On 03 Sep 2012, at 22:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer - Says JPL Scientist
3 September, 2012

Share this story:
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More
Sharing Services
Follow us:

MessageToEagle.com - Are we just a computer simulation? Who or what is
the creator? More and more scientists are now seriously considering
the possibility that we might live in a matrix, and they say that
evidence could be all around us.
Rich Terrell, from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology has helped design missions to Mars, discovered
four new moons around Saturn, Neptune and Uranus and taken pictures of
the distant solar system.

Terrell has his opinion about our creator who most refer to as God.

"One has to think what are the requirements for God? God is an
inter-dimensional being connected with everything in the Universe, a
creator that is responsible for the Universe and in some way can
change the laws of physics, if he wanted to. I think those are good
requirements for what God ought to be," Terrell says.

This is the same as programmers creating simulations, Terrell explains.

Rich Terrell goes through his argument using Moore's Law and the Turing Test.

Terrell wondered, how much computing power would a simulation of the
Earth require?

         Humans are doubling the computing power every 13 months and Terrell
says that computers already match the human brain in computational
Right now our fastest computers on the planer are capable of one
million billion operations per second Terrell says.

At this rate, in 10 years, Terrell believes computers will be able to
create a "photo real simulation of all that we see around us" - the

But can a computer populate such a simulation with thinking beings,
artificially intelligent simulated beings, like humans? Terrell thinks
so and that humans are on the verge of creating worlds inside
computers populated by sentient beings.

Terrell says he has found evidence that God is a programmer in nature.

"Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of
pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is
quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels. Which means the
Universe has a finite number of components. Which means a finite
number of states. Which means it's computer.

That infers the Universe could be created by lines of code in a
computer," Terrell says.

Our creator is a cosmic computer programmer, says Rich Terrell.

Is there evidence of computer processing of our "objective reality"?

One clue is an experiment in the physics laboratory at the California
Institute of Technology. A 1928 experiment (the Thomson experiment
plus the Davisson-Germer experiment) provide evidence.

Using an electron beam transmitted through a piece of graphite with a
screen behind is set up. The background screen records how the
electrons ricochet off the graphite. At this subatomic level, the
pattern is not random, as might be expected, but is a diffraction

The idea that we might live in a computer simulation ahs been
suggested by a number of scientists.

Terrell notes, "The experiment shows something really rather
extraordinary, that matter, even though it behaves when you are
looking at it, measuring it, as individual particles, when you are not
looking at it, matter is diffuse. It spreads out, it doesn't have a
finite form in the Universe." When observed they are "dots", when we
look away, they lose their physical form. Is this behavior of matter
similar, or parallel, to the behavior in a simulation? Terrell says
this is the case!

As in a simulation, "The Universe gives you what you are looking at
when you look at it." Further, "When you are not looking at it, it's
not necessarily there".

This results in a Universe that is pixelated and only assumes definite
form when observed. This is how computer simulations operate.

Terrell's idea is not really new and he is not the only scientist who
has suggested we might be living in a computer simulation.

In his science paper "The Simulation Argument" Professor Nick Bostrom
of Oxford University, suggested it is likely we are already in a
simulation being run by a "post human" civilization in our own future.
We discussed Bostrom's ideas in our article Do We Live In A Computer
Simulation Created By An Advanced Alien Civilization?

Research conducted by other scientists such as for example David Bohm,
Karl Pribram and Alain Aspect suggest that Our Universe Is A Gigantic
And Wonderfully Detailed Holographic Illusion.

The idea that our creator is a computer programmer is controversial
and can even be offending to religious people, but Terrell has his own
views on religion, spiritultiy and science.

"Our world bears all the hallmarks of one that is simulated. Who would
be more likely to simulate humans than humans from the future, our

They would be god-like beings able to create their own universes."
Terrell actually finds spirituality in this scenario.

"I take great solace in this. It shows that along the line we have
evolved from nothing into self-awareness and that self-awareness has
reached the stage now where our future selves have become gods.

To me that's a very, very spiritual thing and that's where my
spirituality comes from in seeing things like that. To me, that's a

© MessageToEagle.com

Such discourse still ignore the first person computationalist indeterminacy, and ignore that digital physics is inconsistent (with or without the comp hyp).

Digital physics (the physical universe is a program or a program output) entails comp, but comp entails that the physical reality is not a program nor a program output (by UDA).

So digital physics => non digital physics,

So digital physics => 0 = 1.

Digital physics is still very interesting to approach some phenomena in nature, but not for fundamental study.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to