The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

God's VR world Options
jdlaw
Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:28:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
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.
Poet1960
Posted: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:03:59 PM
Rank: Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/15/2008
Posts: 12
Points: 36
Location: Oregon
Great voice. A bit hard to understand some of it, it kept buffering so it sort of stuttered a little.
jdlaw
Posted: Saturday, April 19, 2008 8:03:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
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.
stendec
Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:21:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Poet1960 wrote:
Hehe, there is a theory that suggests that once any particular event happens, the likelyhood of it re-occuring increases hugely. What if we are just somebody's dream? Just some more what if's.


I've read that this "effect" is very real, not just statistical probability. For instance, when a new chemical is synthesised for the very first time, it takes a lot longer than when the same chemical is synthesises again (all other things being equal).

It seems that the universe has a "memory" for events, and if something has never occurred before, there is no such memory, and the process of it happening (or the probability if you will) is low. Once it has occurred, then it is much easier for it to occur again.

I tend to think of it like a line in the sand, and when water is poured onto the sand it is attracted to the "groove" more easily, and flows faster.
jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:46:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
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?
Poet1960
Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:35:32 AM
Rank: Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/15/2008
Posts: 12
Points: 36
Location: Oregon
Ok, how about this? When computers first came on the scene, it used and still does mostly, normal Platonic logic, true/false on/off etc. Then along comes fuzzy logic which says that in some circumstances there are varying degrees of true/false on/off. What would be the logical extension of this? A program that can create huge logic tables of fuzzy type logic based on whatever criteria the creator decided was needed. In effect it could learn. The 'program' has the ability to learn new things and remember them. In the beginning, there wasn't much to remember, but as time went by more and more new things were learned and stored. Now lets assume it encounters, to use your example, a new chemical is synthesized. The routine says, 'Hey this is new, activate the learning routine" while this is happening. So the first time something happens it takes longer because the main program is learning something new and storing it for future use the next time it is tried and won't need to learn it again making the next instance happen 'faster'.

It depends. Are the ants behaving as they should be??
jim
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:17:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 968
Points: 2,910
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.

Quote:
So, in effect, there is infinity within a finite boundary. How is that possible?


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.

Quote:
alluding to Nietzsche and his theory of 'Eternal Recurrance'


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.

Quote:
I've read that this "effect" is very real, not just statistical probability. For instance, when a new chemical is synthesised for the very first time, it takes a lot longer than when the same chemical is synthesises again (all other things being equal).


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?
stendec
Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:05:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Thanks for the info Jim, I'll have a look for the book you mentioned, Julian Barbour's "The End of Time," it sounds fascinating.

This reminded me of a couple of books I read about ten years ago called "The Death of Forever: A New Future for Human Consciousness" by Darryl Reanney. Also Rupert Sheldrake's "Seven Experiments That Could Change The World" - see also http://www.transaction.net/science/seven/

I think it might have been Sheldrake's book that first alerted me to the "weirdness" of the chemical synthesis observations, but I may well be wrong.

Those books would be on my "essential reference" shelf for anyone wishing to look into these matters. Maybe we could start a "virtual bookshelf" of recommended essential reading for this subject.

It goes almost without saying that Jim's book should be on that shelf !

To this I would add "Neuronal Man" by Jean-Pierre Changeux (your remark about the "cosmic computer" being like a brain made me think of this book), and K. Eric Drexler's "Engines of Creation" full text of early edition here: http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Table_of_Contents.html

jdlaw
Posted: Monday, May 5, 2008 7:50:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
stendec wrote:
This reminded me of a couple of books I read about ten years ago called "The Death of Forever: A New Future for Human Consciousness" by Darryl Reanney. Also Rupert Sheldrake's "Seven Experiments That Could Change The World" - see also http://www.transaction.net/science/seven/


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)
Neo
Posted: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 4:43:56 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/21/2008
Posts: 571
Points: 1,713
Location: Ireland
jdlaw wrote:


"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)


I don't want to interrupt the flow of your crackin' discussion, but that 'Kung Fu' quote struck me, especially 'Learn second, how not to kill'. Reminds me of the Buddhist axiom 'First do no harm'. I suppose that if you do no (or minimal) harm, then you're already ahead in terms of living a good life. But, like that novel you read that inspires you to live a better life, you forget about it a few days later. Something that has to be worked on daily, lest we forget..

ok, musing over,back to your discussion!

There is no spoon.
jdlaw
Posted: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1:13:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
jdlaw wrote:


Neo,

In a programmed reality these do not necessarily have to be in sequence, meaning one after the other in linear progression. Instead the universes happen together in the main program and we live in a subroutine or batch file. We can with training learn to "walk upon the way" meaning talk to the programmers.

If your screen name is an indicator, you should be able to teach me how to do this. Have you ever walked upon the way at will, i.e. without a Near Death Experience (NDE) or drug induced trance.


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?
Neo
Posted: Thursday, May 8, 2008 8:27:16 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/21/2008
Posts: 571
Points: 1,713
Location: Ireland
Hi jd,

I'm confused, I think there are crossed wires here. If I have this correctly (I think I do) I was replying to poet1960 when I referred to Nietzsche and his concept of 'Eternal Recurrance'. You posted in between and I believe you thought that I was referring to your post. I probaly should have referred to poet1960 by name, sorry for the confusion. I wouldn't comment on some posts on this thread yet as I'm still getting to grips with these concepts. However I'm reading up on stuff and have recently finished Jim's book so who knows, I might wade in soon. My 'Neo' username is not to be taken seriously, it just seemed to be very appropriate to use here, especially as I was the first poster (I love reminding people of that!:d/ )

Neo =new, first, cool, wrap around sunglasses..




There is no spoon.
jdlaw
Posted: Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:43:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Neo wrote:
Hi jd,

I'm confused, I think there are crossed wires here. If I have this correctly (I thing I do) I was replying to poet1960 when I referred to Nietzsche and his concept of 'Eternal Recurrance'. You posted in between and I believe you thought that I was referring to your post. I probaly should have referred to poet1960 by name, sorry for the confusion. I wouldn't comment on some posts on this thread yet as I'm still getting to grips with these concepts. However I'm reading up on stuff and have recently finished Jim's book so who knows, I might wade in soon. My 'Neo' username is not to be taken seriously, it just seemed to be very appropriate to use here, especially as I was the first poster (I love reminding people of that!:d/ )

Neo =new, first, cool, wrap around sunglasses..




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).

jdlaw wrote:
Sorry for the confusion. You mentioned Nietzsche right after my post on eternal recurrence:

There are many dualities.
Mortality exists only in duality.
God will know the proper sequence.
Multiverse memory is a spiritual gift.
Multiple dualities means multi-universe.
Such shall be the end of life as you know it.
Multiverse memory is also physically impossible.
The laws of physics are particular to this mortality.
Spiritual prison is the experience of an eternal regression.
Paradisical glory is the experience of an eternal progression.
If you are not progressing in life, you are regressing in immortality.
You took part in the counsel to decide whether or not to come to this duality.
This mortality has had a deep history prepared long before your birth into this world.
Other multiple mortalities are outside of this time, outside of this space, and out of this sequence.
You were in full control of all the laws of physics in this duality and you have chosen to accept them.
A higher power, whom we shall call God, can deliver you from this chaos and lead you into the light.
Each mortality may become part of your regression toward your spiritual prison, if you should choose it.
Each mortality you experience is an essential and important part of your progression toward your paradisical glory.
Your spirit has a certain knowledge that taking control of the laws of physics in this universe prematurely shall result in the eternal downward spiral.
If you can one day become spiritually satisfied with your progression, you will give yourself the permission to control the laws of physics in this duality.
Yet it is essential in your spiritual progression that in at least one duality or another that you shall experience the level of enlightenment capable of satisfying your spirit.
Such unification of your own duality could be the start of something more wonderful than anything within the human imagination, something more horrible than anything within the human imagination, or both.

jdlaw
Posted: Friday, May 9, 2008 12:05:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
Poet1960 wrote:
Ok, how about this? When computers first came on the scene, it used and still does mostly, normal Platonic logic, true/false on/off etc. Then along comes fuzzy logic which says that in some circumstances there are varying degrees of true/false on/off. What would be the logical extension of this? A program that can create huge logic tables of fuzzy type logic based on whatever criteria the creator decided was needed. In effect it could learn. The 'program' has the ability to learn new things and remember them. In the beginning, there wasn't much to remember, but as time went by more and more new things were learned and stored. Now lets assume it encounters, to use your example, a new chemical is synthesized. The routine says, 'Hey this is new, activate the learning routine" while this is happening. So the first time something happens it takes longer because the main program is learning something new and storing it for future use the next time it is tried and won't need to learn it again making the next instance happen 'faster'.

It depends. Are the ants behaving as they should be??


Hi Poet1960

By the way, I was born in 1960. Some relevance to that year for you too?

Anyway, Neo has posted in another topic called "Artificial General Intelligence: Now is the time" a link to Ben Goertzel's work at Novamente. His idea of AI is definitely along the same lines as you were suggesting with logical extensions of many true/false algorithms.

neo wrote:
Ben Goertzel talk from last year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hsvCib83ME&feature=related

There is no spoon.


My take, however, unlike Goertzel, is that I believe there is one over arching algorithm for AGI and it is actually not complicated, both simple and elegant.
stendec
Posted: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:15:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
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!

jdlaw wrote:


My take, however, unlike Goertzel, is that I believe there is one over arching algorithm for AGI and it is actually not complicated, both simple and elegant.


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".

Poet1960 wrote:

Ok, how about this? When computers first came on the scene, it used and still does mostly, normal Platonic logic, true/false on/off etc. Then along comes fuzzy logic which says that in some circumstances there are varying degrees of true/false on/off. What would be the logical extension of this?
Poet1960
Posted: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:40:01 AM
Rank: Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/15/2008
Posts: 12
Points: 36
Location: Oregon
Yes, I was born in 1960 as well. January 15th. Heheh, glad to see my initial post become a great discussion. I have often wished I could sit down with some of the greatest minds in history and just bounce ideas about things around. Creative thinking is great.
jdlaw
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2008 9:47:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 435
Points: 1,132
Location: USA
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.
kindbud
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:53:56 PM
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/21/2008
Posts: 3
Points: 9
Location: Berlin
If you don't mind, I would like to propose something a bit off topic.

Consider the following scenario:
This existence is a VR---sort of a solipsism style VR---where there is only one real individual experiencing this matrix world. Everything else is preprogrammed and determined.
This VR existence is actually just an IQ test in the year 2050. It feels like it lasts 75 years (in our time--that we're familiar with) but it really only takes a few moments. Once the VR IQ test is hooked up and begins, all players memories of his 2050 life are shut off (disappear). His/her conscious or mind or soul is rebooted with a blank hard drive (for lack of a better expression) and he/she begins the VR IQ test from birth.
Now, everything in the VR IQ test is calculated and specifically programmed that way. And everyone who takes the test is given the same exact constants, the same physical appearance, family, initial settings, and all events (not directly influenced by the player - i.e. movies, tv shows, weather, news etc.) etc. are constant.
Naturally, each player can take a different path through this VR, but each player could also take the same path. Being as this is the case. Once you finish the VR IQ test (die) your score is calculated. Considering the "constants" are available to all players, the test determines your ability to match patterns (on a grand scale) and process information.
So, the life you lead determines your score.
And naturally, that would bring ridicule.
Who's to say what a (example) smart, good, moral life is, which = a high score?
But then again, IQ tests aren't perfect. If you get a 190 on one of today's IQ tests are you really intelligent. .... even if you commit murder?

So yeah, there would be a subjective factor. But the benefit of these future IQ tests would be the massive pool of variables the score is determined by (calculated from).

And what would a perfect score be? Well, I suppose if you figured out you were taking a VR IQ test, the test would stop, and you would get 100%. You could also get bonus points for the duration of time it takes you to figure this out.

I would imagine there are lots of holes in this one. Sorry mates.
stendec
Posted: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:04:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Very interesting concept.

kindbud wrote:
And what would a perfect score be? Well, I suppose if you figured out you were taking a VR IQ test, the test would stop, and you would get 100%. You could also get bonus points for the duration of time it takes you to figure this out.


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.
chinitial
Posted: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:39:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 1/12/2010
Posts: 38
Points: 114
Location: in front of your desktop
Assuming God has the remote control, he presses pause, slow motion, fast forward, rewind, play at His will. In a 2 hours film we know there's certain amount of space whether in the disk or VHS tape but time varies according to the one who has remote control. God does have the director's final cut... so to speak and the special features.

We are just isolated frames. The one who sets the film using a projector is able to watch some frames on the celluloid film before anyone else even in a premiere day. He has that advantage compared to the rest of the audience and , like Nostradamus or other visionaries, can only watch separated images out of the whole picture. If someone can feel a coming disaster and avoids taking the train or plane which indeed will suffer a crash, it can be explained as human holographic mind capacity to receive the message from the future which is already recorded. It's like watching that movie MEMENTO played backwards.

I reckon you can't really discuss about the Bible unless you get out of the Christian superficial point of view (get out of that matrix) and get into Judaism and kabbala perspective. Then you will understand even the visions of God like Ezekiel's Merkabak (God's throne-charriot like hovercraft with wheels within wheels and a bit like Carl Sagan inspiration for the film CONTACT) with a bearded God which resembles 2 kind of jewels (our computer functions with silicon taken from jewels) is not God himself but something else....Shhh the homo luminous in a colective sense.

And the cherubim with 4 faces IN A SINGLE HEAD -rather than multiple heads- is something we have never seen in Star Trek, Star Wars or any other movie , not even from Guillermo del Toro or seen in any Fangoria magazine. These ideas of eyes in aliens' bodies and wings is taken from the Bible:

http://fotolog.terra.com/detodounpoco:635

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ezekielnotes.htm


It's the same image we have seen in religions all over the world but uninformed people have thought are merely "archetypes" or symbols of constellations which in no way resemble those images.

Just like some letters combo create words, sentences and whole books, perhaps everybody's shape create a super holodeck shape that the part will never comprehend unless there's a Hindu fussion with God which could be THE Nothingness. The perfect dance between the dancer and the dance, there's no dance without the dancer, there's no dancer without a dance.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v4.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.439 seconds.