Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Mello_

Why call him a God?

701 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
2 hours ago, OverSword said:

So why didn't they evolve bipedalism? 

What sharks?

For obvious reasons. Hard for an underwater species to conquer fire as well, which makes an industrial revolution possible.

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

No, the end goal of evolution is not high intelligence.  It's survival.

There is no end goal. We are the product of our environment and how we fit into niches.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 I'm not following.

GR explains time dilation, wave particle duality is still being investigated?

Personally I just find the idea pretty dumb, if anything it just illustrates how easy it  is for creator concepts to arise and take hold. 

GR does more than explain time dilation. It’s shows intricately that the conductivity is space is limited by how much energy/information can be put into a frame of reference. Time dilation is simply a consequence of limit C. C is simply a limit for massive objects because they need more and more energy to propel them faster and faster the amount of energy needed to reach C grows exponentially but can never actually reach C because of mathematical curving. Even in a particle accelerator, a tiny massive object would take more energy in a billion universes to actually reach it. It’s a number like pie that stretches off into infinity. Objects without mass don’t need energy to move and always travel at C anyway. 

This is exactly what happens in simulations. As a frame of reference starts to contain more and more information it starts to take up a significant portion of processing power. The result is lag. The frame rate starts to slow. It demonstrates that there is a limit to natures ability to process information. This is exactly what we would expect from a simulation for the same reasons.  

I it’s the same sort of thing with wave particle duality. Superposition is a state where the location of a particle spreads out across the entire universe as a probability when it no longer is needed to interact with another. It’s governed by a function. Manifestation behaves like a “wave” because that function is a bell curve probability. And when the particle is supposed to manifest it manifests somewhere along the curve out to infinity. Of course the most likely manifestation is at the top of the wave because it’s a probability function and that is the apex of the average. 

The exact thing happens in a simulation. There is no need to manifest and calculate relative position for any particular pixel/object or whatever until it is needed to interact with the rest of the simulation. It would take waaaayyyy to much processing power to manifest the whole game at one time. Instead it is stored as a function. It is quite clear that fundamental  reality is conserving processing power exactly as we would expect from a “computer” with massive but finite processing power. 

Thats not all. Dark matter is predicted as well and may very well give us enough information to actually calculate the memory potential of the universe. For every particle that can manifest ( the rest of the unseen game) new gravity would have to manifest as well to maintain the laws of physics. If new gravity is introduced upon manifestation then the whole system comes tumbling down. Instead the universe cleverly includes the extra gravity we need to compensate for the full capacity of the simulation should it manifest. In short, the extra gravity is the gravity of particles in superposition but the particles do not have a location, so the gravity patiently waits in the likely places. This would also be why dark matter doesn't form dark matter planets or black holes or congregate around planets and stars where dark matter can’t specifically be detected . It’s simply a gravity glow of sorts.

Since we can calculate C, and we can detect the extra capacity through the extra gravity, there should be enough information there to start make other predictions as well. If they turn out to explain things we can’t and make predictions we can observe, then we are on a new path. 

Think about it. Real things don’t go away just because someone doesn't like the implications. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Dude.............

 

 

Really?

Hahahha of course. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

What else explains the value of c ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

Are you sure? Why? How do you know that? Is math not an observation? I can take a set of  numbered blocks and arrange them and easily discover, observationally, that there are a finite amount of permutations. Knowing this, I don’t not have to do all the permutations if I have even a million different blocks. I know that they are finite. 

The standard model is pretty damn robust. I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude that ultimately the number of types of subatomic particles is finite. 

Just like the blocks, the permutations will be massive, but they are also finite. 

Now is our existence random or ultimately deterministic. Neither matters. The fact that we are here is a proof positive observation that we can be here. This is without  doubt a greater than zero probability. All we need is enough time and the permutation that is exactly us will come around again. It’s completely inevitable precisely based on observation. You are currently observing that permutation and therefore, you know it must be true. To question it, you have to bring another entity into the equation that would  prevent the permutation from reoccurring at some point.

— FYI, I don’t believe this personally, but that is just a belief. This is the most logical consequence to a deterministic universe, and it is observable. I find it pretty fantastic, and deeply troubling that it may consign those who have had miserable lives to an eternity of undeserved hell, but also motivating to live a good life. It’s one thing to make sure you live a good life if you only have one, it’s entirely another considering that it might be your eternity, but of course it also means we don’t really have a choice. Obviously your eternity is in jeopardy living like that.   As I already mention only in the unlikely events of a creator god or a only one big Bang scenario does this existence not become constant. —

 

Math is not an observation... Just s tool used to describe, predict or filter out observations.

The 'building blocks' are finite as far as we know but the way they react, their movements, interactions, frame of reference, energy etcetera are all infinite. 

Maybe it's just my biased opinion as I ascribed to a Many World's Interpretation and CCC. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

What else explains the value of c ?

Nothing. It appears to be a constant of our universe.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Nothing. It appears to be a constant of our universe.

Enigmatic !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
54 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Enigmatic !

Basically, sort of like pi. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

For obvious reasons. Hard for an underwater species to conquer fire as well, which makes an industrial revolution possible.

We were once an underwater species as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

What sharks?

For obvious reasons. Hard for an underwater species to conquer fire as well, which makes an industrial revolution possible.

There is no end goal. We are the product of our environment and how we fit into niches.

Image result for king shark

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
12 hours ago, danydandan said:

Nothing. It appears to be a constant of our universe.

The value of C is easily explained. It’s because of mathematical curving. As an object increases in speed, so does its relative mass ( same as inertial mass) . To accelerate a more massive object you need more energy. More relative mass more energy. You can graph the energy needs of massive objects to be further accelerated. It curves upwards and eventually becomes vertical. This means that eventually even a little bit more acceleration would require all the energy in the universe. Keep in mind that the value C is never actually reached only approached. Trying to get to C with a massive object requires infinite energy. C is a mathematical function. I imagine somewhere deep in the subatomic particle and force carrier world we are looking at the drag created by the Higgs boson. Think of trying to push a snow ball as it gets bigger with every roll. Eventually all the men in the world couldn’t push it anymore, or you can imagine dividing something in half. You can never reach zero. You can only get closer and closer. 

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
13 hours ago, danydandan said:

Math is not an observation... Just s tool used to describe, predict or filter out observations.

The 'building blocks' are finite as far as we know but the way they react, their movements, interactions, frame of reference, energy etcetera are all infinite. 

Maybe it's just my biased opinion as I ascribed to a Many World's Interpretation and CCC. 

Many worlds has the basically the same conclusion, but the Copenhagen interpretation actually does a much better job at describing other known phenomena from the josephsnon’s junction to the Casimere effect. 

Im not sure those permutations have any reason to be infinite. In a deterministic universe, At any given Big Bang, original conditions lead to one sort of universe, then the next marginal condition, whatever that may be, leads to another. Even if there are exhaustive amounts of  initial conditions, which I think there likely are, only some can be stable and average initial conditions will be most prevalent. We no doubt are the average, but even if we are the lottery will come up again, and the initial conditions that lead to us will again arise.  

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 12/6/2019 at 3:25 AM, OverSword said:

And yet you commented on it.  Just click the arrow in the upper right corner of a quote to take you back to the original.  In a few clicks you'll see what I said.  But if memory serves what I said was Jesus didn't speak the words attributed to him they were a verse about Jesus in John.  Lead me logically how me pointing that out is the equivalent of me saying God is malevolent and is on the side of the devil or whatever you accused me of.

So follow me here, do you actually think that Jesus didn't come to defeat evil?  Or do you think the John quote isn't true, despite being in the Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
16 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

So follow me here, do you actually think that Jesus didn't come to defeat evil?  Or do you think the John quote isn't true, despite being in the Bible?

Just because it is quoted in the bible does not make it true.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

The value of C is easily explained. It’s because of mathematical curving. As an object increases in speed, so does its relative mass ( same as inertial mass) . To accelerate a more massive object you need more energy. More relative mass more energy. You can graph the energy needs of massive objects to be further accelerated. It curves upwards and eventually becomes vertical. This means that eventually even a little bit more acceleration would require all the energy in the universe. Keep in mind that the value C is never actually reached only approached. Trying to get to C with a massive object requires infinite energy. C is a mathematical function. I imagine somewhere deep in the subatomic particle and force carrier world we are looking at the drag created by the Higgs boson. Think of trying to push a snow ball as it gets bigger with every roll. Eventually all the men in the world couldn’t push it anymore, or you can imagine dividing something in half. You can never reach zero. You can only get closer and closer. 

All that and you didn't explain the constant. 

2 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

Many worlds has the basically the same conclusion, but the Copenhagen interpretation actually does a much better job at describing other known phenomena from the josephsnon’s junction to the Casimere effect. 

Im not sure those permutations have any reason to be infinite. In a deterministic universe, At any given Big Bang, original conditions lead to one sort of universe, then the next marginal condition, whatever that may be, leads to another. Even if there are exhaustive amounts of  initial conditions, which I think there likely are, only some can be stable and average initial conditions will be most prevalent. We no doubt are the average, but even if we are the lottery will come up again, and the initial conditions that lead to us will again arise.  

All my research in silicon photonics has lead me to come to no real conclusion...of either interpretation. Both are simply mathematical tools. 

But carrying on about infinite vs finite I actually don't know. No one does, I honestly have no real opinion either way. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
14 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Just because it is quoted in the bible does not make it true.

So for you then the Bible is not the inerrant word of God?  Interesting, seeing as how some would class that as heresy.  I however am on your side.  I in fact see little or no truth in the Bible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 12/6/2019 at 2:42 PM, White Crane Feather said:

GR does more than explain time dilation. It’s shows intricately that the conductivity is space is limited by how much energy/information can be put into a frame of reference. Time dilation is simply a consequence of limit C. C is simply a limit for massive objects because they need more and more energy to propel them faster and faster the amount of energy needed to reach C grows exponentially but can never actually reach C because of mathematical curving. Even in a particle accelerator, a tiny massive object would take more energy in a billion universes to actually reach it. It’s a number like pie that stretches off into infinity. Objects without mass don’t need energy to move and always travel at C anyway. 

This is exactly what happens in simulations. As a frame of reference starts to contain more and more information it starts to take up a significant portion of processing power. The result is lag. The frame rate starts to slow. It demonstrates that there is a limit to natures ability to process information. This is exactly what we would expect from a simulation for the same reasons.  

I it’s the same sort of thing with wave particle duality. Superposition is a state where the location of a particle spreads out across the entire universe as a probability when it no longer is needed to interact with another. It’s governed by a function. Manifestation behaves like a “wave” because that function is a bell curve probability. And when the particle is supposed to manifest it manifests somewhere along the curve out to infinity. Of course the most likely manifestation is at the top of the wave because it’s a probability function and that is the apex of the average. 

The exact thing happens in a simulation. There is no need to manifest and calculate relative position for any particular pixel/object or whatever until it is needed to interact with the rest of the simulation. It would take waaaayyyy to much processing power to manifest the whole game at one time. Instead it is stored as a function. It is quite clear that fundamental  reality is conserving processing power exactly as we would expect from a “computer” with massive but finite processing power. 

Thats not all. Dark matter is predicted as well and may very well give us enough information to actually calculate the memory potential of the universe. For every particle that can manifest ( the rest of the unseen game) new gravity would have to manifest as well to maintain the laws of physics. If new gravity is introduced upon manifestation then the whole system comes tumbling down. Instead the universe cleverly includes the extra gravity we need to compensate for the full capacity of the simulation should it manifest. In short, the extra gravity is the gravity of particles in superposition but the particles do not have a location, so the gravity patiently waits in the likely places. This would also be why dark matter doesn't form dark matter planets or black holes or congregate around planets and stars where dark matter can’t specifically be detected . It’s simply a gravity glow of sorts.

Since we can calculate C, and we can detect the extra capacity through the extra gravity, there should be enough information there to start make other predictions as well. If they turn out to explain things we can’t and make predictions we can observe, then we are on a new path. 

The problem is mathematically this is what should happen in a natural universe too, everything is proportional. What we aren't seeing is reasons to think this is all a simulation. No glitches. No unnatural instances, no occasional failures. Nothing. It's not like a trail we are following, it's more a 'what if' as a thought experiment that's got a bit out of control.

On 12/6/2019 at 2:42 PM, White Crane Feather said:

Think about it. Real things don’t go away just because someone doesn't like the implications. 

But invoking irrelevant scenarios only convolutes progress. Why bother imagining many vague wild possibilities rather than simply follow the evidence?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
18 hours ago, OverSword said:

We were once an underwater species as well.

And the journey to an industrial revolution requires leaving that environment. Underwater species aren't going to be building rockets because they won't be able of tame fire, which is essential for an industrial revolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
18 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

Image result for king shark

Dude 

That's not an evolved shark. It's a meta human. Dr. Shay Lamden in fact.....

 :rofl: :lol:

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

The problem is mathematically this is what should happen in a natural universe too, everything is proportional. What we aren't seeing is reasons to think this is all a simulation. No glitches. No unnatural instances, no occasional failures. Nothing. It's not like a trail we are following, it's more a 'what if' as a thought experiment that's got a bit out of control.

But invoking irrelevant scenarios only convolutes progress. Why bother imagining many vague wild possibilities rather than simply follow the evidence?

As  mentioned, if it explains and predicts it’s a valid path regardless  of how someone feels about it. Let’s say simulation theory solves dark matter, makes additional predictions about it, and we observe those predictions to be true. Or using C and the quantity of dark matter to figure the processing power and memory capabilities of the universe, and those calculations lead to explain things we can’t at the moment or make predictions we can build contraptions to observe. There isn’t one path, scientific theories getting closer and closer to truth have to be robust and prove themselves. Neglecting a potentially rich direction because of bias is a mistake.  It’s not at all irrelevant. In fact, logically, simulation theory is pretty solid.

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
15 hours ago, danydandan said:

All that and you didn't explain the constant. 

All my research in silicon photonics has lead me to come to no real conclusion...of either interpretation. Both are simply mathematical tools. 

But carrying on about infinite vs finite I actually don't know. No one does, I honestly have no real opinion either way. 

Yeah and don’t be get me wrong, I don’t believe this to be true, it’s just that it is the logical consequences to a deterministic  universe. I don’t happen to believe that the universe is entirely deterministic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

No glitches. No unnatural instances, no occasional failures.

Some of our work takes us into virtual particles, quantum fluctuations and the often strange Casimir effect. 

I suppose if you wanted to you could consider these glitches..... Sort of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Yeah and don’t be get me wrong, I don’t believe this to be true, it’s just that it is the logical consequences to a deterministic  universe. I don’t happen to believe that the universe is entirely deterministic.

I just fail to justify even thinking about it seriously. There are too many unknown variables to even try make a logical argument for either side. Doing so is will lead to a propositional fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Some of our work takes us into virtual particles, quantum fluctuations and the often strange Casimir effect. 

I suppose if you wanted to you could consider these glitches..... Sort of. 

One of my young students that has grown up and moved on to life is working on Quantum materials at Harvard. She has told me all kinds of crazy crap that just isn’t all the exciting to make into out to laymen like me. It’s  sounds like you are doing really interesting work. I wish I would have chosen a route like that. I am for my second career though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I just fail to justify even thinking about it seriously. There are too many unknown variables to even try make a logical argument for either side. Doing so is will lead to a propositional fallacy.

I think it’s pretty straight forward myself. Anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.