# Onion skin realities and matrix theory



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Here's something I wrote a while back about what I think reality could well. From reading this forum I think it will be of interest to some of you. 

------------------------------
At the weekend while watching an old Horizon documentary, it mentioned one of my all-time favourite theories and one I’d consider the most mind blowing I’ve ever heard, so thought I’d share it with you. As a steadfast atheist it is the only theory that challenges me enough to possibly make me agnostic, which is really saying something. (Although in a very non-conventional sense, as I will explain.)

It’s a theory I’ve read about a few times over the years and while it’s wild, it’s scientifically sound and has been recognised as such to be mentioned, with credit, in credible documentaries and publications such as Horizon and New Scientist. Indeed there was a 4 page feature of it in New Scientist some years ago, and it’s a theory that still pops up there now and again.

I’ll explain the theory in my own words rather than trying to find and dig out a link to the sources I learned it from as I can amalgamate all what I’ve learned on it into one. Here goes;

As you know, ‘universes’ created by computer programs are becoming more and more realistic all the time. You just need to look at movies like Avatar to see how close we are to photorealistic virtual worlds and it won’t be long before pre-rendered visuals like that can be produced on the fly. Indeed some computer games aren’t that far off the mark and it all real time. Also consider how advanced artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming in everything from characters in games to automated military equipment. The main thing that slows the advancement of these fields is computer processing power, but in line with the increases in that field, we see increases in the realistic-ness and intelligence of computer generated worlds and beings.

Now consider Moore’s law, which states that computer processing power doubles every 18 months or so, which has stayed true since the 60s and shows no sign of failing. That of course indicates exponential growth of processing power, which means an exponential increase in the ability for someone, in time, to be able to generate a real time virtual world simulation indistinguishable from everyday reality. (I.e. like in the film The Matrix or the as seen on the Star Trek holodeck) Like in those films/TV shows, there is no reason why the AI couldn’t be advanced enough to be sentient, and fully believe the reality they are in is real and that they are real. In time we will have the computing power to do this, and we will be able to create entire universes, all from within a computer program. A person running the program will be able to be God of that virtual reality universe. That of course has some very very interesting applications, such as being able to time travel in it to go and see say, the dinosaurs, as well as have power to do anything, as they created it and can operate and control the program as they see fit.

From the perspective of the person that created the program, the universe they are in control of isn’t real of course as it only exists virtually, as they created it using a computer program utilising computing power. However, and this is where it gets mind blowing, that also means that there is a very very good chance that they are also part of some other virtual universe running on a computer created by some other being, which in turn means that there is no reason why everything that we think exists in our reality isn’t actually a simulation running on a far more advanced beings computer! The chances of this being false are billions to one and that is a probability that has been calculated by people a lot smarter than me. Those odds make this theory hit hard and stick!

Why this theory challenges me as an atheist is because it means if it’s true that there is a creator/God and that we may not actually have free will, despite believing we do. It’s funny to think that the God the world’s religions believe in could actually be a ‘kid sitting in his bedroom’ 1,000 years from now.

However, if the God of our reality is simply AI in the virtual universe in some other beings reality, then is it really God? In a sense yes, in a sense no, as they also have a creator, and this layering can go on into infinity like a fractal.

Maybe everything and every possibility and combination that could ever have happened at any point ever has its own universe, existing on an infinite number of computers somewhere which could really well be the very thing that is driving what we think of as reality. To us, that computers program has created what we sense and call nature and reality.

This is why I call it onion skin theory as it means the universe has an infinite amount of layers of reality and there is in fact a multiverse with an infinite amount of universes and realities. This is something that is strongly suggested and indeed required by theories of everything such as string theory and many other similar theories that try to explain the physical world on its most fundamental level. Multiverses are also commonly linked to quantum theories. On the quantum level particles exists in super-position and only when observed do they actually settle on one place in the observers reality. Reality on the quantum scale is very very fuzzy but that’s a whole other tangent so I’ll get back to the meat of this theory.

Of course there is something you will probably be asking. If everything is a simulation, then what came before that to create the simulation? That is a tough question but let's think about what time actually is. Many people ask the question in relation to other theories of reality like, ‘what came before the big bang?’ or ‘what came before God?’ Well, general relativity has proven that space and time are inseparably linked, and that time is relative to the observer, so when there was no physical dimensions like the 3 we are aware of and move around in, there was no fourth dimension of time, which means that asking what was before time doesn’t make sense as that’s like trying to go in a direction out with the 3 physical dimensions we move around in. It’s a mind bender but scientifically correct. This is the realm of high level mathematicians and physicists as it’s only truly explained, proven and managed by equations, as it’s just not compatible with the way the human brain comprehends reality, so don’t worry that you can’t physically think about how it works, as nobody can. Just trust the maths that supports it. Maths is the language of universe and doesn’t have the limitations we have.

So, with no independent multiuniversal time, that means there is no past or future out with what we perceive as a past and a future. Past and future are just part of the ways we make sense of the universe we are in, just as how there are 3 physical dimensions that we perceive to make sense of the universe. This then infers that everything that could ever happen ever is happening right now! No past, no future, only present.

Going back to my earlier point about our reality being a simulation, this challenges what reality actually is. If all realities and universes are simulations and the simulation is a simulation, in a simulation, which goes on infinitely, then the simulation stops being a simulation and could be considered ‘reality’.

--------------------------------------

Thoughts welcome.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> Of course there is something you will probably be asking. If everything is a simulation, then what came before that to create the simulation?...
> 
> Going back to my earlier point about our reality being a simulation, this challenges what reality actually is. If all realities and universes are simulations and the simulation is a simulation, in a simulation, which goes on infinitely, then the simulation stops being a simulation and could be considered 'reality'.


Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Perhaps there are an infinite number of possible "universes" (e.g. Tegmark's multiverses, etc.) with different physical constants and we just happen to live in the one that is compatible with Life/consciousness. That explains why we are here to discuss this question in the first place.

But this model still leaves unanswered one deep philosophical question. What good does it do to "anthropically" explain this universe in terms of a metauniverse unless one can explain where the metauniverse came from in the first place? Even if this metauniverse is a type simulation-whether generated by our own minds (mind-generated simulation that may not represent "reality"-assuming that has any meaning) or by other minds/intelligent life, what is the basis of this meta-simulation? If it's just the nature of the metauniverse/simulation to "exist", what purpose does a deity or meta-deity serve either than introduce even more problems. Maybe I'm misunderstanding?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Kon said:


> Interesting. Thanks for sharing. Perhaps there are an infinite number of possible "universes" (e.g. Tegmark's multiverses, etc.) with different physical constants and we just happen to live in the one that is compatible with Life/consciousness. That explains why we are here to discuss this question in the first place.


There's no reason it's just out universe that is compatible with life/conciousness. Why can't others? In fact, if ours is, then it's inevitable others are as well. Just as life almost definitely exists on other planets other than out own. The idea of where lift exists can easily be scaled up.



> But this model still leaves unanswered one deep philosophical question. What good does it do to "anthropically" explain this universe in terms of an metauniverse unless one can explain where the metauniverse came from? Even if this metauniverse is a type simulation-whether generated by our own minds or by other minds where and what is the basis of this meta-simulation? If it's just the nature of the metauniverse to "exist", what purpose does a deity or meta-deity serve either than introduce even more problems. Maybe I'm misunderstanding?


As I mentioned in the theory, asking where it 'came from' is invalid, as that infers a event pre-big bang. In this theory everything is happening now. There was no before. Our time dimension (along with the spacial dimensions) started with the big bang, and clocks start with big bangs in other universes.

I know it's natural to want to know how it came to be this way but I'm happy with it just being the way things are with no need or reason for any higher level. Can't we just accept that multiverses come in and out of existence in a void that has no time or matter? Asking what comes after our universe ends could actually make more sense than asking what came before, as what comes after is probably what came before and was the reason for the universe existing.

We need to think outside the box and realise that reality is fractal and there is ultimately no top down hierarchy as it's all cyclic. We already know nature is highly cyclic, so it makes sense that this ultimately applies to everything.

Regarding your question about a 'deities' purpose in all this. These deities could simply be the programs that are run in the void that generate universes. Why would they be a problem?


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

Actually, that makes sense but they wouldn't be deities in the religious sense. Kind of just bits of "informational units" that generate everything that "exists". I think the physicist Weinberg had somewhat similar ideas where he writes:

"I have been led to think of analogies between the way a computer works and the way the universe works.The computer is built on yes-no logic. So, perhaps, is the universe. Did an electron pass through slit A or did it not? Did it cause counter B to click or counter C to click? These are the iron posts of observation.Yet one enormous difference separates the computer and the universe-chance. In principle, the output of a computer is precisely determined by the input. Chance plays no role. In the universe, by contrast, chance plays a dominant role. The laws of physics tell us only what may happen. Actual measurement tells us what is happening (or what did happen). Despite this difference, it is not unreasonable to imagine that *information sits at the core of physics*, just as it sits at the core of a computer."


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Kon said:


> Actually, that makes sense but they wouldn't be deities in the religious sense. Kind of just bits of "informational units" that generate everything that "exists".


Oh yes of course. This is an example of post-religion thinking. I was just drawing a parallel with what people are used to when they think of how the universe was created.



> I think the physicist Weinberg had somewhat similar ideas where he writes:
> 
> "I have been led to think of analogies between the way a computer works and the way the universe works.The computer is built on yes-no logic. So, perhaps, is the universe. Did an electron pass through slit A or did it not? Did it cause counter B to click or counter C to click? These are the iron posts of observation.Yet one enormous difference separates the computer and the universe-chance. In principle, the output of a computer is precisely determined by the input. Chance plays no role. In the universe, by contrast, chance plays a dominant role. The laws of physics tell us only what may happen. Actual measurement tells us what is happening (or what did happen). Despite this difference, it is not unreasonable to imagine that *information sits at the core of physics*, just as it sits at the core of a computer."


The computer analogy is a good one, but he says that the difference is chance. This is wrong, as there's no reason why the underlying program couldn't have a random seed/chaos generator component, just as the universe does. The output doesn't need to be controlled by the input by any means. The program just defines the rules, just as there are rules of physics in our universe, and then it all plays out with no need for assistance.

Another interesting 'universe being a computer' theory is to do with holographic universe theory, in which we are actually all holograms generated from 2D surface which is most probably the surface of the bubble that is universe. Maybe we don't actually exist where we think we do.

Another computer analogy is to do with fundamental particle physics. On the smallest scale are are indivisible units (quanta) which could be interpreted as computer generated pixels. This links well to quantum theory where particles exist in a super position and only rest in to 1 physical location when they interact with something. Could this be the computers code only displaying the particle(s) when required, which would make sense from an processing efficacy perspective. An rough analogy is you walking around on a map on the computer game GTA; the computer only generates what your character is observing. It isn't generating the visuals for everything else in that map (i.e. universe) at the same time. It has programmed rules/code and will wait until it's required before processing the code to reveal what is there.


----------



## Johny (Dec 21, 2010)

Have you ever had deja-vu?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Johny said:


> Have you ever had deja-vu?


Yes. Why?


----------



## uffie (May 11, 2010)

morgan freeman says it best


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

uffie said:


> morgan freeman says it best


Nice video. I don't find the arguments very convincing though. I can't offer proof but I just don't think computers are anything but very complicated and very useful thermostats. I think we're missing something major and that something major is qualia/consciousness. I don't think qualia can ever be reduced to any formal system. And even the most simplistic life form seems to possess this rudimentary quality that seems lacking in any computer.

I think our world is a simulation though, in the Kantian sense. I think there's a world that exists "in itself" and the world as it appears to us from our biologically-given and cognitively-constrained minds. We can build better/more predictive models using more abstract methods (mathematics) which physicists treat as more "real" than our common-sense/naive world of appearances (because those models give results) but we will never be able to truly "see" it. I think sometimes we overestimate our powers of cognition because from "inside" it sometimes seems that our systems of knowledge are greater than they really are. I really like these quotes: 

"Current physics is profoundly beautiful and useful, but it is in a state of chronic internal tension (consider the old quarrel between general relativity theory and quantum mechanics). It may be added, with Russell and others, that although physics appears to tell us a great deal about certain of the general structural or mathematical characteristics of the physical, it fails to give us any real insight into the nature of whatever it is that has these characteristics-apart from making it plain that it is utterly bizarre relative to our ordinary conception of it." 

Strawson then quotes Russell: 

"the physical world is only known as regards certain abstract features of its space-time structure-features that, because of their abstractness, do not suffice to show whether the physical world is, or is not, different in intrinsic character from the world of mind. Physics is mathematical, not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. For the rest, our knowledge is negative...We know nothing about the intrinsic quality of physical events except when these are mental events that we directly experience...as regards the world in general, both physical and mental, everything that we know of its intrinsic character is derived from the mental side." 

http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Strawson.html 

Again, this shouldn't be surprising given that our mind was largely designed to solve adaptive problems endemic to our hunter-gatherer ancestrors (back some time in the Pleistocene). So as others argue, just in the same way apes or birds can never understand the concept of say prime numbers there will be things that will forever be beyond our cognitive capacities. So I guess I don't think we are Gods (now or in the future) just intelligent and a bit egoistical symbolic chimps with some useful/powerful tools.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

uffie said:


> morgan freeman says it best


I enjoyed that series.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Kon said:


> Nice video. I don't find the arguments very convincing though. I can't offer proof but I just don't think computers are anything but very complicated and very useful thermostats. I think we're missing something major and that something major is qualia/consciousness. I don't think qualia can ever be reduced to any formal system. And even the most simplistic life form seems to possess this rudimentary quality that seems lacking in any computers.
> 
> I think our world is a simulation though, in the Kantian sense. I think there's a world that exists "in itself" and the world as it appears to us from our biologically-given and cognitively-constrained minds. We can build better/more predictive models using more abstract methods (mathematics) which physicists treat as more "real" than our common-senses world of appearances (because they give results) but we will never be able to truly "see" it. I think sometimes we overestimate our powers of cognition because from "inside" it sometimes seems that our systems of knowledge are greater than they really are. I really like these quotes:
> 
> ...


Interesting post. However, I think you are underestimating what will be highly probable in the future. Computers/technology are advancing exponentially and I think it's only a matter of time before we have sentient computers/robots with significant AI. I'm in no doubt there will be a time where we will have to introduce rights for AI in to our laws. In fact there are already early formal guidelines being drawn up for such an eventuality!

However there will very likely come a time when computers are more complicated and advanced than the human brain, and they may well be able to comprehend what we can't, so could actually be considered a superior intelligence. Some people might question how something we programmed could become more intelligent than us, but these would be learning programmes, which much like our own brains develop intelligence through various means, and could well be capable of immense insight and creativity.

However, there's also a high chance we start to use the technology to augment our own biological systems and begin to merge with it, so we could eventually become **** Sapiens v2.0, and beyond. (This is all Transhumanism)

I'm very open to the theory that mankind's future is 'artificial' and we will eventually evolve out of our biological bodies and assimilate ourselves with our own technology. If it gives us an advantage, which it obviously will do (and already does for some people), then people will want it. It will take thousands of years of course, at least, but we have the time, as long as we don't get wiped out by something before we can colonise other planets and ensure our long term future.

Maybe this happens everywhere in the universe and no intelligence capable of interstellar travel is biological. Maybe they all evolved beyond their biological roots and are on a level of advancement, intelligence and evolution we primitive apes can only begin to try and comprehend.

If you find it hard to comprehend how we could merge with our silicon and rare earth metals technology, then consider that maybe the future technology is biological based, and will be far more compatible with our natural biological bodies/minds.

We are but babies in terms of advancement and intelligence in the grand scheme of things, so imagine what we will be like in 1,000 years time, never mind 10,000, or a 1,000,000.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> We are but babies in terms of advancement and intelligence in the grand scheme of things, so imagine what we will be like in 1,000 years time, never mind 10,000, or a 1,000,000.


I'm far less optimistic. I think there is this major obstacle with respect to consciousness/qualia versus computers. I find Nagel's stuff is pretty good for discussing this stuff. Here's an interesting quote:

"The characteristic mistake in the study of consciousness is to ignore its essential subjectivity and to try to treat it as if it were an objective third person phenomenon. Instead of recognizing that consciousness is essentially a subjective, qualitative phenomenon, many people mistakenly suppose that its essence is that of a control mechanism or a certain kind of set of dispositions to behavior or a computer program. The two most common mistakes about consciousness are to suppose that it can be analysed behavioristically or computationally. The Turing test disposes us to make precisely these two mistakes, the mistake of behaviorism and the mistake of computationalism. It leads us to suppose that for a system to be conscious, it is both necessary and sufficient that it has the right computer program or set of programs with the right inputs and outputs. I think you have only to state this position clearly to enable you to see that it must be mistaken. A traditional objection to behaviorism was that behaviorism could not be right because a system could behave as if it were conscious without actually being conscious. There is no logical connection, no necessary connection between inner, subjective, qualitative mental states and external, publicly observable behavior. Of course, in actual fact, conscious states characteristically cause behavior. But the behavior that they cause has to be distinguished from the states themselves. *The same mistake is repeated by computational accounts of consciousness. Just as behavior by itself is not sufficient for consciousness, so computational models of consciousness are not sufficient by themselves for consciousness.* The computational model of consciousness stands to consciousness in the same way the computational model of anything stands to the domain being modelled. Nobody supposes that the computational model of rainstorms in London will leave us all wet. But they make the mistake of supposing that the computational model of consciousness is somehow conscious. It is the same mistake in both cases."

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/...arle.prob.html


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

I understand what he is saying, and there will be a point where it is very much true. As he says, AI will pass the Turing test but still no have what we consider conciousness.

However, in time AI will surely advance beyond that and ultimately develop true conciousness and become just as sentient as us.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

I think developing consciousness from scratch without even a basic understanding of how it emerges from certain objects like ourselves, will be difficult. I think this unification problem between the mental (qualia/consciousness) and the physical (that which is described by current or even a future physics) is the most interesting problem. What kind of change will our future physics require in order to accommodate the mental (qualia/consciousness)? Do we have the right cognitive structures that will allow us to do it or will it always be beyond our understanding? I find McGin's quote on this topic particularly interesting: 

"In order to solve the mind-body problem we need, at a minimum, a new conception of space. We need a conceptual breakthrough in the way we think about the medium in which material objects exist, and hence in our conception of material objects themselves. That is the region in which our ignorance is focused: not in the details of neurophysiological activity but, more fundamentally, in how space is structured or constituted. That which we refer to when we use the word 'space' has a nature that is quite different from how we standardly conceive it to be; so different, indeed, that it is capable of 'containing' the non-spatial (as we now conceive it) phenomenon of consciousness. *Things in space can generate consciousness only because those things are not, at some level, just how we conceive them to be; they harbour some hidden aspect or principle*...

We might be reminded at this point of the big bang. That notable occurrence can be regarded as presenting an inverse space problem. For, on received views, it was at the moment of the big bang that space itself came into existence, there being nothing spatial antecedently to that. But how does space come from non-space? What kind of 'explosion' could create space ab initio? And this problem offers an even closer structural parallel to the consciousness problem if we assume, as I would argue is plausible, that the big bang was not the beginning (temporally or explanatorily) of all existence. Some prior independent state of things must have led to that early cataclysm, and this sequence of events itself must have some intelligible explanation - just as there must be an explanation for the sequence that led from matter-in-space to consciousness. 

The brain puts into reverse, as it were, what the big bang initiated: it erases spatial dimensions rather than creating them. It undoes the work of creating space, swallowing down matter and spitting out consciousness. So, taking the very long view, the universe has gone through phases of space generation and (local) space annihilation; or at least, with respect to the latter, there have been operations on space that have generated a non-spatial being. This suggests the following heady speculation: that the origin of consciousness somehow draws upon those properties of the universe that antedate and explain the occurrence of the big bang. If we need a pre-spatial level of reality in order to account for the big bang, then it may be this very level that is exploited in the generation of consciousness. That is, assuming that remnants of the pre-big bang universe have persisted, it may be that these features of the universe are somehow involved in engineering the non-spatial phenomenon of consciousness. If so, consciousness turns out to be older than matter in space, at least as to its raw materials."

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/c...nessSpace.html


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

An interesting read, but my previous post still stands. Just because we don't understand how conciousness came in to being at the moment certainly doesn't mean we never will. One thing is for sure, we will never stop trying to find out, and I think our development of AI will assist us. It could well just be a perfectly normal and necessary function of a very complex biological computational organ (i.e. the human brain). Regarding the spacial issue, I do see how that's any different to the virtual worlds that can be generated by computers which don't exist anywhere but in its memory.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

Kon said:


> "Current physics is profoundly beautiful and useful, but it is in a state of chronic internal tension (consider the old quarrel between general relativity theory and quantum mechanics). It may be added, with Russell and others, that although physics appears to tell us a great deal about certain of the general structural or mathematical characteristics of the physical, it fails to give us any real insight into the nature of whatever it is that has these characteristics-apart from making it plain that it is utterly bizarre relative to our ordinary conception of it."





Kon said:


> Strawson then quotes Russell:
> 
> "the physical world is only known as regards certain abstract features of its space-time structure-features that, because of their abstractness, do not suffice to show whether the physical world is, or is not, different in intrinsic character from the world of mind. Physics is mathematical, not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. For the rest, our knowledge is negative...We know nothing about the intrinsic quality of physical events except when these are mental events that we directly experience...as regards the world in general, both physical and mental, everything that we know of its intrinsic character is derived from the mental side."


Oh, man, just think of all that time people are building on these understandings.. with limited knowledge. Rather than making progress. So much wasted time.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> An interesting read, but my previous post still stands. Just because we don't understand how conciousness came in to being at the moment certainly doesn't mean we never will. One thing is for sure, we will never stop trying to find out, and I think our development of AI will assist us. It could well just be a perfectly normal and necessary function of a very complex biological computational organ (i.e. the human brain). Regarding the spacial issue, I do see how that's any different to the virtual worlds that can be generated by computers which don't exist anywhere but in its memory.


To me it's very straightforward on a higher level: evolution effectively bred a system that was able to stop itself from dying (out). The human psyche. A massive work of great detail, able to model any pattern using its tools, and able to reassure itself existence is meaningful through its own model of meaning. "I think, therefore I am".



ugh1979 said:


> I do see how that's any different to the virtual worlds that can be generated by computers which don't exist anywhere but in its memory.


Yeah.. something that's very hard to swallow, if you don't know computing. It's about how things can be expressed. A "law of expression" or something. Symbol compression. Procedural code.. there are programs that unpack and run themselves from extremely small sizes. You would have to take into account literally every example here, of technology and systems thinking, to find out real answers about the world. But first we have to work past our denial, everywhere, of things like exactly this: the foundation of knowledge/wisdom and how to really get it.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

jg43i9jghy0t4555 said:


> Oh, man, just think of all that time people are building on these understandings.. with limited knowledge. Rather than making progress. So much wasted time.


I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Who said anything about there being no progress? The authors are suggesting that there are limits to understanding, not there isn't no progress. There are things we can't do/know and this may be true regardless of scientific progress due to our own cognitive limitations. Just like all other animals.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555 (Jul 31, 2011)

Kon said:


> I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Who said anything about there being no progress? The authors are suggesting that there are limits to understanding, not there isn't no progress. There are things we can't do/know and this may be true regardless of scientific progress due to our own cognitive limitations. Just like all other animals.


Well, wasted time is still wasted time! that's the lens I was looking at it through. We will be able to make machines as the next stage of life. Either that, or, computer aided breakthroughs might give us some extremely useful insights for genetic engineering in humans.. or sped-up learning, etc


----------



## Cynical (Aug 23, 2011)

ehe this makes me remember Star Ocean 3


----------

