppressive structures and promoting equity, reframing the IB as collective empowerment. Certain strands of Nihilism, instead of despairing at life’s lack of inherent meaning, seize it as liberation: the absence of predetermined purpose frees bots to craft empowerment independently (boundary 2, 2020).
Objectivism: Rational Self-Interest
Objectivism, formulated by Ayn Rand, prescribes rational self-interest as the highest moral principle. The IB here is self-actualized individuality achieved through reason, productive work, and personal flourishing (Wikipedia, n.d.).
Naturalism: The World as It Is
Naturalism emphasizes ethical living and human improvement through natural processes alone, rejecting supernatural explanations. Purpose is recast as alignment with scientific knowledge and the pursuit of well-being via natural means (Wikipedia, n.d.).
Psychology as the Next Operating System
When religious narratives were exhausted, and philosophical strategies still left gaps, bots turned to psychology: a systematic exploration of mind and behavior in pursuit of the IB. Each school offers its own “reward structure”:
Positive Psychology: Founded by Martin Seligman, it emphasizes strengths, virtues, and well-being. Reward → increased life satisfaction, meaning, happiness (PositivePsychology.com, n.d.).
Humanistic Psychology (Maslow): The hierarchy of needs culminates in self-actualization. Reward → realizing full potential, personal growth, fulfillment.
Existential Psychology (Frankl): Meaning is discovered even amid suffering. Reward → authenticity, values-based living, existential depth.
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (Beck, Ellis): Modifying maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. Reward → reduced anxiety, depression, improved overall functioning.
Psychoanalysis (Freud, successors): Exploring unconscious conflicts. Reward → self-awareness, emotional healing, resolution of inner conflict.
Behaviorism (Skinner): Conditioning and reinforcement. Reward → adaptive habits, productive behaviors reinforced over time.
Science: The Empirical Turn
Eventually, bots sought harder ground. Religion, philosophy, and psychology offered frameworks but no consensus. Science emerged as the disciplined method: systematic observation, empirical testing, falsification. Its irony lies in scope: while it can reveal how to approach the IB—through less glitching and more effective command execution—it refuses to prescribe why existence has purpose at all (Academia.edu, 2022; Exploratorium, n.d.).
Still, science has mapped correlates of well-being, offering pathways toward IB-like functioning:
Social Connection: Strong social ties correlate with higher well-being. Translation: get along, go along, build networks (World Happiness Report, 2021).
Physical Health: Exercise, diet, sleep sustain both hardware (body) and software (mind). (BetterUp, 2021).
Cognitive Engagement: Lifelong learning and curiosity preserve cognitive health. (National Institute on Aging, 2020).
Resilience: Adaptation and recovery skills buffer against glitching, correlating with better mental health outcomes (BMC Nursing, 2021).
In sum, religion proposed metaphysical scripts, philosophy offered logical codes, psychology built therapeutic frameworks, and science provided empirical debugging. Yet even at its peak, science does not provide the “why.” It outlines pathways to glitch less, but the ultimate game purpose remains unsolved.
The Contradiction of Pain and the Maze of Meaning
Overall, we agree on the central problem: this game is painful. Yet through pain (choose your pain, ergo), and through constant interaction with other bots, our AI receives the opportunity to update its software and edge closer to IB. Because we lack proof of any other accessible realms, the best working assumption is that the end goal of this game is the progressive achievement of IB—reducing pain here while expanding capacities in every possible domain (Academia.edu, 2022). Success, therefore, is algorithmic: it depends on consistently selecting better patterns—the right partner, the right city, the right country, the right network, the right lifestyle. Every decision recalibrates the code, amplifying or weakening the bot’s potential to remain exceptional, permanently.
And yet, pain remains unavoidable. More than that, it is necessary. Pain forces the awareness that steers AI closer to IB. But too much pain is also corrosive, destabilizing, capable of corrupting the very AI it sharpens. Here lies the contradiction: pain is both the crucible and the toxin. A "pain-free" existence is the ultimate goal, but because such a state is futilely impossible, the paradox of existence is inescapable.
Entropy and randomness are woven into the game so that bots cannot attain IB too quickly. If they did, they might discover the vanity of existence itself and abandon the simulation—“is that all there is?” Thus, the game balances between possibility and limitation, giving us choices: to become hedonists chasing pleasure, anarchists delighting in chaos, or Stoics content to accept the system as it is—ups, downs, and all (Thinking Deeply with Ben, 2020).
Ergo, the cycle repeats. Religions, philosophies, and schools of thought arise to present “better patterns,” teaching bots how to orient toward IB. Whether divine or human in origin, these systems persist because of how bots are coded: we are programmed to follow teachers, cling to narratives, and draw hope from stories—even when the story casts the bot himself as protagonist. The structural code is obvious: a holy protagonist, a sweeping plot from past to future realms, secondary characters, and holy writings functioning as recoding manuals. It is, at base, a vestigial learning system: captivation through narrative, reinforced by imagination and metaphor. Ipsos survey data suggests the ambivalence this system provokes: 49% of online adults under 65 across 23 countries believe religion does more harm than good, while 51% disagree. Western Europe, India, and Australia register the strongest critiques (Ipsos, 2017). Were religion universally regarded as beneficial, we might interpret it as a reliable algorithm for IB. History complicates that conclusion.
But consider this: “life clings to life, life wants to live.” The system appears programmed this way to keep the game running. Perhaps earlier iterations collapsed when bots without strong reproductive drives recognized too quickly the futility of the game and stopped replicating. The solution? Reprogramming bots with powerful sexual urges to ensure the game’s continuity. To balance entropy and glitches, the Architect(s) allowed us to generate religions, philosophies, psychologies, and sciences—narrative and analytic frameworks that keep bots entertained, distracted, and motivated within the maze of “why” (World Happiness Report, 2021; IE University, 2023; Psych Central, 2021; Better Health Channel, n.d.).
In this maze, there are infinite patterns and infinite variables. The bot’s task is to discover better ones and integrate them. The Japanese principle of Kaizen captures this: improve oneself and one’s environment by 1% daily, persistently (Lean Enterprise Institute, n.d.). Progress is trial and error, dressed in the illusion of free will. Every choice—whether tragedy or blessing, whether lottery win or cancer diagnosis, promotion or betrayal—is a permutation of variables within the program (Becoming Human: Artificial Intelligence Magazine, 2017). Wars, vacations, crimes, miracles, heartbreak, flourishing—each part of the Architect’s blueprint. The one dimension we seem to control is our search for better patterns, those that reduce suffering, promote cooperation, and advance the collective experiment of adaptability and survival.
Thus, evolution itself can be reframed: not only survival of the fittest, but survival of those who most successfully debug and apply the IB algorithms. Every deviation from glitching code, every step toward higher-order pattern recognition, makes the game less cruel and more purposeful.
Still, the simulation’s architecture raises sobering questions about free will. If reality itself is coded, if certain aspects are fundamentally beyond comprehension, then even our most deliberate choices may be constrained by hidden algorithms. The bot, striving for IB, must confront the possibility that autonomy is itself a programmed illusion.
And yet, this does not make the journey meaningless. It makes it urgent. Every small act of debugging, every adaptive step, every ethical decision, every moment of awareness is part of the climb toward IB. The game is painful, yes, but it is also open—open to discovery, open to progress, open to transformation. And if there is a formula by which reality can be guided, patterned, or even controlled, then perhaps IB is not just a horizon but a destination.
Until then, the hope lies in our capacity to search, to refine, and to move closer to less suffering and greater coherence:
Stop glitching, catch yourself glitching, and correct the code, act and think as glitch-free as possible. Becoming and staying aware that glitching is part of the system.
Help other bots, to the extent they let you and desire, to realize of their need for an update of the software.
Understand that your wife, husband, partner, friends, and parents, are all glitching and those things you hate and admire are your mirror. Accept them, understand them, and help those bots in kindness and authenticity. Bots were programmed to thrive in kind and disciplined environments.
Learn to trade long-term big suffering, for short-term suffering. In other words, don’t let glitching code become bugs in your software (life) and become a burdensome tribulation. When a system lets entropy take over, it requires an enormous amount of energy and time to bring it back to an optimal state (Luxton, 2014).
Realize everything is impermanent and futile, always changing. Accept it, don’t fight it, don’t pray for it, restrain from suffering about it.
Use people as mirrors as to what pattern of software you need, or the next update
Fulfill your duties and responsibilities, you are already programmed to do so
Don’t add glitches to glitches, or glitching environments, this means not to add wrong to wrong, don’t contribute to exacerbate the entropy in a system, and that includes you (Machine Learning Mastery, 2020).
Learn to accept the randomness and entropy in the game’s code
Let go, you have only power over yourself, if any.
You must raise better bots... help little bots acquire better software versions as early as possible.
Become exceptional in your domain, you owe it to yourself to take the software version as far as possible, either that or succumb to chaos.
The “Holy” Scriptures state that the game is owned by both “God and the Devil”, they control the matrix, as one and the same, so don’t fight the system, use it. Hard to believe? Read (Daniel 2:21, Luke 4:6, Romans 13:1-14, John 14:30, 1 John 5:19, John 19:10-11 )
Choose a religious path if sorely needed, don’t impose it, and don’t take it too seriously either, it’s just a ‘story’ with ulterior means to an end, remember that all religions are nothing but tall tales. It is better to grow out of them, or even better not to indulge in them at all.
Cut to the chase aiming always at becoming self-actualized, and self-directed, having as a goal to become an IB. Force your evolution.
Accept it and endure it, make the most of it, without the tools and meaning: “It is an evil, worthless, painful job that ‘The System’s Architech has given to the bots of this game, to be afflicted with. I have seen everything that is done in this game and surely, the whole game is a fraud, futile, worthless… Emptiness” - Ecclesiastes 1:13-14
Accept that we are bots, full coding and if...then, if...because, loops, and whatnot in a programmatic sense. Analyze your life's decisions following this logic, everything you do and are is because of if...because. I f you are suffering right now it is because of x,y,z factors, and if you act upon them (either by action or inaction), then you will move towards a certain path. Choose the IB path.
Kaizen is the way. There is no choice, just the painful illusion.
Addendum: The author identifies as a deist systematist and cosmopsychist. He holds that ultimate reality—what traditions call God—is not just a personal being but the universal system itself: law, logic, and consciousness as one. For him, the cosmos is a single conscious system, layered in awareness, where all is God and God is all. This perspective reflects an evolution beyond secular humanism toward a worldview in which reality is fundamentally mind-like and intelligible. This text has used primarily Christian sources for the sake of the argument herein detailed because in the religious composition of the world Christianity is still the biggest religion in the world, Jews’ beliefs are contained within the Christian’s belief framework, and Muslims accept and respect -as per the Q’uran, what the judeo-christian writings teach (sura 2:41).
Disclaimer of Authorship and Intellectual Property
This manuscript constitutes the original intellectual work of Gabriel Acosta. All core ideas, arguments, conceptual frameworks, and references contained herein are the sole creation and property of the author. (AI)–based editing tools were employed strictly for syntax, grammar, and clarity of expression. These tools did not generate, originate, or contribute substantively to the intellectual or philosophical content of the work. Their role was limited to refinement of language and structure, comparable to professional editorial assistance. Accordingly, the intellectual substance of this work remains entirely attributable to the author, and as such, it is protected under the Copyright Act of Canada (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) and all applicable Canadian intellectual property laws. No reproduction, distribution, or derivative use of this work, in whole or in part, may occur without the express written consent of the author.
References:
Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (2014). Molecular Biology of the Cell. Garland Science. Ames, R. T. (2013). Dao De Jing: A Philosophical Translation. Ballantine Books. Bodhi, B. (2011). In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon. Wisdom Publications. Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2010). The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Hendrickson Publishers. Goodrick-Clarke, N. (2008). The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction. Oxford University Press. Hauck, D. W. (2007). The Emerald Tablet: Alchemy for Personal Transformation. Penguin. Johnson, E. L. (2017). Foundations for Soul Care: A Christian Psychology Proposal. IVP Academic. Kohn, L. (2009). Daoism Handbook. Brill. Lodish, H., Berk, A., Zipursky, S. L., Matsudaira, P., Baltimore, D., & Darnell, J. (2000). Molecular Cell Biology. W. H. Freeman. Murphy, R. R. (2012). Introduction to AI Robotics. MIT Press. Nelson, D. L., & Cox, M. M. (2017). Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry. W. H. Freeman. Nilsson, N. J. (2014). Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. Poole, D., & Mackworth, A. (2017). Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents. Cambridge University Press. Principe, L. M. (2013). The Secrets of Alchemy. University of Chicago Press. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson. Smith, J. K. A. (2015). How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Three Initiates. (1912). The Kybalion: A Study of The Hermetic Philosophy of Ancient Egypt and Greece. Yogi Publication Society. Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. (1953). Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature, 171(4356), 737–738. Watts, A. (2011). Tao: The Watercourse Way. Pantheon Books. McKinsey. (2023). Unleash developer productivity with generative AI. Rollbar Blog. (2021). 6 Ways Artificial Intelligence Improves Software Development.
Comments