|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 980
Points: 2,952
|
Rational Inquirer,
Please call me Jim, we are not too formal here. Plus, I have a personal aversion to formal titles. :)
I understand your point about CSI - thanks for the clarification.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/3/2011
Posts: 496
Points: 963
Location: Stockton-on-Tees, United Kingdom
|
Rational Inquirer, you talk about who or what has programmed (created) the universe and the purpose of it all, but I go one step further and ponder ways we could communicate with the creator(s). People claim they talk to the superintelligence (God) on a daily basis using prayer, meditation. Sometimes people even experience 'divine' revelation. But these experiences are mainly subjective (although people occasionally report seeing angels or other phenomena). So who really is this superintelligence. Does it even really exist at all? I often wonder if we beamed a message into the sky to the programmer maybe using lasers if we might get a reply. Can you think of other ways of initiating contact with the purported superintelligence?
As for purpose, I only have to look at Ray Kurzweil's 'Six Epochs' diagram and it reinforces the teleological argument (to me personally). We are accelerating towards something, I'm sure.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2012
Posts: 32
Points: 96
Location: Canada
|
The question of communicating with the simulators has come up before but I'm afraid I don't know at all how we would communicate with them, but they would not be benign, and I have the suspicion that they are space aliens who live out their anti-social compulsions thru the simulation because they are unable to get away with it in the real world. This may be why some misinterpret them as inter or hyperdimensional and as having levels of density and why "angels" were misinterpreted as less dense by early Christian authors and in Patristic and early medieval Latin traditions as inhabiting a hyperdimensional realm. Farrell, however, interprets this in terms of plasma life. As we know or should, extra dimensions are not possible because a spatial dimension is a measure of space so it can't itself have size or shape n can't have anything in it. Note that Reptilians would be descended from reptiles or created from reptilian genes n reptiles have no oxytocin, the love hormone, n human sociopaths have little or no oxytocin. And Reptilians run the planet.
As for 6 Epochs, these are based on the false assumption of the Big Bang. This theory has become orthodox because of mistakes in interpretation of the data. Grote Reber, inventor of the radio telescope and the 1st radio astronomer said, "Red shifts have nothing to do with motion. It is not my idea. Hubble knew this over 60 years ago...The Big Bang is a concoction of latter day saints" (New Scientist, '94). Others who oppose the Big Bang hypothesis include Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jayant Narlikar, Hannes Alfven, Eric Lerner, Anthony Perratt, Tom Van Flandern, Halton Arp, Paul LaViolette, Donald Scott, David Talbott, and Wallace Thornhill. Lavioette has propsed the tired light theory for the red shift, which is much more plausible. Also, it is not possible for space to expand as expansion requires volume which requires matter n the universe can't be expanding because it is infinite. Moreover, there can't be space without matter (as Einstein recognized (Singh, Great Ideas of Mathematics, 1959, p. 301)). And space can't explode, only matter can explode. And it is impossible for time to begin at a certain point since it always has to have a past. It is also impossible for nothing to exist as this is a paradox and contradiction. It is also impossible for there to be matter-energy and space-time in 1 point with nothing existing around it. The Big Bang can't happen in nature n if it were true it would be evidence for simualtion because the program has to have a fixed start time n imposes a limit on the size of the observable universe, which is convenient if the computer has finite memory. The 6 Epochs would be a description of the simulation but not of any real universe.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/2/2011
Posts: 53
Points: 180
|
You should add into your account of a simulated reality, implanting the past. Meaning in a simulated reality, the big bang is only something that was written into the simulation as the scientist dug into it. I like to think of it in terms of archaeology. As the archaeologist dig they uncover more. It's possible that the past is written as needed from within.
As far as why there is this sim. If we entertain that we are in one. Is it possible that as we progress we lose more and more "humanity". It's possible in 100 or 1000 years from now we may be unrecognizable as humans. We may be like the typical alien grey. Robot like, drones, large eyes with little to no nose. No mouth. We will have lost what even now you think you hate and wish to rid yourself of. Feelings, emotional matters. Is it so hard to believe that in the future, man may want to provide for new species another round at the game.
In a sense i'm saying, i guess that as we shed more and more emotional things, and give more and more power over to devices or find ways out or around feelings. At some point I think we might want them back. And if we have gone to far and there is no returning for us. We may at least be able to provide it to something new.
Even with the hard times i've had in my life, all the emotional ups and down. I have to say it's a wild ride. To think of a time when one could no longer experience the real beuty of life. Is a time to hit the reset switch.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2012
Posts: 32
Points: 96
Location: Canada
|
jim,
I would not feel comfortable addressing u by ur 1st name n it wouldn't be appropriate, but I can call u by ur user name.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2012
Posts: 32
Points: 96
Location: Canada
|
So far no one has addressed the big question I refered to at the beginning. Certainly, the real universe would be the same as ours since (presumably) this is a simulation of it, except that there would be no QM, no embedded codes, no Planck length, no pixelation in nature, possibly no entropy, and unobserved objects would still exist. There might be the Pauli exclusion principle. But how would the UV catastrophe be prevented? Would there be wave-particle duality? And would there be particles within particles within particles ad infinitum? Would there be parallel universes or would there be only 1 outcome possible for every event or situation? There would be fine-tuning, but this would be by necessity n would always have been there. And it would be a universe whose nature is So far no one has addressed the big question I refered to at the beginning. Certainly, the real universe would be the same as ours since (presumably) this is a simulation of it, except that there would be no QM, no embedded codes, no Planck length, no pixelation in nature, possibly no entropy, and unobserved objects would still exist. There might be the Pauli exclusion principle. But how would the UV catastrophe be prevented? Would there be wave-particle duality? And would there be particles within particles within particles ad infinitum? Would there be parallel universes or would there be only 1 outcome possible for every event or situation? There would be fine-tuning, but this would be by necessity n would always have been there. And it would have a mental nature.
Of course, if nature is quantized n operates like a computer than the simulation argument would be weakened. It is already a weak argument because it is evidence based on probability instead of probablity based on evidence, n is based on a series of assumptions that could all be false, while actual evidence is a series of facts based on the single assumption that nature does not operate like a computer program.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2012
Posts: 32
Points: 96
Location: Canada
|
Techne,
Implanted memories r not needed n wouldn't apply to the Big Bang anyways because it is just a series of mistakes orthodox scientists like to make.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 980
Points: 2,952
|
EKUMA1981 wrote:Rational Inquirer, you talk about who or what has programmed (created) the universe and the purpose of it all, but I go one step further and ponder ways we could communicate with the creator(s). People claim they talk to the superintelligence (God) on a daily basis using prayer, meditation. Sometimes people even experience 'divine' revelation. But these experiences are mainly subjective (although people occasionally report seeing angels or other phenomena). So who really is this superintelligence. Does it even really exist at all? I often wonder if we beamed a message into the sky to the programmer maybe using lasers if we might get a reply. Can you think of other ways of initiating contact with the purported superintelligence? I would not be surprised if we communicate with the creator every time we think or speak. After all, the observer effect seems to indicate the registration of intent with "the universe." If intent, why not more detailed communication? Techne wrote:You should add into your account of a simulated reality, implanting the past. Meaning in a simulated reality, the big bang is only something that was written into the simulation as the scientist dug into it. I like to think of it in terms of archaeology. As the archaeologist dig they uncover more. It's possible that the past is written as needed from within. While I tend to agree with Rational Inquirer's view on the Big Bang as a series of mistakes, it does seem that implanted memories and artifacts are a simple and convenient way to establish the starting point for a sim - and should be well within the grasp of the programmers capabilities.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/22/2012
Posts: 222
Points: 666
Location: Scotland, UK
|
I was amongst a group of four backpackers last night and gave them each an I-Ching reading. There was one mocker amongst them, and his question went something like this.
Q: "I'd be a fool to ask you a question, wouldn't I?".
(I helped him rephrase the question, making sure the word "fool" was incorporated. You'll understand why when you see the answer below!! I already knew the answer to the question. In all the years I've worked with the I-Ching it has never once let me down!).
He tossed the 3 coins, 6 times whilst repeating the question out loud, and the answer he got was (from the "I-Ching" or Book of Changes, The Richard Wilhelm Translation, foreword by C.G. Jung)
A: Hexagram 4: Youthful Folly (1 in 64 odds of receiving that particular Hexagram)
The Judgement:
".....It is not I who seeks the young fool; the young fool seeks me......."
Yes, indeed, a young fool chastised, his face turning bright crimson in colour!! You should have seen the looks on the other three faces!!
I believe the programmer does have a sense of humour and is most certainly benign (sorry, Rational Enquirer, I don't agree with your non benign space aliens theory)
There is an underlying digital logic to the I-Ching. Leibniz discovered that the I-Ching preceded his binary code by more than 3000 years. Both Jung and physicist Wolfgang Pauli (who was Jung's patient at the time) were heavily interested in it. It also leads to a connection with other organising systems such as the 64 codons of the genetic code, as well as the pattern of the table of elements.
And, how does the I-Ching oracle answer questions?
Much like a computer program. It uses a mathematical algorithm (0 and 1 = Yin and Yang) to transmit its response of a specific verbal analogy, from the archaic past. It really does correlate in a fit well beyond chance. Synchronicity, Jung called it. An acausal connecting principle. But it works!!
Cheers.
P.S, Did you know that both Jung and Pauli were obsessed by the number 137. Both were preoccupied with the question of why the 'fine structure constant' had a value nearly equal to 1/137. And guess what? Pauli died in room number 137 in Rotkreuz hospital in Zurich. in 1958!
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/18/2012
Posts: 2
Points: 6
|
I just joined and after reading a bit here and there, this is going to be interesting. Jim, I agree with your earlier comment about being careful to admit that what we know is 'the way it really is'. As I grow and learn, so many things just fade away that I thought were absolutes.
blissful photons
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 980
Points: 2,952
|
theinvisiblegardener wrote:I just joined and after reading a bit here and there, this is going to be interesting. Jim, I agree with your earlier comment about being careful to admit that what we know is 'the way it really is'. As I grow and learn, so many things just fade away that I thought were absolutes. Welcome to the Forum, theinvisiblegardener! I can tell by your moniker that you are going to be a great contributor. :)
|
|
|
Guest |
