You'll have to excuse me, for a couple of reasons. First, I'm not the brightest bulb, secondly, I'm a bit tipsy right now. The idea of this programmed reality is what I think of as a 'general theory', within this general theory there are all sorts of 'specific theories'. If I could try to explain, many years ago I became interested in this technology and I thought I might want to learn how it all works. I started by studying the programming (mostly C and C++). I consider myself to be a spiritual minded sort of person, when I was still just a wee lad I had read the KJV bible twice over, and had started reading up on my Hindu and the Shamanism. Anyways, once I started learning the programming I though about the creation account from the book of Genesis and I though, "Well if God created everything, he would have made it all out of his thoughts and it would have all been structured and orderly. The laws of the Universe and everything would have occured to him like instructions, or code."
To my way of thinking programmed reality is like saying intelligent design. Like I said tho it's what I call a general theory that would include all sort of specific theories (maybe it was all created by gods (plural), or people from the future, or ET's, or maybe I created it all myself). There are just as many ideas about what the purpose of it all is.
Studying history and current events, and politics today, I would assume that it is all under the control of influences that want to keep us all ignorant and under their control, and that we, being unaware, go along with it. If that's the case then I'd have to say 'they' want to keep us ignorant and controlled because they don't want us to know who and what we are, and they don't want us to know our potential. Sort of like what that David Icke (sp?) talks about.
There are all sort of other ideas.

If you could, listen to Jim's interview on C2C, he explains it all very well. So well I had to read his book, it's one of my favorite books.
BL's calling my name, I must go now.

Edit for my crappy spelling:0

Semantics is part of the problem here. I think it is better to say that reality is virtual, rather than programmed. A programmed reality connotes a message of fatalism - at least its common usage has that meaning.

For a bloody good explanation of why this reality is likely a virtual reality, read the paper, The physical world as a virtual reality, located here http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337. I've been looking at this problem for about 2 yrs., and I've never read a better explanation than Whitworth's. Whitworth only takes it so far, though.

For an explanation that takes you beyond the universe as we know it read, My Big Theory of Everything, by Tom Campbell, available here http://www.my-big-toe.com/catalognew/default.php. Forums are also at that site.

But essentially, we are individuated consciousness having a virtual experience called the physical world. We are, as individuated consciousness, or persons with personalities and minds, merely a small part of our complete self. The whole self has been fragmented for the purpose of experiencing this virtual physical reality and to learn the lessons that will be kept for its spiritual progress.

This physical reality is virtual, and it constitutes an interactive data stream creating the appearance of the physical reality. And there are many other realities, or universes. Some are physical like this one with similar laws, others are very different with very different rule sets.

I think, too, that if you're familiar with many Eastern philosophies, religions, or myths, your choice on what to call them, you will recognise many of these same elements in them. These are very ancient views, which were lost in the West. The above version is merely a modern scientific analog of the same.

This explanation is a bit concise, but will get you started.

Note: I would add here that Tom Campbell has spent decades doing Out of Body travels, which he began with Robert Monroe. His book is, in part, a compilation of what he's learned from his OBE work. He's also a physicist, so he's taken that skill set and put it to use in interpreting his experiences while traveling in other dimensions. This may sound a little flaky to some, but I read his book and I can assure you he has a very rational and lucid mind. The book is well worth a read.

Jim,

I don't follow your explanation, however, I do think that a digital model fits all known realities the best.

Proof? What is proof?

The best theories I've seen, to date, that encompass all observed and learned phenomena, both physical and spiritual, describe all realities a dream. This is how many ancient wisdom systems have described reality. In the Western, scientific paradigm, we tend to describe reality as bits, or quanta. If reality is bits of data, then what is generating the data, what is calculating the data, what makes the system interactive? Who, or what, is experiencing the data?

From this vantage point I doubt that many of these questions will be answered. Linguistic choices aside, from this vantage point it is a mystery. The East has known this for thousands of years. Their gods were always seen as metaphors for the mystery. They were not so arrogant as to believe or think that the mask, or metaphor, was the god, or that they were going to deduce or infer the god by reason.

What we've come around to, in the West, is making observations that were made long ago, and we're now describing observed reality in our own cultural constructs. Some, even in the West, have gone so far as to master the inter-dimensional consciousness barriers, as I noted earlier, above. As far as I know, the one person who has mastered a scientific field, plus the inter-dimensional, is listed above. His observations coincide with a digital model of reality, only, according to him, having traveled there personally, consciousness itself fits the bits/digital model.

Again, what generates the various realities that consciousness can experience? I don't know. Neither does any person I've ever met or read know. One can describe individual beings of consciousness as subroutines within one great program, or members of a set, and then sets within sets and routines within routines; but in the end you're talking about everything being originated and consisting of only consciousness. This end point leads one to say that it appears everything, including all of reality and ourselves are parts of one great consciousness, and that everything consists of consciousness itself. And when you reach this point you're only saying what ancient wisdom traditions will tell you, namely that we and everything are a part of the ONE, the ALL, and that this oneness is consciousness experiencing itself for the purpose of refining its own nature.

jdlaw:

I appreciate the welcoming remarks, I really do.

I think that you are dead-on center when you say that it's a matter of semantics. Translations between Eastern and Western thinking are not often successful, from my limited observations. I have only found apparent success after reading and listening to a range of philosophical thinkers who have studied Eastern wisdom traditions over many years.

In the East they do tend to discount individuality, or personality, or the human construct, into the great void, or the all encompassing one. I think this is tantamount to saying that god is metaphor. It is like saying that the individual, at some point of consciousness, passes through a door behind which we do not see while working from the human mind. For some reason, the Eastern thinkers have, mostly, stopped at that point. Perhaps it's as far as their meditative travels had taken them, or perhaps they felt that to describe reality beyond that point could not survive translation -- and, thereby, would likely create more problems than it would solve.

I detect, too, a sense of dread in your statement (hopefully I am not imputing that; if so, then apologies). But consider that you are consciousness, that your origins are out of the source of all individuated consciousness, and consider that you have purpose here now even if it is obscured by design, and consider that when your time and purpose are complete, you will return with the experiences you've obtained here.

That is a basic summary of what I've learned from the following types of sources: Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, hypnotherapy exploring existence between lives and past lives, and accounts from those who've spent decades exploring the nature of reality and existence via altered states of consciousness. And I would add to that Eastern wisdom traditions. Now, I understand that these aren't able to be examined by the Western, scientific paradigm (not most, anyway). But after seeing repeating patterns and stories, from people who don't know each other (it would have to be a centuries old and world wide conspiracy if it were a calculated hoax), who are lives apart and continents apart, I began to take them more seriously. There are problems with this type of information and there are anomalies for which an account must be made. I worked through that and it's not a short explanation, but I am very sanguine with my analysis.

My analysis has been independent, but I've been please to see that those with a life-time of exploring these phenomena have agreed with me on many critical points.

I just realised I might be rambling a bit far from field here. Sorry. I'll just leave it as is in case something there is worth reading; if not, then kindly ignore. =)

---

With respect to oneness, here's something that might be helpful in thinking about the subject. The text is a transcript of a lecture series by Alan Watts.

http://pratyeka.org/philosophies-of-asia/

Either start at the beginning, or jump quickly to the section which starts out with the text, "It is basic to Vedanta that brahman...".