Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Video 18:20] Theories made on the most efficient design for the universe
#1
The first 5 minutes of the video is dedicated to providing evidence that the universe was designed by an advanced civilization. If it was, we can assume that it was done in the best way possible. Therefore, if we figure out the most efficient way for the universe to have been designed, we have also figured out how the universe is designed. Topics include: virtual reality, cymatics, dimensions, multiverse theory, karma, reincarnation, and purpose. 

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0z9h5opAqU
Script: https://i.imgur.com/ut5hHws.png
Reply
#2
In one myth, the Earth lies upon a giant turtle.

On what does the turtle stand?

... It is far easier to explain the origin as the result of the choice of One Single Intelligent Creator... or that it is the result of random chance, and that it seems to have One Single Intelligent Creator only to the extent that we anthropomorphize what is random chance solely because we are what we are. The first is monotheistic creation; the latter is atheistic random chance. Such a choice seems to mark modern thought -- it goes one way or the other.

Some advanced civilization that established the Universe? Who created that civilization?

Sorry, fellow -- I'm not amenable to cranky theories.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#3
I would argue PBR that Occham's Razor dictates that one must take the "random chance" explanation over the "God did it" explanation.

After all if the universe as we understand it was created by "God" or an "Advanced Civilization" who then created this "God" or "Advanced Civilization"? Who created the creators of both?

William of Ockham Wrote:Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Or in plain English: No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#4
(01-18-2018, 11:01 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would argue PBR that Occham's Razor dictates that one must take the "random chance" explanation over the "God did it" explanation.

After all if the universe as we understand it was created by "God" or an "Advanced Civilization" who then created this "God" or "Advanced Civilization"?  Who created the creators of both?

William of Ockham Wrote:Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Or in plain English:  No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.


If people want to ascribe the physical and mathematical laws, the basic rules of logic, and the rigid enforcement of those laws and rules to God, then they have a rationale for God.

The monotheist-atheist debate is far from settled. I leave the question "why do those laws exist?" The best argument that I have for any ultimate reality is that the Universe exists, and it makes sense to the limits of intelligent understanding.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#5
(01-18-2018, 01:54 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In one myth, the Earth lies upon a giant turtle.

On what does the turtle stand?

... It is far easier to explain the origin as the result of the choice of One Single Intelligent Creator... or that it is the result of random chance, and that it seems to have One Single Intelligent Creator only to the extent that we anthropomorphize what is random chance solely because we are what we are. The first is monotheistic creation; the latter is atheistic random chance. Such a choice seems to mark modern thought -- it goes one way or the other.

Some advanced civilization that established the Universe? Who created that civilization?

Sorry, fellow -- I'm not amenable to cranky theories.

Quote:Or in plain English: No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary.

My case is presented much better in the video than that short description. It looks like you guys are saying that too many assumptions are made in the description, but since it is not possible for us to know who created the universe, assumptions have to be made to formulate a theory. If you watch it, you will see evidence for why I think the explanation provided is the most plausible theory. It also looks like you are trying to say that theorizing who created the universe is pointless; I suppose we are all entitled to our own opinions. That's also only a small portion of the video.
Reply
#6
(01-17-2018, 11:33 PM)Deciphered Wrote: The first 5 minutes of the video is dedicated to providing evidence that the universe was designed by an advanced civilization. If it was, we can assume that it was done in the best way possible. Therefore, if we figure out the most efficient way for the universe to have been designed, we have also figured out how the universe is designed. Topics include: virtual reality, cymatics, dimensions, multiverse theory, karma, reincarnation, and purpose. 

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0z9h5opAqU
Script: https://i.imgur.com/ut5hHws.png

I developed a theory that one is more apt to observe a multiverse that creates more alternatives, more possibilities, than other multiverses.  Thus high metabolism yields more possibilities thus is more apt to be observed.  Thus, we are more apt to see a highly emotional reality than a less emotional one.  Thus, the notion that living things are most likely to observe an emotional reality is more than an oxymoron.

In short, I'll endorse that the quantum equations have many solutions, and think psi experiments show the validity of the many worlds interpretation and the idea of reverse time causality.

Plank's Constant shows not only a frequency, but a resolution where observation of multiple realities becomes impossible, where the universes break off, do not interfere with each other as you see in single particle interference.  All universes within a multiverse must be similar enough to interfere with one another.  If not, a new multiverse split occurs.  There is no way, at least at current technology, to observe the split off universe.

Still, electrons orbit nuclei at given periods, periods where the elections interfere with themselves.  All atoms demonstrate backwards in time single particle interference?

I have not played with how the mind might effect which universe is observed.  The problems of consciousness and free choice have been stubborn ones.  I remain in a place where I assume both exist, but could not prove it.

And zero contributors have followed and agreed with my theory, or looked at psi experiments as valid ways of learning about physics.  They seem locked into the accepted theories.  Mine is too weird?  Those devoted to political theories are closed to scientific ones?

I did read your script option.  I find the assumptions too many and too unnecessary to go with your results.  I also do not see an experiment available to disprove your results.

Nor do I see your theory accepted by other contributors to the board.  I might be wrong. Here, like in many places, minds are closed.
Reply
#7
(01-18-2018, 09:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Plank's Constant shows not only a frequency, but a resolution where observation of multiple realities becomes impossible, where the universes break off, do not interfere with each other as you see in single particle interference.  All universes within a multiverse must be similar enough to interfere with one another.  If not, a new multiverse split occurs.  There is no way, at least at current technology, to observe the split off universe.

Still, electrons orbit nuclei at given periods, periods where the elections interfere with themselves.  All atoms demonstrate backwards in time single particle interference?

I have not played with how the mind might effect which universe is observed.  The problems of consciousness and free choice have been stubborn ones.  I remain in a place where I assume both exist, but could not prove it.

And zero contributors have followed and agreed with my theory, or looked at psi experiments as valid ways of learning about physics.  They seem locked into the accepted theories.  Mine is too weird?  Those devoted to political theories are closed to scientific ones?

I did read your script option.  I find the assumptions too many and too unnecessary to go with your results.  I also do not see an experiment available to disprove your results.

Nor do I see your theory accepted by other contributors to the board.  I might be wrong. Here, like in many places, minds are closed.

I appreciate you taking the time to read the script. It's hard to hold a strong opinion for any version of the multiverse theory given how many possible variations of it there are, and our inability to prove any of them. The biggest dilemma that I see with your understanding is the way you describe the creation of a new version of the universe as being a significant/somewhat rare event. The way I see it, every moment that passes each person has millions of different possible neural pathways that could fire off resulting in slight variations in their actions. These represent millions of possibilities, and since the universe contains all possibilities they all occur, simultaneously.

(01-18-2018, 09:02 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I have not played with how the mind might effect which universe is observed.  The problems of consciousness and free choice have been stubborn ones.  I remain in a place where I assume both exist, but could not prove it.

It is possible that the universe behaves differently when it is being observed. The size or speed of electrons isn't the reason we can't see them, it's more so the lack of their existence. Scientists claim that electrons not only move impossibly fast, but rapidly pop in and out of existence. It's possible that they are 5th dimensional and exist outside of time. Here's the punchline: when under observation their behavior changes, as though they have chosen an orbit around the nucleus to follow. Perhaps our observations decides which parallel universe they exist in, temporarily cementing them in the 3rd dimension.
Reply
#8
(01-19-2018, 12:52 AM)Deciphered Wrote: I appreciate you taking the time to read the script. It's hard to hold a strong opinion for any version of the multiverse theory given how many possible variations of it there are, and our inability to prove any of them. The biggest dilemma that I see with your understanding is the way you describe the creation of a new version of the universe as being a significant/somewhat rare event. The way I see it, every moment that passes  each person has millions of different possible neural pathways that could fire off resulting in slight variations in their actions. These represent millions of possibilities, and since the universe contains all possibilities  they all occur, simultaneously.

Only millions?  There are lots of alternate possibilities, even for simple systems.  The universe observed is not a simple system.

It is impossible to solve the basic quantum wave equations.  The current 'solutions' involve a division by zero, which renders the main line work invalid.  Of course, if the present depends on the future, if single particle interference between the present and future on real time is common, you have to solve for all possible futures indefinitely.  That quite simply can't be done validly.

I see the main line physicists as being trapped by their delusions of time.

(01-19-2018, 12:52 AM)Deciphered Wrote: It is possible that the universe behaves differently when it is being observed. The size or speed of electrons isn't the reason we can't see them, it's more so the lack of their existence. Scientists claim that electrons not only move impossibly fast, but rapidly pop in and out of existence. It's possible that they are 5th dimensional and exist outside of time. Here's the punchline: when under observation their behavior changes, as though they have chosen an orbit around the nucleus to follow. Perhaps our observations decides which parallel universe they exist in, temporarily cementing them in the 3rd dimension.

I do see electrons as what you call 5 dimensional objects.  Note, electrons and photons in single particle interference experiments interfere with themselves when their travel path is longer / shorter by multiples of their wavelength.  Even when it takes longer for a particle to get there, it interferes with it's hypothetical self that exists in the same multiverse.  They do not interfere with versions of themselves in other multiverses.  I regard this as proof of interference across time.  If one is willing to take these observations seriously, much follows.

Particles do pop into and out of existence, with the particle not exceeding a duration that exceeds limits involving Plank's Constant.  We have proof of dark matter and dark energy, no idea what they are, and one theory is this hypothetical existence of these temporary particles.  I'm not good enough with math to prove the link.

Yes, any observation is a collapse, or a split between universes if so you prefer.  As such, any inclusion of an observation will involve setting up more alternate multiverses interfering with one another.  I do not see the inclusion of conscious minds as changing the laws of physics, though.  That is simply an unnecessary hypothesis.

***

Note, in the months before I came up with the above theory, I was playing the superhero Coda under the Champions superhero role playing game system.  Her super power was to see all possible near term alternate futures, and select between them.  The input was massive, changing her world view, requiring me to come up with a version of English that included a few new tenses.  It also effected her game mechanics, with me buying her dexterity, n ray vision and danger sense to absurd levels, even by superhero standards. She could always see what was coming, could usually get out of the way, and could usually see what she had to do to take out the other guy. Whee!  Of course, I spent so much on these powers that she could not be strong or tough or have many abilities an 'ordinary' superhero had.

I still miss Coda.  I haven't looked at time, psi or world views the same since playing her.

[Image: Coda.GIF]
Coda, from the pages of the Wild Hunt
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)