EmDriver

Binding the atoms together fixes the confinement issue yes, but once physicists figure out how quantum magnetism works, absolute zeroish temps won't even be required. Superconductors at high temperatures is a real possibility and we won't even have to deal with issues that can occur at those temperatures.

As in if the exterior hull of a ship were to be cooled to a temperature to allow for quantum magnetism to occur. The element in question would then need to be able to be at that temperature without compromising it's structure. It would of course be dependent on if there was a way to prevent the waveform from occurring, as that would make it highly unstable.

Would quantum magnetism be able to control the direction of acceleration in a ship due to the effects of Ferrimagnetism, Anti-Ferrimagnetism, Diamagnetism, and Paramagnetism (granted that the exterior hull of said ship was of the same element)?

I'm trying to think of anything that could potentially trigger a circuit in the brain to activate like you were talking about. But yea, it's speculation on top of a speculation so it probably does deviate too off topic.

What do you think the role of having our pineal glands produce the worlds most powerful hallucinogenic by weight would be?

So in theory, if everything did start from a single point, everything would be a chain reaction. Even if a planet were to eject something against it's own gravity, it would still be part of the orginal chain reaction. If we do have the ability to choose when we want to create thrust (and it seems like we created rockets that can go into space, not the universe), our and our constructs' thrust against gravity would create new chain reactions, and modify the orginal chain reaction. The observer turns a superdeterministic universe into a deterministic universe.

Energy Source -> Mass -> Movement -> Gravity -> Acceleration -> Black Hole -> Space-Time -> Superdeterminism -> Universe -> Constructs -> Light -> Observers -> Thrust -> Determinism -> New Constructs

Thx Genady, this dynamic change has convinced me to continue my education.

Genady you honor me, but I don't think I would have the ability to program using a 4 dimensional programming language. I have a computer degree (AA) as well, but it's in graphics. I mean come on, at it's base, it's displayed form is digitized letters and numbers. Were causing lots of little light bulbs to create colors on a monitor to create the illusion that were actually looking at an image. Our universe does this as well but in a much grander and amazing way with more dimensions. People talk about how amazing our video game graphics have gotten and I'm just thinking: if you want to see good graphics just go outside lol. From what I've learned, our DNA just blows my mind. I am so interested in it. I could probably listen to you talk about it for hours. It's ability to fit letters together and fold them in a blink of an eye to create a 3 dimension word just astounds me. I am an autodidact. I spend multiple hours every day researching. Some days I spend 14-15 hours researching if I need to understand something. From the knowledge I have gained, yes, my opinion is that the universe is only relatively real. Oh yea, thanks for catching that grammar error. I got a B in English Comp because it was hard for me. I graduated valedictorian with honors 3.5 GPA.

Right, I agree with you. I know the programming languages we created aren't 4 dimension because I taught myself how to program with one. My knowledge I've researched about DNA being 3 dimensional would be based off of viewing diagrams, reading, and listening to scientists talk about our DNA. Then, whatever happens inside my brain has a result of that information. The time that our universe uses isn't just time like the time constructs we use, so calling it time just wouldn't be accurate. I create mind experiments that could only work if time had more dimensions then us, but I couldn't show you the mathematics as to why that is. I'm better at the other types of logic processes. Based on my interpretation of quantum tunneling experiments the specific "X,Y,Z" coordinates are not being specifically kept track of unless it would be necessary too. From my research of these experiments, there isn't evidence that a wormhole is opening, they teleport because they don't have the energy to pass through barriers like they use in these experiments. The waveform is a way to save tremendous amounts of energy, because keeping track of the exact location and values of every single particle in a universe would take a ridiculous amount of energy. Our programming language isn't designed to see this occurring, but by using constructs that we have created, we can measure quantum effects happening, which then the universe would have to apply specific values for, but only because it had to. What do you think Genady?

Your right! Which is why space-time does exist as a 4th dimension in our universe! The programming languages we created aren't based off 4 dimensions, which is why the scope of what you can do is different. Our DNA is based off 3 dimensions. We created new constructs so that we can take measurements on and try to understand things that we cannot fully perceive. Time does not exist in our universe, only space-time. I'm suggesting that our universe is not locally real, it's relatively real.

Are we remembering the actual present moment, or our perception of what the present moment was?

The actual present moment not existing was what I was insinuating. My approach worked as intended because it led to someone else thinking of it instead of me saying it. By asking how someone can perceive the actual present moment prevents the assumption that someone does not see the actual present moment. Now that more then 1 observer have made a connection, we can now know that the actual present moment does not exist.

Right, but then how do we perceive what is happening in the actual present moment in Andromeda? We must make predictions about what will happen in the future based on what we see in the past.

Wow, talk about creating miscommunications lol. I meant to say we know we have gravity because of acceleration and we know we have energy because we can create thrust against gravity. The construct would be what creates thrust. Was just silly of me to make a post like that when i was tired.

I think the concept of destiny vs random/chaos/chance could be known if we figure out the double slit quantum mechanic experiment. Why does the waveform know that it is being measured in the future and collapse before it's being detected? The concept of luck hasn't been shown to exist. Most cultures have a belief in luck and many do create rituals because they perceive that it will increase their odds of something. We can test this by having someone guess what a chosen number is between 1-10 a 1000 times in a row while they perform their ritual each time. The pattern that emerges is they end up guessing the correct number roughly 10% of the time. What we perceive to be the present is actually not the present moment due to the time it takes light to reach our eyes.

'Post processing' from the model I wrote up yesterday, trying to prove the existence of consciousness still ends up being similar to the set theory issue. This would be due to the fact that the model I wrote up would mean that gravity creates acceleration. We seem to have consciousness, but how do you actually prove to someone that you are sentient? Which there in lies the issue. The model can work without this issue by saying that what creates acceleration is a construct. Doing this would make the model work with our universe not being locally 'real' and what the logic of my mind was realizing in the 3rd paragraph that I wrote up. The fact that quantum tunneling is happening, means that the actual position of where particles are in the universe are only being kept track of relatively and not locally. This is how you would save a tremendous amount of energy to have a universe exist.

Oh yea and of course copy pasta from my thread: About "Penrose and Hammeroff's theory on consciousness: also realized something that I couldn't find anyone doing a test on. Has anyone actually tried creating a mold of a quantum dot that was identical to a microtubule to use as qubits in a quantum computer? If this type of quantum computer (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.020501) was created it could possibly get some interesting results." I have no idea if that would work or not, I just don't know if anyone has tried that or not.

Gravity itself (self being an entity) is an objective truth (the name is subjective). You need movement (acceleration) to create gravity (so acceleration would exist, and acceleration requires energy so energy would exist). Then that would mean an entity exists because you need an entity to create acceleration. You would need a real space (dimension) to be able to move in so a dimension exists. Gravity is also affected by mass. If mass exists then that means there are at least 3 dimensions. Entities do not exist forever in the same form so time exists. Time is effected by acceleration so time would be a dimension. (This is where it started getting difficult for me) If time and gravity are both affected by acceleration and time is a dimension, what if the dimension where entities accelerate in was gravity itself? What if the entity of gravity was the universe itself? Then that could make the universe itself a blackhole. If the universe (a blackhole) was then an entity, then that could mean an entity WAS consciousness. Energy in our universe would then be whatever power source consciousness was using to itself exist. But, what is consciousness. Consciousness could be another dimension or another universe, but that's all I got at the moment. Well, my idea is that anything that can think and learn from it's mistakes could be able to develop a consciousness. So in theory, if entities were the constructs of consciousness itself but could not think, they wouldn't be able to perceive consciousness. So yes, somehow the act of thinking would allow perception (reality) of consciousness because consciousness would always be present in our universe and would itself have constructs of the mind (entities). Which could explain why everything in the universe follows a similar pattern. Galaxies resemble an atom etc. Your third question then I am referring to life as, is kind of interesting (subjective to my perception). So if entities were constructs of our universe (and the universe a black hole, which a black hole being consciousness), when a construct gains the ability to think and perceive consciousness, the very act of the construct thinking could then give rise to new constructs. Our shown abilities to program an entity using a construct of our mind (numbers) could then develop a consciousness if, it had the ability to think. The act of creating children or offspring of other animals wouldn't need the ability to perceive consciousness because that information is programmed in our very DNA, which consciousness does not appear to be so.

If our realities are how we perceive the truth, then we must shift our understanding to find the truth. In the attempt to create life that is better then ourselves, we attempt to create a better understanding of the truth. That would mean then that we try to use intersubjective reality to create a superior objective reality over and over until we create life that can objectively see the truth?

We can only know what we observe, and how do we know what we observe is true? What we perceive may only be true to the observer. What is better becomes known when a Connection is made with another observer.

Create life that is better then ourselves Survival To create Connections Find balance between pleasure and happiness

I think what is happening here is a misinterpretation of why I am disagreeing with you. I agree with you that there is difference in scope for the programming languages we have created and the complex 3 dimensional language contained within our very own bodies. I'm comparing what is happening in the way information is stored, read, and transmitted in our bodies to how we store, read, and transmit information in our programming languages but in a 3 dimensional way. That is why it similar to the programming languages we created. It's going to have differences because it's a 3 dimensional language. If you are correct and this is compartmentalization in the form of libraries of same functionality, that would mean your assertion that DNA does not contain compartmentalization would be false. Please explain or define why these are libraries of same functionality and not common functionality so the possibility of a miscommunication does not occur. Thoughts in general: I was doing research has I do everyday and found an interesting connection to Penrose and Hammeroff's theory on consciousness. There is something else that effects microtubules which we have solid evidence of, and has an effect on our states of consciousness. 5-MeO-DMT: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-12779-5. We actually produce N,N-Dimethyltryptamine from our pineal glands. I also realized something that I couldn't find anyone doing a test on. Has anyone actually tried creating a mold of a quantum dot that was identical to a microtubule to use as qubits in a quantum computer? If this type of quantum computer (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.020501) was created it could possibly get some interesting results.

Wow I didn't realize how many views this thread has gotten. I then will mention now that the last article I linked was just how I wanted to give an example of what the poster I was replying to was insinuating that I was doing in regards to looking up terms to get a 'counter-argument' too. It's actually a really interesting article about "nuclear phase separation" if anyone is interested in that kind of stuff.

From the article I linked (https://narlikarlab.ucsf.edu/mechanisms-genome-compartmentalization) it mentions: "Such compartmentalization allows diverse transcriptional programs to arise from a single genetic blue print." It also mentions that: "...differential compartmentalization of the same genome into transcriptionally active (euchromatic) and repressed (heterochromatic) states." The euchromatic and heterochromatic states of the same genome are being compared to "libraries with common functionality". These libraries then are used to create "diverse transcriptional programs" from a "single genetic blue print", aka a genome. If you don't like how this is a similarity to a programming language, I'm assuming the same with my previous question (https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Deoxyribonucleic-Acid-Fact-Sheet#:~:text=DNA's instructions are used to,messenger ribonucleic acid%2C or mRNA.). I have another example about compartmentalization in our programming language if you would like to view it: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35077681/. I actually agree with you about the difference of scope for DNA and the programming languages we have created, but for a different reason. Just reiterating information I previously mentioned, a language with more dimensions then another language would have different levels of scope. Simplifying dimensions to create a logical algorithm in the way that we created programming languages makes it easier to program, but there is fundamentally less that you can actually manipulate by using less dimensions.