Is A Binary Universe Best?

[Immanuel]

I'm new here and this is my first topic post. Digital Physics is still theory, thus the mods may move this topic to Pseudoscience or Speculation, but I'd prefer it remain in Philosophy - because I believe that we exist in a binary computer universe. This is not speculation to me, even though I can't prove it scientifically. However:

 

http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/is-the-universe-a-computer-new-evidence-emerges

 

The above link contains other related links and even a video featuring "University of Maryland physicist, James Gates Jr. Dr. Gates is working on a branch of physics called supersymmetry. In the process of his work hes discovered the presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles."

 

I joined this forum to (1) ask you to assume that we exist in a computer of some sort, so (2) I can query you folks re what you think would be the best code to create and build a world(s) like ours within.

 

If you've not given this topic much thought, I'd like to report--as someone who has--that it leads to redefined philosophical adventures from free will (life is a digital recording) to economy of energy and matter (life is a dream not unlike a computer-generated hologram) and all other otherwise unexplainable subjects (including the bizarre, such as this dreamlike world being both flat AND round...depending on said economy and/or how each individual observer is programmed to perceive, or believe).

 

And if you don't believe that our existence is composed of just 1's and 0's... Then why do you believe that, instead?

[ajb]

In the process of his work hes discovered the presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles."

To be a little more precise, you are referring to the graphical representation of supersymmetric algebras known as Adinkra symbols. And indeed Gates and his coworkers discovered some relation to Hamming codes. Gates then suggests, quite speculatively that codes like computer codes maybe a fundamental aspect of nature. It is a big leap, but a fun one to consider, that mathematical structures of supersymmetric representation theory suggest we are living in some kind of 'computer'. How knows and what does this even mean!

[Immanuel]

One thing it means is that time travel would actually mean just traveling through past archives of day to day life. And travel to the future would ALSO mean perusing past files. Explain: I say that our future must terminate due to a critical mass of data corruption necessarily caused by people; free will is an illusion brought to you by the software we operate under and this free will software is incredibly robust; believable - so since we would (if we had true free will) destroy ourselves and the planet, the freewill software does the same.

 

Behind the scenes of this binary-code-world we live in, there are lots of more modified and specialized minor codes operating, but why would we exist within a simple 1+0 system? Idk, maybe we DO live within some Hyper-Awesome Perfect Code...camouflaged under a bunch of misleadingly clunky old binary facades.

 

Oh - one more thing. It would also mean that we have an intelligent Creator. This world might've taken 10 trillion years to perfect and now it (or any of us) can be copy-n-pasted in 10 trillionth of a second. And no, I didn't start this post to further a personal Creationism agenda. But for transparency: I know we have a Creator. And I know that She also created evolution (:

Edited February 4, 2016 by Immanuel

[Daecon]

Why could it not be just an ordinary (if interesting) facet of the mathematics underlying the physical Universe, such as fractals or the Fibonacci sequence? Why should it imply some kind of divine "programmer"?

[Immanuel]

Could be, Daecon. She once told me, "Everything is possible". Mind you - this doesn't imply that everything must be done, or even tried.

 

And if I'm delusional, then you can keep your admittedly profitable acuity. And if I'm dreaming, then I guess I'm just working on my own cut-n-paste universe within me. Cue Luke 17:21, "...the kingdom of God is within you." The kingdom of God is the Earth.

 

You think I quote Jesus, but that old FireGod Jesus didn't say the above. Immanuel did. And I am in no way religious. I won't preach the trojans, viruses or adware of God, ever.

[metacogitans]

Not much in the universe follows a binary logic (there are a few examples, such as DNA, or positive and negative electric charges) however, the analog frequency of waves is intrinsically unique; no matter how much binary you use to express analog frequency, the binary will be flawed.

 

If I had to tap into my knowledge of psychology, I'd say you reject the real world (mostly the people in it) for being what you see as 'flawed' - while the world of binary and computers can not be flawed; it can be either "on or off", "yes or no", or else it won't work.

[Immanuel]

"you reject the real world...as 'flawed' - while..

computers can not be flawed..."

 

Well, computers are flawed, but a divine computer? not so much. But no, to answer, I'm quite creative, so I love flaws, outright mistakes and all of the accidents powering the Evolution of Everything, to the point of worship.

 

By the way, is it really your opinion that the created things within a binary computer universe must also be demonstrably binary, as a result?

 

The above is kind of a trick question. Because our binary code foundation is not yet obvious; it's undetectable, for now. Obviously. So you can't intelligently use that fact to counter my claim that the U operates with binary code.

 

If you wanted to create your own universe/existence-

 

Would YOU build it upon 20th century 1's & 0's?

[Endy0816]

Personally I would probably just place limits on measurement, but entirely possible to simulate analog via feeding in random numbers.

 

Some things we can look for to see if we're in a program. Glitches. Memory limitations. Access to variables from outside the simulation, that normally change at a reliable rate but would appear jump during a reload. Deliberate or sudden changes to the simulation.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Endy0816

[Immanuel]

re: Endy0816,

 

"Some things we can look for to see if we're in a program. Glitches..."

 

You win a cigar. There's miles of very absorbing YouTube videos about anomalies; 'glitches in the matrix'; disappearances and so on, but I recently discovered some truly titillating personal stories by diverse folk about their confounding glitches.

 

I bet Einstein used to hear these all the time. And Hawking must be sick of them, by now, lol.

 

http://time-slips.blogspot.ca/?m=1

●and●

http://timeslipaccounts.blogspot.ca/?m=1

Edited February 7, 2016 by Immanuel

[Daecon]

I bet quantum entanglement saves a lot of processing power.

[Immanuel]

Good point, Daecon. A quantum state could be a true binary state.

 

I should mention slave will, for half a mo', too, though.

 

○"...it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design.○

 

There are no heroes. No villains. No accomplishments. No failures. No sin. No hell. Not even any Gods (none as advertised, anyway).

 

○"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills...'" Einstein, from "My Credo".○

 

This is a recording.

 

○"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walks to direct his steps." Jeremiah 10:23.○

 

Cut-n-paste: We're zapped back and forth through time. And we're programmed to not notice such a thing.

 

○"We must believe in free will, we have no choice." Isaac Bashevas Singer.○

 

When I speak these things out to folks, emotions usually run high - sometimes even hot! But what do YOU think about this conclusion that me and Einstein and Hawking and Jeremiah and Singer (and all other great thinkers have reached?

 

-edited to add that smiley face, there.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Immanuel

[Daecon]

You know the Bible isn't a science text, right?

[Immanuel]

Daecon: "You know the Bible isn't a science text, right?"

 

No wonder I flunked chemistry 😲

[Gees]

Immanuel;

 

What a delightful and fun thread. I very much enjoyed the links you provided. But really Immanuel, how can you ask which Universe is "Best", like I have a choice, while telling me that there is no free will -- so I don't have a choice?

 

One thing it means is that time travel would actually mean just traveling through past archives of day to day life. And travel to the future would ALSO mean perusing past files.

 

Sign me up! How do you expect that I will travel?

 

Explain: I say that our future must terminate due to a critical mass of data corruption necessarily caused by people; free will is an illusion brought to you by the software we operate under and this free will software is incredibly robust; believable - so since we would (if we had true free will) destroy ourselves and the planet, the freewill software does the same.

 

I believe they said the same thing in the movie, the Matrix. There was an explanation by the "robot" person that humans would not accept a perfect world, so the robots gave them an imperfect world. I don't usually accept my philosophy from movies, and would like a better, and more believable, explanation. I don't see your logic.

Behind the scenes of this binary-code-world we live in, there are lots of more modified and specialized minor codes operating, but why would we exist within a simple 1+0 system? Idk, maybe we DO live within some Hyper-Awesome Perfect Code...camouflaged under a bunch of misleadingly clunky old binary facades.

 

The idea of a binary-code-universe does not upset me much, as I have heard lots of theories about a digital universe, but I doubt that the universe is simple. Oh, it might start out simple, like a 1 0 system, but that does not mean that it remains simple.

 

I am a philosopher, who studies consciousness, and find that there are some very compatible ideas when comparing the unconscious aspect of mind, and the little I understand about quantum physics. Neither one of them give two hoots about time, the unconscious "thinks" in terms of relationships, or entanglements, and they both start out with very basic language: 1 0 for computers or quantum physics, and more/less and self/other for mind. They both work with an "equal" in their formulations. So there seems to be more that is similar than different in the way they compute.

 

The term "supersymmetry" was new to me, so I got on YouTube and found a video by Don Lincoln. He is a physicist, who can actually explain things to people like me, who know nothing about physics. If I understood him correctly, supersymmetry is simply error correction codes that can be built into a mathematical theory, which when used correctly, will bring things back to a "whole" -- or symmetry.

 

This is very much like what philosophy has known for a long time, that everything is self-balancing, only now we have a way to explain how it self balances. I suspect that supersymmetry is going to become extremely valuable and open a lot of doors to science.

Oh - one more thing. It would also mean that we have an intelligent Creator. This world might've taken 10 trillion years to perfect and now it (or any of us) can be copy-n-pasted in 10 trillionth of a second. And no, I didn't start this post to further a personal Creationism agenda. But for transparency: I know we have a Creator. And I know that She also created evolution (:

 

No it does not "mean that we have an intelligent Creator". Because a computer code mimics reality, it does not mean that reality mimics a computer code -- nor does it mean that someone had to create the universe's computer and code. You have things backward and are assuming much.

 

An intelligent creator is as necessary to the universe as Poisidan was necessary to move the tides.

 

In my opinion

 

Gee

[Immanuel]

Hay Gees,

 

So yerra philosopher. Excellent. Kinda startled me when you mentioned that the mind is a cruncher of "...more/less and self/other..." computations. Gonna be mullin' that one over. And as for your 1st para., that's some intro-humor, lol.

 

As for 'time traveling' in past & future archives, you asked, "How?". Well, there are many you's on many planet Earths 'out there' (each 'you' having a diff destiny) and each world is an archive. Now, IF you're destined (authorised) to move from this world to another, the Universe-El Computer moves your soul from this 'you' here to that 'you' there, usu during sleep. The tech req'd to travel physically to a parallel world will not be achieved by man, before Endtime in late 2018. As for mind-traveling to a parallel world? it's sketchy, difficult. But: Asking the Universe-El Computer if you could meaningfully witness Christ or Caesar or Elvis IS possible; however, few if any have asked because few if any know about all this.

 

When I mentioned "...free will software is incredibly robust; believable...", you mentioned The Matrix movie (which I've not seen) and said you'd need a better explanation. OK: The illusion of free will is so effective that we seldom detect any illusion. Everything SEEMS to happen for a reason. Our unwavering belief in our own free will was devised by our Mother/Creator to fuel guilt via belief in our own sins (enter: the further illusionary necessity of God). Thereby, we accept (even crave) punishment. Punishment = Adversity. And to overcome Adversity is the meaning of life, it makes us more and More; better and Better. Such is the ongoing evolution of each of our individual Spirits. The Spirit is the thing, not these pre-programmed prison-planet-vessels (bodies).

 

When you next made reference to supersymmetry's error correcting codes, I suddenly thought of those same correcting codes fighting anyone trying to transfer to--or even just visit--parallel worlds. Without the U-Computer allowing you to invade an archived world (incl'g the archives of this world), then YOU are just another error in that other parallel world...that needs correcting 😊

 

And then ta-daa your big finish (and wotta show, folks!), where your fabulous show-stopper went like this: 'No it does not "mean that we have an intelligent Creator"'.

 

Good golly Gees - if we live in a computer? I mean...not sayin we DO (although we do ...

 

But if we do, then my final closer, that, "It would also mean that we have an intelligent Creator" would have to be true. The Big Bang could maybe create flowers and humans, okay.

 

But A Universe-sized computer potentially infinitely more advanced than your desktop?

 

Anyway, glad you're a philospher. The onboard scienticians would ping-pong like rubber monkeys after reading this one.

 

●as always, I save to lock-in and then edit to proof-read & correct stuff.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Immanuel

[ajb]

If I understood him correctly, supersymmetry is simply error correction codes that can be built into a mathematical theory, which when used correctly, will bring things back to a "whole" -- or symmetry.

No!

 

Supersymmetry is a non-classical (ie. not described by Lie groups or Lie algebras) that 'rotates' a bosonic state into a fermionic state and vice versa. On the face of it, there is nothing to do with correction codes. It was Gates and his collaborators who noticed that their graphical description of the representation theory of supersymmetric algebras was mathematically related to such codes. I am not sure that this has yet had much impact on the people working with supersymmetry and related things.

 

 

I suspect that supersymmetry is going to become extremely valuable and open a lot of doors to science.

It is fundamental in much of our models that are beyond the standard model of particle physics. For example, string theory relies on supersymmetry.

[Immanuel]

More advanced viewers might want to access the 2010 "Binary Universe Theory" thread, by Vindictive:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/20320-binary-universe-theory.html

 

By 'quanta', Vindictive surely means 'the smallest unit of energy (read: matter) in existence' - btw I believe quantum theory invokes same.

 

He speculates, "In my Binary Model, the universe operates on fractal variations of 2 laws and 2 elements.

 

"Space/time

"Quanta

"The law of conservation of energy

"No two quanta can occupy the same space/time".

 

Because he caveat'ed 'fractal variations', he's basically correct except on the last point. Two different quanta (in this case energy or light packets) CAN occupy the same space+time, because the dark matter receiver/senders (which do not exist materially) can real-time-compress and decide on a send-process for up to 7 quanta. Even splitting receiver resources to accommodate 2 quanta causes weird effects, but an 8th would break down its gravity parameters (crowding receiver/senders into 8-level-compression cancels gravity within a pre-defined area of receivers surrounding the crowded receiver).

 

Noteworthy: I call these quanta Alphalights, or Alpha Particles (not of Rutherford/Villard). Both the receivers and fainter forces exist below the material-threshold, even though their effects affect matter. For instance, there 'non-materially exists' a faint force which could...could...interface with a specific human brainwave to enable reliable (even infallible) ESP; it seems to be the undetectable carrier of all prerecorded activity.

 

I'll conclude by cautioning that,at these sub-matter realms, what we perceive as reality, diminishes. And profoundly unfathomable forces reign.

[Strange]

More advanced viewers might want to access the 2010 "Binary Universe Theory" thread, by Vindictive:.

 

By "advanced" I assume you mean gullible.

 

By 'quanta', Vindictive surely means 'the smallest unit of energy (read: matter) in existence' - btw I believe quantum theory invokes same.

 

I have no idea if that is what he means, but it is not what it means in quantum theory.

 

 

Because he caveat'ed 'fractal variations', he's basically correct except on the last point.

 

What evidence is there that he is "correct"?

I assume he threw "fractal" in there as another meaningless buzz-word.

 

Two different quanta (in this case energy or light packets) CAN occupy the same space+time, because the dark matter receiver/senders (which do not exist materially) can real-time-compress and decide on a send-process for up to 7 quanta.

 

Bosons can occupy the same state because they obey Bose-Einstein statistics. This has nothing to do with "dark matter receiver/senders", which seems to be a something you have made up.

 

Even splitting receiver resources to accommodate 2 quanta causes weird effects, but an 8th would break down its gravity parameters (crowding receiver/senders into 8-level-compression cancels gravity within a pre-defined area of receivers surrounding the crowded receiver).

 

Evidence?

 

Noteworthy: I call these quanta Alphalights, or Alpha Particles (not of Rutherford/Villard). Both the receivers and fainter forces exist below the material-threshold, even though their effects affect matter. For instance, there 'non-materially exists' a faint force which could...could...interface with a specific human brainwave to enable reliable (even infallible) ESP; it seems to be the undetectable carrier of all prerecorded activity.

 

How is "undetectable" different from "non-existent"?

 

I'll conclude by cautioning that,at these sub-matter realms, what we perceive as reality, diminishes. And profoundly unfathomable forces reign

 

I'll conclude by cautioning readers that you are just making stuff up.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Strange

[Endy0816]

There are real reasons to wonder, but subcribing to woo rather than looking at actual science is pointless.

[swansont]

Not much in the universe follows a binary logic (there are a few examples, such as DNA, or positive and negative electric charges)

 

Even less, then, because neither of those examples are binary. DNA has four possibilities (ACTG) and since things can have zero charge, that has three possible states.

[Moontanman]

Is this where I postulate twin universes each with a opposite time directions compared to the other but each perceiving time as being perceptible as forward only? Makes as much sense... maybe with both occupying the same space in 3D but traveling in different directions 4D? wow how far can this speculation be taken... oh yeah the big bang was a 4D expansion into 5D space...

Edited February 8, 2016 by Moontanman

[Immanuel]

The world(s) end(s) in 2018 for many logical reasons, but simply put, it's because that's when its pre-recorded lifespan should best end. We don't have to wait until "the universe collapes upon itself in the last minutes of time". And by the by, the only judgment coming on that day will be the Son of man's judgment of "Innocent". For all.

 

All of the following text was copied from Kelly's article...

 

 

Kevin Kelly 12/01/02 12:00 PM Wired Magazine

 

"God Is The Machine"

 

...The Physics of Immortality, by Frank Tipler. If this book was labeled standard science fiction, no one would notice, but Tipler is a reputable physicist and Tulane University professor who writes papers for the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. In Immortality, he uses current understandings of cosmology and computation to declare that all living beings will be bodily resurrected after the universe dies. His argument runs roughly as follows: As the universe collapses upon itself in the last minutes of time, the final space-time singularity creates (just once) infinite energy and computing capacity. In other words, as the giant universal computer keeps shrinking in size, its power increases to the point at which it can simulate precisely the entire historical universe, past and present and possible. He calls this state the Omega Point. It is a computational space that can resurrect "from the dead" all the minds and bodies that have ever lived. The weird thing is that Tipler was an atheist when he developed this theory and discounted as mere "coincidence" the parallels between his ideas and the Christian doctrine of Heavenly Resurrection. Since then, he says, science has convinced him that the two may be identical.

 

...theorists like Deutsch endorse his physics. An Omega Computer is possible and probably likely, they say.

 

I asked Tipler which side of the Fredkin gap he is on. Does he go along with the weak version of the ultimate computer, the metaphorical one, that says the universe only seems like a computer? Or does he embrace Fredkin's strong version, that the universe is a 12 billion-year-old computer and we are the killer app? "I regard the two statements as equivalent," he answered. "If the universe in all ways acts as if it was a computer, then what meaning could there be in saying that it is not a computer?"

 

Only hubris.

 

●Full article: http://www.wired.com/2002/12/holytech/

[Strange]

The world(s) end(s) in 2018 for many logical reasons, but simply put, it's because that's when its pre-recorded lifespan should best end.

 

Pre-recorded where? And how do you know this? There is hardly a year goes by without some nutty crowd announcing the end of the world. Oddly, none of them have been right so far. (Unless I have missed something big.)

 

What are you going to say in 2019? That you got the calculation wrong and it is actually 2028? Or ...

Edited February 9, 2016 by Strange

[Daecon]

I'd love to hear the "logical reasons" behind this. Did the Mayan calendar not take into account the change between Julian and Gregorian or something?

Edited February 9, 2016 by Daecon

[Gees]

Immanuel;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

Hay Gees,

So yerra philosopher. Excellent.

 

I am a philosopher by nature and habit, not by formal training. Because I trained myself, I tend to analyze things while looking for simple truths that I can trust to be true. And generally, I do not waste my time on the formal debates like free will v determinism, monism v dualism, nature v nurture, or science v religion, as I see them as training tools for argument. Most of these ideas are in reality conclusions based in speculation, idealism, and/or beliefs with little truth involved.

 

Kinda startled me when you mentioned that the mind is a cruncher of "...more/less and self/other..." computations. Gonna be mullin' that one over. And as for your 1st para., that's some intro-humor, lol.

 

You know that a computer requires DOS in order to work. There must be some basic rules and regulations that will allow the information to be computed. In mind, we call these basic rules innate knowledge, which means that this is something that comes with the hardware. We have been studying what constitutes innate knowledge v learned knowledge since the Ancients, and it is generally agreed that "more/less", "equal", and "same/difference" are innate ideas.

 

These innate ideas are relative to all life, that we know of, and can be demonstrated. A small fish, when released, if given a choice of schools, will join the bigger school of fish for protection (more/less), but will try to avoid a large fish of the same dimensions because it is a different specie (same/difference). The idea of "self/other" may not be innate for all species, as all species may not be able to recognize "self", such as plant life, but it is innate for all mammals, and probably more.

 

If you are interested in the idea of "self/other", you can learn more about it here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_cognition

"Implicit egotism[edit]

Implicit egotism refers to the unconscious tendency of people to prefer things that resemble the self.[6] I"

The idea of self/other is at the root of unconscious prejudice.

 

As for 'time traveling' in past & future archives, you asked, "How?". Well, there are many you's on many planet Earths 'out there' (each 'you' having a diff destiny) and each world is an archive. Now, IF you're destined (authorised) to move from this world to another, the Universe-El Computer moves your soul from this 'you' here to that 'you' there, usu during sleep. The tech req'd to travel physically to a parallel world will not be achieved by man, before Endtime in late 2018. As for mind-traveling to a parallel world? it's sketchy, difficult. But: Asking the Universe-El Computer if you could meaningfully witness Christ or Caesar or Elvis IS possible; however, few if any have asked because few if any know about all this.

Some evidence of the "many you's" please?

 

Some evidence on the "move from this world to another" please?

 

Some evidence on "Endtime in late 2018" please?

 

This whole paragraph looks sketchy to me.

When I mentioned "...free will software is incredibly robust; believable...", you mentioned The Matrix movie (which I've not seen) and said you'd need a better explanation. OK: The illusion of free will is so effective that we seldom detect any illusion. Everything SEEMS to happen for a reason. Our unwavering belief in our own free will was devised by our Mother/Creator to fuel guilt via belief in our own sins (enter: the further illusionary necessity of God). Thereby, we accept (even crave) punishment. Punishment = Adversity. And to overcome Adversity is the meaning of life, it makes us more and More; better and Better. Such is the ongoing evolution of each of our individual Spirits. The Spirit is the thing, not these pre-programmed prison-planet-vessels (bodies).

You really should consider renting the Matrix. It would help you to see that your "theories" are more Hollywood than they are science or philosophy.

 

You have not made an argument that supports the idea that there even is an "illusion of free will". Making a statement is not the same as making an argument.

 

So, if "everything seems to happen for a reason", are you arguing that cause and effect does not actually exist? Not a wise position to take in a science forum.

 

Evidence of "Mother/Creator" please?

 

You seem to be mixing the "guilt" "sin" Christian doctrine with the Eastern philosophies that espouse Fatalism. Are you cherry picking your theologies?

When you next made reference to supersymmetry's error correcting codes, I suddenly thought of those same correcting codes fighting anyone trying to transfer to--or even just visit--parallel worlds. Without the U-Computer allowing you to invade an archived world (incl'g the archives of this world), then YOU are just another error in that other parallel world...that needs correcting 😊

This is all assumption based on speculation without a shred of evidence.

 

And then ta-daa your big finish (and wotta show, folks!), where your fabulous show-stopper went like this: 'No it does not "mean that we have an intelligent Creator"'.

Good golly Gees - if we live in a computer? I mean...not sayin we DO (although we do ...

I don't know what you think philosophy is, but it is not what you have written in this thread. Philosophy, just like science, is based on reality. I will grant that philosophy delves into subjects that science will not, like the unknown, or things that can not be tested or are not physical, but philosophy still has rules.

 

In philosophy the premise, or the idea that you start with, is all important. It must be true, or at least as true as can be ascertained. Then we use logic and reason to explore the implications of this idea, in truth, most of the time we are arguing the validity of the premise itself.

 

This thread is based on a conclusion that is assumed, a computer reality, then there is speculation and more assumption to validate the assumption that you started with. It is unbelievably circular in its logic and is not valid philosophy. You have had ample time to come up with some valid philosophy.

 

This thread belongs in speculations or possibly the garbage.

●as always, I save to lock-in and then edit to proof-read & correct stuff.

 

Try using the "Preview Post" button. It works well for editing, and leaves you in the posting area. Thank you for introducing me to the idea of supersymmetry and time-slips, which sounds a lot better than "paranormal".

 

Gee