Tag Archives: Matrix

How the Universe Works (in 25 minutes)

08 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Consciousness, Faith, Lessons, Philosophy, Science, Universe

≈ 21 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

I hope you have 25 minutes.

Sherman, science makes the world safer and more comfortable..

The two video programs that I’ve selected are simplified of course, but I think that most of you will be satisfied with these as an introduction to how physics fails to fully describe how our universe is constructed.

You’ll see how physics is working toward proof of how the universe works — but that at least two problems prevent this. You may remember from my last article (Religion vs. Science) that physics appears in the science column. So, physics seeks scientific solutions that hold up under intense scrutiny and peer (scientific) review.

[IMG]

Science seeks finite solutions. My first video presentation demonstrates that “infinite sequences of infinities” is a huge physics problem. In a physics theory of everything, mathematical sequences of infinities amount to scientific nonsense (failure). However, we see here, in my updated video selection, infinity is necessary. 

Watch this:

  Science failure! (11 minutes):

With the problem of the infinities holding up a physics of everything, some philosophers began to weigh in, looking into new methods to describe how the universe works. One of them was Michael Talbot. His approach to how the universe works was surprising. According to Talbot, “We are not born into the world. We are born into something that we make into the world.”

Nearly twenty-five years later, his book, “The Holographic Universe” is still astounding and baffling. Unfortunately Talbot died in 1992, shortly after his book release. Other work is more recent. Lynne McTaggart is author of “The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe” and “The Bond: How to Fix Your Falling-Down World” where McTaggart explains her view: “What matters is not the isolated entity, but the space between things, the relationship of things.“ Bullwinkle likes mystical stuff -- not me. I like emperical evidence.These three books (classified as New Age) are good reading even for non-science folk with some curious interest in physics and philosophy.

The second video begins with the Big Bang that is supposed to be the source of our universe. However, the second approach is radically different from the first. This, it turns out, is because of another scientific problem.

We’ll see what happens when new physics addresses what is known as “the measurement problem.”

Here, strange subatomic properties become important; these mysterious forces of invisibility influence particles that may occur in an observation when science attempts to measure them in place differently than laws predict their true nature to be in unobserved states. In this second video, theory concludes that collective observations “make sense” of our universe in the midst of nonsense but that all of the other possibilities still may be. In theory, the act of observation creates a possible reality from among all possible realities.

Watch this:

  Philosophical fix? (10 minutes):  

These thugs aren't scientists and they certainly aren't Christians. They are here though, so, learn to live with them. Maybe we can get them to become civilized. I don't think so - but maybe. They have a lot of changes to prove before I'll trust them.What may be proved? Well, I’m not being fair if I sum it up as science fiction, but that is how some Christians view the current progress of physics.

To be fair, what we have is more than 100 years of advance work in physics and philosophy; exciting and tedious work. I value people that put in tedious work to prove their ideas. Lets not forget that we are reviewing work that originates from altruistic and honorable men and women that worked hard for the advance of science for our benefit. It seems though that science is unable to complete the work; to put theories into a complete proof of how our universe is constructed. Yet, according to some blogs here, the contrary is the case. Apparently they are wrong. Maybe they are referring to theoretical physics? I don’t know.

So far, we’ve seen that physics cannot explain our universe to scientific satisfaction. How reality is constructed is still a mystery.

Science cannot explain gravity beyond the basics of orbits and the motion of stars and planets. Physics breaks down into nonsense as scientists attempt to put together a theory of everything that includes black holes and subatomic particles. We’ve seen that mathematical solutions led to an “infinite sequence of infinities” (failure). 

Next, science tackled the quandary known as “the measurement problem” and again bafflement occurs. We’ve just discovered that science cannot completely describe how physical objects work at a subatomic level. The second video provides the reasons and explores a philosophical fix. The discovery that observation causes elementary particles not to maintain the same state as occur before observation is of course absurd science (a failure for now).

Finally, as yet, physics cannot complete a theory of how gravity works and time/space seems still to be problematic and there actually are other problems that physics must confront including dark matter and additional time/space dimensions (more time/space stuff) and the complete description of how a black hole is constructed.

I read the first cohesive and widely touted book about how the holographic universe is perceived back in 1991. It was hot off the presses. It was appropriately titled “The Holographic Universe” and was written by Michael Talbot.

I was impressed. I loved it. How exciting I thought, “reality is constructed of no physical substance.” My thinking wasn’t entirely accurate, but the book amazed me and it got me thinking outside of the boxes. Thinking about a Holographic Universe isn’t very useful for us though if we’d like to know where we stand in the universe. Still, it was strange and exciting and I became open to learning more.

There is an awful lot to learn in this world.One day, I came about to see it as a science nightmare too. After some thought, I recognized this is exactly where science stands with regards to describing the workings of our universe. Science cannot describe how the universe is physically constructed. As we review what is known, it turns out that observations of subatomic particles that are the basis for reality are skewing the math. Maybe I even have this backwards (in fact I think it is). We can’t learn the deepest secrets about the universe just yet from physics. I was mildly disappointed. I truly believe that mysteries are mostly unnecessary. So, I investigated my religious thinking just as much.

Now, for religious, lets look at the facts again. Science can’t disprove God is real. Additionally, physics can’t completely prove that the physical world even is physical. Lets not throw out biology, chemistry and medicine or geology and earth science. But what of physics? I’m just not feeling that Christians can be trusting of physics. So far, its let us down. All bets about science coming to the rescue to assist us in our efforts to unite with God are off just now.

[IMG]For many Christians, that is our only reason for embracing a science of physics. Most devout Christians don’t need a science that describes the universe accurately. We have sources that we trust from what we value as the highest authority. We know that God is. We know that we are fallen from His presence. We know that God provided for us to unite with Him. Still, Christians ought not throw the baby out with the bath water. Physics is a useful science and it contributes to our earthly comforts and physical well being (although physics may also be used against us by terrorists/enemies).

I want to keep this short enough to not deter readers — so, I’ll explore how science needs religions in a later post. The connection is real enough and we’ve seen this too — every particle that came into our material universe is from an energy source that links every particle to every other particle that ever was or ever will be. Particles are real enough. So is the connection that instantly makes information available even across all of infinity.

Reality is so cool. I do hope that some of you may post your thoughts about my article and where you stand in relationship to the universe. What reconciles you with reality?

Make a comment please. Rocky and Bullwinkle are childhood heroes! Yay! The good guys always win.

Can science prove anything about our physical universe?  Can we trust “laws” regarding the physics of our universe as reliable? I still subscribe to news from the studies of physics. It fascinates me. Does physics and how the universe works fascinate you?

NOTE:  This isn’t a scientist blog.  I’m just a guy thinking about the universe.  If you have any thoughts about it, please,  share what you think. Just, be nice. Thanks!

This post is a follow up from my previous post (Religion vs. Science). I have been posting more on physics and spirituality, consciousness, and spirituality in science on Facebook.

My Facebook,

and groups:
Consciousness Academy of Science and Spirituality (CASS),
and Physics Of The Impossible
.

.

Need help or want to collaborate with me?
Just e-mail me at thehunt4truth@yahoo.com

Check back frequently. I love learning with you.

New post Eric

Related articles (hunt4truth.wordpress.com)

.

.

Advertisement

today in the matrix

25 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by in AI, Bizarre, Entertainment, Funny stuff, Humor, Illusions, Near-death experiences, Philosophy, Strange

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Bonus:

This is a reblog of
Physicists propose test for determining if we’re in the Matrix 
by Bryan Nelson
Wed, Nov 20 2013
Would you take the red pill or the blue pill?
Physicists now claim they can offer the choice.

When the sci-fi film “The Matrix” first hit theaters back in 1999, it inspired a whole new generation of amateur philosophers to ponder whether the world really is as it appears. In the film, sentient machines have subdued humanity by plugging everyone’s brains into a sophisticated computer network that convinces them to believe in a simulated reality.
 .
The film is a play on a philosophical conundrum as old as philosophy itself: How can we know whether the world really is how we perceive it to be?
 .
Now a group of physicists led by Silas Beane of the University of Washington think they have accomplished what centuries of philosophy could not, according to Discover. They believe they have discovered a solution to this age-old mystery. Or at least, they believe they have devised a test that can determine, once and for all, whether we live in a computer simulation like the one in “The Matrix” or not.
 .
Matrix           Photo: Patrick Hoesly/Flickr
 .
Their proposed experiment has been deemed the “cosmic ray test.” It assumes that any simulation of the universe would need to be constructed out of a lattice, or grid, much as television images are built from pixels. The researchers then calculated that such a simulation would require that the fastest particles — or cosmic rays — would always bombard the Earth with a maximum energy amount.
 .
Beane and colleagues surmise that if we do indeed observe a maximum energy amount for the cosmic rays that bombard the Earth, that this should provide confirmation that we really are living in a simulation. (In case you’re wondering, this is what has been observed: cosmic rays always arrive at Earth with a specific maximum energy of about 1020 electron volts.)
 .
So does that decide it then? Is Beane’s experiment proof that we’re living in a simulated universe? Beane himself doesn’t think it matters one way or another: “Learning we live in a simulation would make no more difference to my life than believing that the universe was seeded at the Big Bang,” he suggested. To him, the issue is a mere scientific curiosity.
.
Philosophers aren’t likely to be so easily sated, however. Beane’s test makes a lot of unnecessary assumptions. For instance, it assumes that any simulation of the universe would need to be constructed from a lattice or grid. Perhaps our supergenius simulator overlords have discovered some more advanced way of constructing a simulation.
 .
Beane’s test also can’t rule out the possibility that the universe might actually happen to function like a latticed simulation. In other words, it’s possible that reality and simulated reality are simply perceptively indistinguishable. If such were the case, then no test would suffice. We’d be right back at square one — a place where the scientist must, incontrovertibly, give way to the philosopher.
.

Thanks for visiting.

New post Eric

.

Related articles

.

decision time… what’s it going to be? [edit]

26 Thursday Sep 2013

Posted by in Consciousness, Strange

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

What’s up?

.

.

Do you want to stay in the moment and discover your reality?
Or would you rather just forget now and then wake up in your
bed tomorrow and believe whatever you choose to believe?

 Eric

______________________________________________________________

The blue pill — FANTASY — We wish for life to be run according to our private script that we direct; and all of the participants (from our day) are to take our direction. The story that we make up is in our minds. The participants are directed (we direct them to be as we predict is best for the story). Sometimes the story works for us — we don’t think about the actors so much unless they negotiate their parts.

The red pill — REALITY — opens into an inescapable fact that the world is beyond our individual control. The control was an illusion — everyone has a purpose and we are here for each other to discover together our individual purpose that turns out to be an important part of the story of the universe on its way to rejoining its source.

[ The video links to other content — to other content
that is not be part of my intention for this page. ]

______________________________________________________________

Related articles

.