Is A Binary Universe Best?

[Phi for All]

 

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 ...

 

I've always wanted to know this. What do these groups do afterwards, when their big prediction fails? Do they still meet? Do they fade into the woodwork? Do they move onto another date? Do they suddenly realize they put a lot of faith in nothing at all and change their ways? I'd love to see someone document this. "Life After the Mayan Calendar Says You're Dead".

 

Because of the way confirmation bias works, I suspect they never really give up the belief, but instead figure out another way to make it work. "We didn't calculate for quantum effects! Eddies in the space-time continuum!"

[swansont]

I've always wanted to know this. What do these groups do afterwards, when their big prediction fails? Do they still meet? Do they fade into the woodwork? Do they move onto another date? Do they suddenly realize they put a lot of faith in nothing at all and change their ways? I'd love to see someone document this. "Life After the Mayan Calendar Says You're Dead".

 

Because of the way confirmation bias works, I suspect they never really give up the belief, but instead figure out another way to make it work. "We didn't calculate for quantum effects! Eddies in the space-time continuum!"

He is? What a jerk.

[Phi for All]

He is? What a jerk.

 

He hangs out by the Vogon laundromat.

[Strange]

Because of the way confirmation bias works, I suspect they never really give up the belief, but instead figure out another way to make it work. "We didn't calculate for quantum effects! Eddies in the space-time continuum!"

 

I have heard "the world did end, but we just haven't noticed yet" - this was serious but worthy of Douglas Adams.

 

The other popular one is "we didn't actually say the world was actually going to end; but the process that will result in the end of the world has started (undetectably)". Riiiiight.

Eddies in the space-time continuum!"

 

Is that a song from The Rocky Horror Show?

[Phi for All]

 

Is that a song from The Rocky Horror Show?

 

That was a warp. This is a wash. The space-time wash. (cue music)

The other popular one is "we didn't actually say the world was actually going to end; but the process that will result in the end of the world has started (undetectably)". Riiiiight.

 

Ah, the Inevitability of Our Demise argument. It's because we're so bad and stuff, right?

[studiot]

The trouble with those pesky scienceforum members.

 

They don't know when they have been terminated.

 

They just keep getting up on going on.

 

The world ended yesterdaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

[swansont]

I have heard "the world did end, but we just haven't noticed yet" - this was serious but worthy of Douglas Adams.

 

The other popular one is "we didn't actually say the world was actually going to end; but the process that will result in the end of the world has started (undetectably)". Riiiiight.

 

Is that a song from The Rocky Horror Show?

You already mentioned DA, and then whiff on Eddies in the spacetime continuum?

[Strange]

Ah, so more of a woosh, than a wash. I had completely forgotten that bit.

I'm glad something useful has come out of this thread...

[Immanuel]

Strange said: "...nutty...end of the world [in late 2018]... What are you going to say in 2019?"

A: "Among other things, Let there be light. I said it before and I'll say it again. And again. And so on."

 

Daecon (sarcasm): "Did the Mayan calendar not (etc)..."

A: Even in 2012, I had known for years that this world ends (only to begin again in days of Eden, like always) in 2018. As I recall, the 12/21/2012 calc involved the alignment of the exact center of the sun, seen from earth, with the Galactic Equator. Jean Meeus concluded it would occur in 1998.

For the record, this puts Meeus's Galactic Alignment calc at 1998 - plus or minus 18 years, thus: 1980 to 2016.

 

This alignment happens once every 26,000 years; it was what the Maya meant, re their 2012 bye-bye-date (and they DID mean 'bye-bye').

 

Regarding Meeus, however, his 2016 calc is strongly contested. A 2016 to 2018 envelope is believed to be accurate, though...grabbing a precise date of when the sun really does line up with the Galactic Equator is quite a lofty task - even for astronomers specializing in celestial mechanics (like Meeus).

 

Strange: "Pre-recorded where?"

A: Every planet Earth (as in the multiverse: there are many Earths) is a hard drive.

"God does not play dice." -Einstein, against Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; but logically meant as 'in all things'.

 

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

A: "Hard Evidence for the Multiverse Found..."

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5907

 

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

A: I indicated metaphysical transfer...the world ends before man achieves physical travel to a parallel world. Scientists're closing in fast, but the 2018 Endtime leaves nowhere near enough time for any physical multiverse transfer to be achieved.

Teleportation status quo:

http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n10/full/nphoton.2014.215.html

 

"Evidence of "Mother/Creator" please?"

A: Enter: some KJV proofs (like it or not, boys):

"He" in Hebrew can also mean "she", but the certain knowledge of a female Creator was forbidden ("And he said, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." Exodus 33:20) until I personally came down, in these last days, to this world from My Heaven. To declare and to prove it. (And no, I'm not saying I prove it here in this forum.)

 

Job 38:29, " Out of whose womb came the ice?"

 

Isaiah 46:3, "Israel [which true israel is no longer Jewish, but is now centered around America]...borne by me from the belly..."

 

Isaiah 49:14, "But Zion [ancient Zion/not todays') said, The LORD [God of old] has forsaken me, and my Lord [new God - Jesus] has forgotten me.

15 "Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they [the LORD and the Lord (see above)] may forget, yet will I not forget you."

 

Exodus 32: 3+4, "And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf [young heifer]: and they said, These be your gods [meaning: 'What we have made is the most High who creates all gods'], O Israel..."

 

There's much more proof of our eternally young virgin Mother, our Creator, in the KJV, as well as in countless other ancient scrolls, tablets and texts. Doubt it would mean much to many, here, but- You know.

 

Before closing, I just naturally HAVE to give honorable mention to the little quip-n-jibe replies about my predicting the end of this world. Comical, but I can't respond in kind because I don't see the humor (probably because I know 2018 is the authentic year of Endtime). Sure, there's been lots of Entimers - but doesn't there EVER come One who's right?

 

And weren't they ALL right? in a way? The End is indeed near; speeding bus; no one around to Heimlich the meatball; ...ebola. There's no difference, really, between 2018 and, say - a 3rd-floor flowerpot taking you out as you stroll down the sidewalk.

 

In both cases, one simply continues to live on. I said it, here, it's there for all to read: it won't be the end of you. It'll always be yet another beginning. And THAT is why I fail to see the humor in cynical scoffing... It's kinda grand, the way these reassuring things within The Truth At Last are. NOT like the usual Endtimer doom & gloom.

 

 

I DO fully realize that this is a science forum. My ScienceForums.net topic, titled: "Two...Two...Two Christs In One" (Religion/04 Feb 2016) was a most egregious violation of 'site protocols. But THIS one- "Is A Binary Universe Best?"

 

THIS thread really takes the cake. "Two Christs" was shut down, but the mod's were prevented from taking down THIS one.

 

Until now, that is. As soon as I finish screenshot'ing both this thread and the lowly condemned "Two Christs" thread. I'm going to call the combined finished product (working title): "Showdown 2016: Our Creator vs Her Scientists". It'll be instructional, but funny. The mod's may do as they wish, now.

 

Oh- And one last poke from Gees: "This thread belongs in speculations or possibly the garbage."

A: "There will be far more readers, than reply'ers such as yourself, Gee."

 

I'll see to that.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Immanuel

[Strange]

Strange said: "...nutty...end of the world [in late 2018]... What are you going to say in 2019?"

A: "Among other things, Let there be light. I said it before and I'll say it again. And again. And so on."

 

I have no idea what this means. Why not give a straight answer? I can only assume you have no answer and are just spouting nonsense.

 

 

This alignment happens once every 26,000 years; it was what the Maya meant, re their 2012 bye-bye-date (and they DID mean 'bye-bye').

 

The Mayan's meant no such thing.

 

 

Strange: "Pre-recorded where?"

A: Every planet Earth (as in the multiverse: there are many Earths) is a hard drive.

"God does not play dice." -Einstein, against Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; but logically meant as 'in all things'.

 

So, still no meaningful answers. How is this information recorded? Can you provide references to where geologists have uncovered such information in the "hard drive" of the Earth?

 

What evidence do you have that there are many Earths?

 

 

There's much more proof of our eternally young virgin Mother, our Creator, in the KJV, as well as in countless other ancient scrolls, tablets and texts. Doubt it would mean much to many, here, but- You know.

 

Myths are barely evidence. Certainly not proof.

 

 

Before closing, I just naturally HAVE to give honorable mention to the little quip-n-jibe replies about my predicting the end of this world. Comical, but I can't respond in kind because I don't see the humor (probably because I know 2018 is the authentic year of Endtime). Sure, there's been lots of Entimers - but doesn't there EVER come One who's right?

 

I see no reason why you are any more likely to be right than any other. You give no reason other than the usual superstitious mumbo-jumbo. So, no, you are not The One.

 

 

In both cases, one simply continues to live on. I said it, here, it's there for all to read: it won't be the end of you. It'll always be yet another beginning.

 

Ah, so you are in the "the world ends but you can't tell any difference" group. It is useful to know what type of crazy we are dealing with.

 

How is the world ending-but-carrying-on-with-no-change any different from not-ending?

[Phi for All]

How is the world ending-but-carrying-on-with-no-change any different from not-ending?

 

More hyphens. And prophet prestige. Very important that you remember who predicted the world ending-but-not.

 

This all sounds like emotional guesswork. I see so many claims of Truth and Proof, and no evidence to support them. Why do people think science looks for those things? Science isn't a religion, it needs reliable, trustworthy foundations, based in reality, not guesswork pumped up by emotional certainty.

[Gees]

Immanuel;

 

Please consider:

 

Gees: "Some evidence of the "many you's" please?"
A: "Hard Evidence for the Multiverse Found..."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5907

 

OK. There are lots of theories about a multiverse, but does that mean there is evidence of other Earths? Of "many you's"? No. Not that I have seen. There is some evidence that points to the idea of a multiverse, but it is not conclusive evidence, so we can not assume that there are also Earths and identical me's in these multiverses, that may or may not exist. There is still too much that is unknown, so this is theory or speculation. It is not even theory yet, more a hypothesis.

 

"Some evidence on the "move from this world to another" please?"
A: I indicated metaphysical transfer...the world ends before man achieves physical travel to a parallel world. Scientists're closing in fast, but the 2018 Endtime leaves nowhere near enough time for any physical multiverse transfer to be achieved.
Teleportation status quo:
http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n10/full/nphoton.2014.215.html

 

I would call this the paranormal -- metaphysical transfer. But it is not evidence of a parallel world.

 

Because some of the paranormal seems to slip or jump time, many people have come to the conclusion that time is ridged and static like a film from a movie where each negative depicts an activity in life. Then they assume that something allows us to jump around on the film to different places in time and space, hence the parallel world, multiverse ideas, and determinism, or no free will ideas. The biggest problem that I have with this idea is that it is will, or want, that allows us to jump around, so I don't think we understand this yet. (chuckle)

 

Although I can see their reasoning, I also know that many things can be reasoned that are simply not true, and bad reasoning is usually due to a lack of information. There is still too much that is unknown, so this is not anywhere near evidence. It is more speculation or a hypothesis.

 

"Evidence of "Mother/Creator" please?"
A: Enter: some KJV proofs (like it or not, boys):
"He" in Hebrew can also mean "she", but the certain knowledge of a female Creator was forbidden ("And he said, You can not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." Exodus 33:20) until I personally came down, in these last days, to this world from My Heaven. To declare and to prove it. (And no, I'm not saying I prove it here in this forum.)

Job 38:29, " Out of whose womb came the ice?"

Isaiah 46:3, "Israel [which true israel is no longer Jewish, but is now centered around America]...borne by me from the belly..."

Isaiah 49:14, "But Zion [ancient Zion/not todays') said, The LORD [God of old] has forsaken me, and my Lord [new God - Jesus] has forgotten me.
15 "Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they [the LORD and the Lord (see above)] may forget, yet will I not forget you."

Exodus 32: 3+4, "And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf [young heifer]: and they said, These be your gods [meaning: 'What we have made is the most High who creates all gods'], O Israel..."

There's much more proof of our eternally young virgin Mother, our Creator, in the KJV, as well as in countless other ancient scrolls, tablets and texts. Doubt it would mean much to many, here, but- You know.

 

Quoting religious texts to prove religious text is not evidence. It would be like me saying that I am Napoleon; so therefore, I am Napoleon. This is a circular argument and proves nothing. You would have to provide some other evidence, something from a different type of source before it could be considered actual evidence.

 

Before closing, I just naturally HAVE to give honorable mention to the little quip-n-jibe replies about my predicting the end of this world. Comical, but I can't respond in kind because I don't see the humor (probably because I know 2018 is the authentic year of Endtime). Sure, there's been lots of Entimers - but doesn't there EVER come One who's right?

 

My apologies. There are many people who mistake sarcasm and ridicule for wit. Sarcasm is actually barely concealed anger, and ridicule is a form of bullying. There is nothing that I can do about this.

 

I DO fully realize that this is a science forum. My ScienceForums.net topic, titled: "Two...Two...Two Christs In One" (Religion/04 Feb 2016) was a most egregious violation of 'site protocols. But THIS one- "Is A Binary Universe Best?"

THIS thread really takes the cake. "Two Christs" was shut down, but the mod's were prevented from taking down THIS one.

 

If I had known about that thread in religion, I would never have responded to this thread. I generally avoid the Religion forum because I understand more about "God" than most people, which gets me into trouble with the believers and the non-believers. (chuckle) The study of consciousness is also the study of "God" ideas -- the two are inseparable.

 

Oh- And one last poke from Gees: "This thread belongs in speculations or possibly the garbage."
A: "There will be far more readers, than reply'ers such as yourself, Gee."

 

That comment was not meant for you as much as it was meant for the Moderators. There appear to be a lot of speculations threads in philosophy and a lot of philosophy threads in speculations. It seems that there is a great deal of difficulty determining which is which.

 

The comment was not meant as an insult, as there is nothing insulting about speculating. I'll give you an example that I understand well, as it is on the subject of consciousness:

 

There is a dead man's body laying on the ground and two people standing over it. One person is a scientist, the other is a preacher.

 

The scientist says, "Obviously the man is dead and no longer conscious, as his brain is no longer producing thought."

 

The preacher says, "Obviously the man is dead and no longer conscious, as God has called back his soul."

 

OK. So the man is dead, but what about his consciousness? The scientist believes that consciousness comes from the body/brain, and so he bases his conclusions on this belief. The preacher believes that consciousness comes from God, and so be bases his conclusions on this belief.

 

Both of these conclusions are speculations based on belief.

 

Philosophy has not yet drawn a conclusion and has been debating it for thousands of years, Monism v Dualism. Philosophers want the truth or nothing -- they are kind of fussy about truth. For myself, I suspect that both, the scientist and the preacher, are each about half right. (chuckle)

 

So your thread is speculation. If you get real fussy about what constitutes evidence and what does not, and what it is evidence of, and how that evidence can or can not be interpreted, then you may be working philosophy. If you interpret evidence by your beliefs, you will be speculating. If you are careless with your evidence, interpretations, and theories, you will be producing garbage. Simple.

 

Gee

[ajb]

From the mathematical structures found in the graphical representation theory of supersymmetric algebras (off-shell representations are less studied and this I think is part of Gates' motivations) to predicting the end of the world! What a strange thread.

[Genecks]

Someone already touched on it: The issue of "graded potentials," which tend to be involved in vision. An action potential can be binary, but a graded potential not so much. Maybe there is a way to look at things in a binary way, but I don't know of that right now. That is to say, perhaps a graded potential can eventually be described in a binary way for the result that the graded potential would "cause." Graded potential causes Mental State (Q17659), thus all that is needed is a binary system to cause Mental State (Q17659) to be turned on. But then we're arguing that there is the illusion that graded potentials occur: Possibly, but if you're using an analog system to check the "charge" (been a while), you're going to see a signal that is not binary. Maybe it results in a unique, monovalent response at the end of the pathway; but just visualizing things in this world, it does not appear be to binary. That could be an illusion. Perhaps the analog visual is actually a computer program that I've been deluded into believing is analog rather than a result of binary computation from a 5th-dimensional or super-universal lifeforce. I've played with computer programs that portend to give an "analog" example of what would be observed.

 

Also, yes, someone already quipped about "quantum entanglement." The argument, I believe, is saying that cause-and-effect is a "false" notion.

 

I think that the universe being a "computer simulation" just creates the infinite regress situation. I don't think it's an impractical belief. Maybe rather than cause-and-effect we look at dimensions and question what exists in higher dimensions. Also, a potential glitch in a "simulation" would be how far we can get with our technology until things seem to be strangely limited: But that would be dependent upon "learned" knowledge. Think of the CDC episode in The Walking Dead or perhaps other examples: "Why are there 'walkers'? Answer: Magic!"

 

The answer is that the scientist is in a television show. One of the actors (Lizzie) catches onto this, but she is told to look at the flowers and is shot. I can only hope children of future generations are more like that little girl. There is a cut scene (not of the episode) where it becomes obvious that the walkers are actors.

 

Something eventually seems "amiss" in relation to our science and technology with the dream argument.

 

It tends to be the resolve to the "dream argument," whereby you'll eventually notice that there is something illogical about the situation. Perhaps the philosophy of absurdism argues well enough that we're in a dream. I think the dream argument is definitely something that needs to be more studied and discussed.

 

Dream, simulation, what-you-ma-call-it... synonymous terms for "reality" or "the universe." It doesn't really matter how you describe it, because it ends up being that one thing. If you want to argue that we're in a reality like in the cartoon ReBoot, that still creates an issue of there being a reality beyond this reality: And then you get into Plato's allegory of the cave, or the infinite regress issue (whereby there are always caves you're trying to get out of).

 

What I like about the simulation hypothesis, though, is that it tends to argue why we haven't seen aliens (resolve the Fermi paradox): We're in a simulation. So, this layer of reality is very much a simulation, thus bringing to question what the outside looks like, what the physics are like, and so on.

 

I think on a low level, the Fermi paradox (one resolve to it) argues we're in a simulation. Someone is deceiving us: Otherwise, there really isn't socially intelligent life out there (thus bringing a bivalent possibility). On a high level, absurdism knocks it all down and says, "Whatevah..."

 

I see the simulation hypothesis as an "analogy," which in my rhetorical discourse, I've been taught that analogies can be knocked down due to insufficient criterion listing with the real thing. That's a high-level inference. It does a good job, though, of creating a "model" to question reality. Photons like electrons on a circuit board going to the video card, which is like _____ in this world: Maybe photons from the big bang travelling to the retina to be brought forth in consciousness? Seems to go into the realm of the anthropic principle, though: Arguing that without "brains" there would be nothing to "process" the information in the universe. I find it hard to argue against the anthropic principle with the Fermi paradox in consideration, however. I'm not saying Genesis, but it kind of feels like Genesis.

 

My personal opinion leans on the belief that this universe was a latch-ditch effort to save "life," thus we're a universe inside a universe. Kind of a Silver Surfer situation.

 

If we describe "best" as "optimal" in a mathematical way (mathematical optimization), then we want a language that is "best" for the CPU. But that's an analogy. Also, that gives a biased perspective based on our view of what a computer is or what would "cause" a simulation to occur, potentially a The Matrix argument. An optimal language would reduce energy usage while allowing the most processing. Personally, I think the big bang was nothing less than an archive file being unzipped (.zip file format or whatever). Linux/Unix bringing the idea that "everything is a file" makes a strong argument for what kind of OS style to have. It seems to end up being you need a 5th-dimensional being for this reality or a different view for what is described for relativity. Interestingly, I'd have to say this is the first time I've questioned whether or not time travel is possible in The Matrix due to there being an outside layer of reality (albeit "4-dimensional"). One thing I've questioned is if a 5th dimensional (or acausal) being does interact with this reality, how would we notice? I don't think we would, because changes would be instantaneous. So, if the universe is a computer program or simulation, I don't think we'd ever notice changes to it being such, thus failing to recognize it as such due to the instantaneous nature of any outside influence.

 

I've not seen decent arguments as to why the "laws of physics" are the way they are. I don't think the response "because they are energy efficient" is the correct answer. That would make sense if "time" truly were unidirectional. I think the response is more around the lines of "because they balance each other out." With that said, maybe there is a binary nature to the laws of physics: Something for one law to be balanced out by another in a "binary" way. That's beyond the scope of my knowledge, though.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Genecks

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Hijack about atheism being a religious belief has been split off into the trash.