I think my good friend Alex Boye sums it up pretty well what our position in this world is about.

http://www.vibme.com/Genesis/alex.wmv

This has a passworded access

username: fudge
password: ripple

you may have to put it in twice.

If your machine is using windows media player, you can use -- file -- save as. Then once it is fully downloaded try playing it. Likewise if using Quicktime, you can also save the file. Also if you just hit the pause and let it download fully into the Internet cache before playing, it will play fine without the stuttering. It all depends on your internet connection. I think this is an 11 MB file.

Now, I didn't mean to get religious on you. Religion certainly isn't the point. But if there is a "great programmer in the sky" who's to say that programmer is not God? And if there is a god, wouldn't we want to walk with Him/Her or have Him/Her walk with us. Which is why I refer to talking with the programmer as "walking upon the way."

I would rather tend to think that if this universe is shown to be nonlocal, as in some sort of creation. That really just proves that there is a God.

I think you are very right about the "effect." The sensitivity the universe has to things that have happened before manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations because the initial conditions that sprung forth a particular happenstance now have a much greater probability of existing again -- rather than say some other random event. In mathematics and physics, chaos theory really isn't all that chaotic when you stop and think about it.

The Universe is highly sensitive to initial conditions (e.g. Lorenz "butterfly" attractor values). I still think it all boils down to your idea of determinism versus non-determinism. I think the whole problem in our lack of understanding in these areas is due to our "equals and opposites" way of looking at things. Maybe there's some third alternative like the non-non-determinism that really isn't either. If these Universe systems are more attracted to the "groove" (deterministic) meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved, then maybe the universe has some "memory" and maybe some "programing" but that still doesn't have to mean some part of the "game" isn't left for us to play out on on our own.

This thread began with the idea of this being God's VR. What do you think? Is He/She/It the benevolent loving supreme being or the little kid getting ready to squash the ant hill?

wow, great discussion! i'm finally caught up on this one, but to comment would almost be out of sync with the flow of the thread. however, just to throw in a few thoughts...

first of all, great find, Neo, on that original web page. i haven't seen that one before either. i like the author's open mindedness about the "realness" of reality.



many infinite series have a finite bound. like einstein walking ever halfway closer to the girl, the infinite series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +... converges to the finite number 1.



reminds me of the many theories of cyclical universes that have been proposed over the years. in some versions, we are destined to follow the same path over and over. for those of us who believe that there is meaning behind life and the universe, eternal recurrance would seem to add little value to the purpose of the universe, don't you think?

Re. the discussion on time, there are so many paths we can take on that one! you may want to check out Julian Barbour's book "The End of Time," which puts some physics behind the illusory nature of time. another idea i read about was that time was simply events. the more events that occur in a given "actual time period" the faster time appears to go because our perception measures time in units of observed events. while explains why time appears to go slowly when you are bored. and then there are the subjective experiences of those have had past life regressions or near death experiences, where they describe a state of being outside of time - that all events or all lives actually happen simultaneously. there is some relevance between the ideas in the http://www.religion-research.org/irtc/reality.htm
site and programmed reality. we talk about the program being the driver behind reality, while we have free will to interact and make decisions within the construct. however, one could also think of the program as the "code" itself, which is quite outside of time. code is executed sequentially on the hardware. but as it sit on the disk or on paper, you can look at any segment of it.



i have always been fascinated by the effect that stendec describes. i would love to have references to experimental evidence behind these things. stendec, can you dig out the references to these new chemical synthesis experiments?

one thing that comes to mind is the way the brain is supposed to work. memories become strong when exercised by intentional recall, the theory being that the chemical encodings being done at the synapse level are reinforced, i.e. more electrochemical pathways. perhaps a sophisticated neural net is the driver behind reality in "the program." and it learns, or establishes pathways that are more easily followed the next time around?

But why do these strange phenomenon occur? The difficulty comes when we have exhausted our capabilities for discussion of the sciences; you will then have to make this leap into faith I am talking about, which is the only way to take the next step in unraveling any of the mysteries of the metaphysical universe.

Bell's theorem is an example of that type of leap of faith I'm talking about that just simply works. This theorem has even been called "the most profound in science" (Stapp, 1975). It is notable for showing that the predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) differ from those of intuition. It is simple and elegant, and touches upon fundamental philosophical issues that relate to modern physics. In its simplest form, Bell's theorem states: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. In other words, Bell says that reality itself is undefinable. Like all quantum mechanics, as soon as you begin to break matter down into its smallest particles, you find that there is no "God Particle" but instead you find the equation turns somehwere inbetween zero (nothingness) and infinity (undefinable).See The God Particle, Leon Lederman, Dell Publishing, NY (1993). And for all you mathematicians out there, you know if you take an infinite number and devide it by zero, you simply get a much larger infinite number that is also undefinable. You can't even call that number infinite, because it is not infinite: the number is merely undefinable and Bell tells us that undefinable is the nature of our universe as well. For our purposes, rather than call it "undefinable" we call the the CII ("see-two"), the counter intuitive for the intangible, or the dream within a dream. Bell's seminal 1964 paper was entitled "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox". The Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) assumes local realism, the intuitive notion that particle attributes have definite values independent of the act of observation and that physical effects have a finite propagation speed. Bell showed that local realism leads to a requirement for certain types of phenomena that are not present in quantum mechanics. This requirement is called Bell's inequality. These well defined properties are often called hidden variables, the properties that Einstein posited when he stated his famous objection to quantum mechanics: "[God] does not play dice."

Yet, the known concepts about the study of reality all lead ultimately to the same conclusion; reality is not something uniformly shared, but is a rather personal and unique occurance for each observer. If your reality is truely different from mine, then whose reality is this and in which one do we really exist? Is it my reality or is it yours? Or even more profound, can our realities be different and yet remain true for the both of us?

QM = Quantum Moment. If you are looking for a miracle in your life, what you are really seeking after are those quantum moments where life’s duality exposes itself in away to illuminate the CII. In the particle smashing chambers at particle accelerators around the world, the QMs are manifest when particles pop in and out of existence. In the electron emitters sending single electrons through Young’s double slit apparatus, the QMs take place when the electron still exhibits interference properties even though it is a single electron. But these are all “micro” QMs. The trick is to look for those “macro” QMs in your life. Those things reality cannot explain, but only in faith can the occurrence make any sense at all.

"Perfect wisdom is unplanned. Perfect living offers no guarantee to a peaceful death. Learn first, how to live. Learn second, how not to kill. Learn third, how to live with death. Learn fourth, how to die...To know love, be like the running brook, which deaf, yet sings its melody for others to hear. Feel the pain of too much tenderness. Wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for yet another day of loving." TV series Kung Fu, episode 11 (ABC 1974)

Well Neo,

I guess you might think that to answer yes to the above question necessarily means you are insane. I however, don't think you have to lose your mind in order to gain your presence.

Anyway, you still haven't answered my earlier question. Have you ever experienced the ability to "walk upon the way"? i.e talk with the programmers? God?

Cool! Yes this was definitely Poet's topic called "God's VR World." I don't mean to take over. It was just that I was intrigued by poets posts. If this is a programmed reality, then the only cause capable of producing such a reality must possess in itself the idea and all the perfections we have attributed to Deity.

Even Jim's book talks about the idea of this sort of "crossing over" outside of NDEs or other out of body experiences. "Walking upon the way" is certainly nothing novel in philosophy. I'm just waiting for "the one" like Neo in the movie who is going to come onto these boards and tell us all about what the programmers had to say about it. The only problem in the movie was that the programmers were the enemy.

This post postulates that the programmer(s) are/is God(s).

Hi JDLaw, I too have the suspicion that an algorithm for AGI would be relatively simple.

Forgive me if the following sounds a little muddled, I'm writing this whilst tired...

Think of the genetic expression for the actual human brain, and how relatively simple it is. The complicated "stuff" (i.e. the hardware) is all done by "reality" (physics via biology, growing from the bottom-up), however the software element (not the physical aspect of proteins etc) is straightforward, although not yet fully understood.

I strongly believe that IBM's Blue Brain project will achieve AGI by it's use of a similar "bottom-up" approach.

If we had powerful enough computers to process the hard stuff (the "reality" part of the above), then I think the actual AGI algorithm would be very simple, like the genetic code expressing the structures of the brain.

I think what I'm trying to say in a roundabout way, is that I believe that the really difficult challenges for AGI is in the hardware, not the software. BUT, having said that, with Moore's Law and Kurzweil's singularity theory, the prediction by IBM that they'll complete Blue Brain within 15 years could well turn out to be overly PESSimistic!



Still on the subject of AI, we are very used to computers which deal in binary logic (Yes / NO etc), but there is nothing to say that AI could not have a base in something else, especially given the potential of quantum computing.

Imagine a "qbit neurone" if you will...

If an AGI were "run" on a quantum computer, the intelligence would probably be far removed from our notion of intelligent thought; the "logic" that defines the quantum realm would govern this AGI's "thinking-processes", and we may be utterly confused by the answer given to our questions - much like the computer in Hitchhikers Guide, which gave the answer "42".

All of the greatest dead physicist of all time, in the entire history of this world, have been gathered together in one place and a Moderator has been chosen who steps into that room and hands them a small piece of real empty space (a vaccuum).

MODERATOR: Adam? You are not a physicist. What are you doing in here?

ADAM: I am the first human being to look into the sky and to actually consider my own exisitence. I know that I am. I know that I exist, which means that I am a sentient being because I am aware of my existence. I am also a prophet to my children because God has spoken to me. I wanted to reach for the stars and I wanted the perfection of a God, but I found out that it it wasn't mine for the taking. I do not hear God's voice any longer or see him, because I have been driven out into a darker world now to be tested.

MODERATOR: But again, I am asking you, do you know why you are here?

ADAM: Well, I know that I was in a beautiful garden where I had found an helpmeet. One day I followed her out of the Garden to a place called duality to taste the fruit of a tree that grew thereof. I did not wish to step out, but I knew that if human kind were ever to be, I had to suffer pain and taste the bitter so that that I could know the sweet. I had to know sorrow so that I could find joy and rejoicing in my posterity. The duality was the right place for my spirit to progress to one day reach for that Godhood that I seek.

MODERATOR: So, it is you yourself who has chosen to be here?

ADAM: Yes. I chose ... to come to this world, though I do not know this place you have brought me. And this handfull of empty space you have given me; I do not know this thing, yet it seems somehow familiar. I remember the nothingness of the abyss, but this empty space is not the abyss; it is something. It is something different than nothing. It has a volume and dimension even though empty inside. I saw the first Great I am. I saw the worlds he created. And now I know that this empty space I hold is something more than nothing. I don't know what it is. Maybe someone can tell me. To whom shall I give this empty Space?

MODERATOR: You should first, of course, hand it to Aristotle because he is the true father of metaphysics.

ADAM: I don't know any Aristotle. Maybe to my son Seth then?

MODERATOR: No. You must hand it to Aristotle. This discussion really is about that tree of life you spoke of and what drove you into this world. What we want you to discuss today is more than creation, however. This is the creation that happens in every moment of every day. This is what we now call metaphysics or the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. The term "metaphysics" is regarded as having originated from the works of Aristotle. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on diverse subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry (including theater), biology and zoology, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, and ethics. Along with Socrates and Plato, Aristotle was one of the most influential of the ancient Greek philosophers. The editor of his works, Andronicus of Rhodes, placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, Physics, and called these books "ta meta ta physika biblia" or, "the books after the books on physics."

ADAM: Well OK then. Is this Aristotle fellow one of my progeny?

MODERATOR: Oh yes! most certainly. We are all your decendants. All nations kindreds and tongues.

ARISTOTLE: (sounding a bit like a know it all bad shakespearean actor) Ehmmm! Metaphysics is the knowledge of immaterial being, or of "being" ... in the highest degree of abstraction .

MODERATOR: Yes Mr. Aristotle, but what about the thing you hold in your hand.

ARISTOTLE: I refuse to comment on this piece of empty space, because you are imaginary to me. This is an imaginary room. And I am simply dreaming.

MODERATOR: But please Mr. Aristotle, what can I say to make you change your mind? Can't you at least tell me what caused this room to be here and why you are holding the thing you are holding?

ARISTOTLE: Ah! yes, causation. Now you have asked the right question. For what causes anything whether real or unreal? Even imaginary things must have causation, else what could have caused us to imagine them? There are exactly four means by which all causality is determined: material causality; formal causality; efficient causality; and final causality. Material is that from which a thing comes into existence as from its parts, constituents, substratum or materials. Formal is determined by the definition, form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis, or archetype. Efficient is beginning of change or that from which the change or the ending of the change first starts. Final is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done often called the "but for" causation; but for A(a certain instance) B would not have happened (a certain result). But again, these are just categories of the means to the end. If you really want to understand causality, you must first accept that there are but two alternative modal operations for causality: there are the things that have purpose which is otherwise called "proper causality" refering to those things which happen for an intelligent reason or volition; and there are the things that have no designed purpose, but happen simply by chance or accident. Those of the second order have no intelligent design or volition behind them; they just happen. And I know these these things to be true just like I know that man is superior to woman; things of a heavier mass fall faster than lighter things; the stars are but the smaller burning embers spewn from our sun and are thousands of times closer to us than the sun; and that I am of a superior race meant to rule and reign over the lesser races of human kind.

MODERATOR: But Mr. Aristotle, those things are not true.

ARISTOTLE: You insolent and presumptious peasant. Be gone with this ghastly thing and return it from whence it came.

MODERATOR: My deepest apologies Mr. Aristotle. Please forgive my rude outburst. Could you please hand it to the gentleman standing next to you and he'll take care of it for you.

JOHN MACKIE: (Australian accent) I am still confused at why I am here in the first place. And now I certainly can't understand why Mr. Aristotle would hand this to me.

MODERATOR: Well, first I would need to know what you mean by why? Aristotle handed it to you because I told him to. I guess he might have called that the efficient causation though. And why you are here, is because, well, you are a dead physicist in my duality, so here that makes you an authority. But I ask you; then, what is the final cause of this? In other words, why really did he hand it to you? Was it me telling him to hand it to you or was it him deciding to hand it? Yes it was his action, but would he have even thought to hand it over without my suggestion or request?

JOHN MACKIE: You are merely talking about the usual type of "cause", which in fact, refers to the "INUS" conditions (insufficient and non-redundant parts of unnecessary but sufficient causes). For example; consider the short circuit as a cause of the house burning down. Consider the collection of events, the short circuit, the proximity of flammable material, and the absence of firefighters. Considered together these are unnecessary but sufficient to the house's destruction (since many other collection of events certainly could have destroyed the house). Within this collection; the short circuit is an insufficient but non-redundant part (since the short circuit by itself would not cause the fire, but the fire will not happen without it). So the short circuit is an INUS cause of the house burning down. But this is not the causation that you want to talk about. You want to know if there is a God who causes these things to happen. You see, God is not the cement of the Universe, but rather, causation is itself that cement. Free will is no excuse for the existence of evil and suffering, as God could have given us both free will and moral perfection, thus resulting in us choosing the good in every situation. No! your empty space cannot exist in this imaginary room. You are mistaken about that. I do not know what it is we have here, but I do know that neither you nor God caused it to be here. Therefore, I must agree with Mr. Aristotle and deduce that I am just dreaming and none of this is real. So, I still ask you, why am I here in the first place?

MODERATOR: Of course it isn't real. I've told you, this is an imaginary room. But you are here and it is not me that has imagined you. You are a real person from my history books. Your works have been recorded; your theories been taught; your non-belief in God or Supreme being is matter of record. Maybe you are not imaginary, but in this instant, merely a possibility. If there were a time machine, we could gather all of you up into this room. Yet, there is no such thing as a time machine and you are not really here, but imagined here. Then answer my question; what caused you to be here in this imaginary room, holding this handsized piece of real empty space?

MACKIE: Do not answer my question with a question. Why am I here?

MODERATOR: If you have been listening, that is my question as well. You say that there can be no God, but then what caused you to be here?

MACKIE: Yes. You do insist on telling me that I am here, when I am not. This is imaginary and may I remind you, not my imagination running things here.

MODERATOR: But your INUS really doesn't take us beyond correlation. Let's really look at your insufficient and non-redundant parts of unneccessary but efficient causes by considering that rooster who crows outside my window from the farm next door in the morning; let's call him Rooster. Rooster crows and I wake up. But I only wake up when Rooster crows. And since I was asleep before Rooster crowed, I really don't know that he crowed before I woke. Therefore using your INUS condtions, I can conclude that it was my waking that caused Rooster to crow. And considering further, perhaps it was the Rooster crowing that caused the sun to rise because every time Rooster Crows the sun will rise.

GALELIO: (Galelio interupts, speaking english of course with that heavy Italian accent) Maybe I can be of some assitance here, because you know of course that causality has no place in analytical t'inking. Causality can only be determined emperically by observation. We must a let scientific methodology take over. First we a shoot the Rooster and a then we wait until da' next morning; and a the sun she rises and a then you waked up ... but a no more Rooster.

MODERATOR: Ah! yes Mr. Galelio Galile. Then causation is only what experimentation shows it to be, but isn't that just a little narcissistic to believe we are the center of the Universe when it comes to causation. Do not effects happen for certain causes whether we believe the cause or not? Mr. Mackie, please hand the ball of empty space over to Mr. Galile.

(Albert Einstein interupts with that strong German accent)

EINSTEIN: According to Descartes, der empty space must haf a container to exist, because existence is a fallacy without extension.

GALELIO: Let us put the empty space inside a shiny metal container, preferably in the shape of a ball.

EINSTEIN: Yah! but if ve make the thickness of the sphere so thin that it is barely there ..."

(John Bell chimes in)

BELL: This whole room is imaginary, so we can also imagine the walls of the ball containing the empty space to be so thin that the width of the partition between our imaginary space and the real empty space approaches zero.

(Those of you have ever seen Stephen Hawking on TV, you know that as of the writing of this paper, he is: (1) alive and doesn't belong in this room; but (2) in a wheel chair with one of those gadgets that makes him sound like a robot, so he is truly somewhere in between this world and the singularity)

STEPHEN: Stop this! The thickness of the periphery is zero.

EINSTEIN: Ah! Ve are just throwink around a ball of empty space.

Like our room full of scientists out of some episode of The Twighlight Zone, mankind has also been playing catch with a vacuum; constantly perplexed about the physical nature of the universe.

Very interesting concept.



I guess you've just given yourself the perfect score then, by figuring out that it is an IQ test... but why are we all still here, and the test is still running? Unless of course, it is not you that is the subject of the test.

Would this mean that you are a pre-programmed variable, and not the "real" person?

Which one of us is "real"?

I like the idea of a kind of inter-linked consciousness, (at least with regard to the pre-programmed aspects of the IQ test). Perhaps all consciousness across the universe is like this, and "god" is the one and only "real" participant, and then each one of us become the consciousness when we physically die.