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
#9
(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

Thanks for sharing your video with us. It looks like you are a very good video creator, and you have a nice voice too. It is great to ask the ultimate questions and think about possible answers. Very admirable IMHO.

I looked into the multiverse or many worlds theory, and it didn't make sense to me, and was based on unnecessary materialist assumptions. We have an infinite range of possible experiences and choices, but that does not mean that all of these choices actually exist. The collapse of the wave function approach, which depends on the observer to create, is the best approach to quantum theory, and the multiverse option seems based upon the assumption that this approach must be wrong.

I like one of your conclusions that the universe has always existed, and always will. An assumption that someone or something created the universe, may not take into account a question of who or what created this creator in turn. Ultimately, the only time is now, and creation is happening now, the creator is now, and time is just the process of movement and change which brings ultimate truths and patterns of truth into life. Everything is recorded and remembered in the cosmic mind, and the future is already existing now as well. That means that the best possible world already exists now, and everything is already done. As strange as this may seem from the viewpoint of observing external reality, we can experience this perfection as the nature of our conscious being.

I like your conclusion that what counts is whether we have made the world a better place, not how much we have gained for ourselves. However, it seems impossible for me to know the extent to which I have made the world a better place, and I wonder how this could ever be accurately determined. From what I have heard, it seems that it's more likely that we ourselves are our own judges about our lives.

In our usual emotional condition, we must assume that the world is not designed in the most efficient way possible; otherwise, why is there evil or the chance of children having cancer, etc. Whether our emotional reaction to how the world is, is relevant to our description of how it is, is questionable, although it is important to consider. Usually it does not seem to us that things are perfect or well-designed, at least from our limited perspective. People do evil things, and experience evil they did not deserve. I suppose the only reason for this, is that having the choice and the chance of evil or misfortune is a condition whereby growth and learning can occur, and that experiencing growth is the most desirable alternative universe that could exist. Things are already perfect, but part of that perfection is the infinite possibility of new things to learn and create, and adventures to experience and mysteries to solve. 

If growth and learning occur, it can only happen in a universe where souls exist, survive death, and are part of the one being which we all are, which is the truth of all being. Life and reality are futile if it is just here and then gone; it might as well not have existed, in that case. In any case, however, a better understanding depends on widening our perspective beyond our usual sense of personal individual existence, our own desires, or our social and biological conditioning. A multiverse exists in the sense that each one of us has our own world and our own perceptions; although I suppose that ultimately we are each and all also part of the one being that is.

But, I don't know whether the universe was designed in the most efficient way possible or not. One thing that seems right to me, is that our current understanding of the universe is not the smartest understanding possible. We cannot formulate the nature of the whole universe or its causes and effects etc within the framework of our various languages, without running up against the limits of those language systems.

At a deeper non-verbal, non-symbolic level, however, we know that the answers to our questions are within the consciousness that asks them, and they are there with us always.

I imagine that any panel put together by Neil DeGrasse Tyson would be limited within the materialist framework in which he dwells. I suppose that a closer approach to understanding would depend on realizing that the consciousness asking the question is fundamental to whatever reality that exists, rather than merely what can be observed and tested in a strictly empirical approach-- useful though that is as well to understand particular facts that can be demonstrated to more than one mind. Consciousness is involved in whatever exists, together with whatever it may be conscious of; external and internal beings are interdependent.

Early in the video, the hermetic law as above, so below; as within, so without, was suggested, in the way similar things are reflected on different levels. This fractal, hermetic, holographic picture seems right to me, and we also need not assume that "matter" is anything more than energy, information and patterns of vibration and interdependent with the way we perceive it.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#10
I am satisfied that the universe, the solar system, and the Earth are several billion years old. The only 'advanced civilization; that could create a universe that makes sense is one solitary God who established physical and mathematical laws that He enforces rigidly. Evolution is a biological fact defended in the fossil record, and those who fault the fossil record for having less evidence than is necessary for denying their theistic explanation need recognize that it is miraculous itself that so much of the fossil record already exists.

Even such intelligence as we humans (and elephants, cetaceans, and other smart creatures have) has evolved here. In our case it may be that the interaction between canids (wolves at first and then dogs) made us modern humans much of what we are. Going from the hunter-gatherer world through agriculture, classical urban civilization, and modernity has been done by us humans without the aid of any advanced civilizations outside our world. Genius is a reality even if it gets no attribution in a place like Egypt for something so now banal as a sailboat. I can only wonder how many equivalents of Thomas Alva Edison there might have been in antiquity. Nobody attributes his inventions to any visitations by any space travelers.
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


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)