Oh yes, please, explain the mouse matrix to Neil! :)
2012/12/5 Allan H <[email protected]> > Neil even science today is a best guess, as you put it an M Mouse the > theory of physics is based off an assumption .. and that assumption is so > widely accepted as being true that you no longer realize it is an best > guess.. > > Without that best guess you are playing with m mouse. I am laughing as I > am wondering if you even know that basic assumption. > Allan > > Matrix ** th3 beginning light > On Dec 5, 2012 9:58 AM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On he unlikeliness of a beginning see Susskind - >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5385v1.pdf >> - it's free. There's a 'sort of' answer to your 'centre' question in >> it James - sadly not starring M.Mouse so you and I can grasp it. >> Big Bang was not claimed as fact in science and nor was its successor >> that has an air of rigs' negative space about it. Inflation theory >> runs, more or less, like this: >> Inflation starts with a vacuum in an unusually high energy state and >> with a negative pressure. Together these give the vacuum repulsive >> gravity that pushes things apart rather than draws them together. This >> inflates the vacuum, making it more repulsive, which causes it to >> inflate even faster. >> >> But the inflationary vacuum is quantum in nature, which makes it >> unstable. All over it, and at random, bits decay into a normal, >> everyday vacuum. Imagine the vacuum as a vast ocean of boiling water, >> with bubbles forming and expanding across its length and breadth. The >> energy of the inflationary vacuum has to go somewhere and it goes into >> creating matter and heating it to a ferocious temperature inside each >> bubble. It goes into creating big bangs. Our universe is inside one >> such bubble that appeared in a big bang 13.7 billion years ago. One >> of the striking features of inflation is that it is eternal. New high- >> energy vacuum is created far faster than it is eaten away by its decay >> into ordinary vacuum, which means that once inflation starts, it never >> stops and universes bubble off forever in the future. But because >> eternal inflation avoids the dreaded singularity, it opens up the >> possibility that this has always been the case with universes bubbling >> off forever in the past too. >> >> Other models include the "cyclic universe" developed within string >> theory by Neil Turok. Here, our universe is a four-dimensional island, >> or "brane", in a higher dimensional space. It collides repeatedly with >> a second brane. Think of the two branes as two parallel slices of >> bread, coming together along a fifth dimension, passing through each >> other, pulling apart again, then coming together again. Each time the >> branes touch, their tremendous energy of motion along the fifth >> dimension creates matter on each brane and heats it to tremendous >> temperature. To observers on the brane, it looks exactly like a big >> bang and would lead to the same patterns in the cosmic microwave >> background and distributions of galaxies. Yet it is a big bang without >> a beginning,because the cycles have been repeating for eternity. Some >> say matter on the branes expands more with each cycle and this means >> that if you run it backwards like a movie in reverse, the cyclic >> universe encounters either a singularity or some kind of beginning >> like inflation, In the "emergent universe" it all begins as a small >> static universe, which exists in this state for an infinite amount of >> time before suddenly being triggered to inflate. Such scenarios do >> arise in string theory. Just as Einstein's static universe (that >> preceded Bigly Bangly) was unstable and needed the extra ingredient of >> cosmic repulsion, two weird ingredients: a vacuum with negative >> energy, and fault-lines in space-time known as domain walls that are a >> feature of some models of particle physics are needed to make this >> model work. Domain walls should leave an imprint on the temperature of >> the cosmic microwave background radiation, which has not been seen, >> but this might be explained if they were diluted away by inflation. >> >> None of these models is true - they are just the best good minds in >> the subject area can muster. We lay people confuse ourselves on the >> certainty and claims made abut these models and are exposed to them >> through idiot media. Right or wrong we don't get any closer to god >> concepts, though the physics may be limited by our early exposure to >> such myths. Science may be a religion that admits it is uncertain >> about its god. Maybe we made our journey to 'now' without past >> information because such information cannot be retained in such >> 'travel' as ours. We might cross a singularity in the future after >> which we can only conceive of what we have done so far as an ignorant >> beginning.. >> >> On 5 Dec, 04:48, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Amazing how little the group knows of physics. RP has a reasonable >> > definition of creator origin, though it is a 'singularity' in the >> > sense science collapses in and around it. Nothing wrong with that but >> > it doesn't help make radios (etc). Matter isn't necessarily energy - >> > there is just a conservation law that connects them, itself connected >> > with momentum. Big Bang is a construction and losing favour. >> > Multiple universes and mirror worlds are also constructions used to >> > explain 'evidence'. >> > I'm not sure how we can explain not being at the centre of a universe >> > we can't really define - and our observations of it are known to be >> > 'skewed' by living in an area of normal matter and high gravity. If >> > you want to make a magnet you probably need relativity - even to >> > explain how a lead-acid battery works as well as it does. This >> > doesn't make the theory complete. >> > >> > Knowing about science doesn't help much with god or why we cling to >> > this rock and want to know why, purpose, lack of it and how we should >> > live. Negative space is an art concept. Vacuums are thought to have >> > energy - the virtual particles, which are known to be particle pairs >> > that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short >> > to measure. They do this everywhere, throughout the Universe ( a >> > postulate as no one has been to look). >> > >> > I have never seen any evidence for a spiritual world, but think such >> > may be an emergent property of the way we live. >> > >> > On 4 Dec, 15:33, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > That is not true the beginning can be pretty much pinpointed .. as >> for >> > > parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing to support >> the >> > > other than it sounds good. There is more evidence supporting the >> spiritual >> > > realm than parallel universes >> > > Allan >> > >> > > Matrix ** th3 beginning light >> > > On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is beginning and >> > > > end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in parallel and >> > > > continuously many universes are being born and many are dying , but >> > > > Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time , just >> like >> > > > the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The difference is >> > > > that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is non-dual. >> > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > Hello Andrew, >> > >> > > > > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are not >> true. I >> > > > > distinguish between two things, matter and spirit. Mattter is >> all that >> > > > is >> > > > > physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also energy. To >> me there >> > > > is >> > > > > no paradox of who created the creator. Before the begining there >> was >> > > > only >> > > > > God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of the spirt >> of God. >> > > > > That is all matter comes from spirit. >> > >> > > > > On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: >> > >> > > > >> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy component >> to it >> > > > >> because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion in them. >> But I >> > > > could >> > > > >> also envision pure motion without involving any atoms...like a >> > > > vibration in >> > > > >> the fabric of space, >> > >> > > > >> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas wrote: >> > >> > > > >>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to it.energy >> is >> > > > matter >> > > > >>> and matter is energy. >> > > > >>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: >> > >> > > > >>>> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be >> > > > >>>> circumnavigated by the possibility that the original creator >> was not >> > > > matter, >> > > > >>>> but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much faster and >> much >> > > > easier >> > > > >>>> than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns >> could >> > > > have >> > > > >>>> evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by selective >> > > > processes to >> > > > >>>> reach intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that >> > > > patterns of >> > > > >>>> atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life. >> > >> > > > >>>> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they >> manipulated >> > > > >>>> atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the information >> required >> > > > for >> > > > >>>> life and to allow them to evolve on their own to complex >> intelligent >> > > > beings >> > > > >>>> able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where >> they >> > > > came >> > > > >>>> from, where they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and >> > > > purpose could >> > > > >>>> then be given to our fleeting moment of existence. >> > >> > > > >>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas >> wrote: >> > >> > > > >>>>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit >> > > > >>>>> creation, begging the question of what created that in an >> infinite >> > > > >>>>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in which >> creation >> > > > >>>>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth comes >> > > > closer. >> > >> > > > >>>>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >>>>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain >> live >> > > > >>>>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe >> ,but >> > > > >>>>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of >> the >> > > > >>>>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and >> nothing else. >> > >> > > > >>>>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >>>>> > > What survives is the gene - subject to mutations etc. We >> are >> > > > >>>>> > > already >> > > > >>>>> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind >> could be >> > > > >>>>> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our >> bodies are >> > > > >>>>> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new >> substrate >> > > > could >> > > > >>>>> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's >> 'hope'. >> > > > Such >> > > > >>>>> > > substrated minds might link in super-intelligence and be >> able to >> > > > >>>>> > > re- >> > > > >>>>> > > transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to >> make. This >> > > > >>>>> > > would >> > > > >>>>> > > be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what such >> > > > intelligence >> > > > >>>>> > > might invent or even discover - perhaps such intelligence >> would >> > > > >>>>> > > discover we are not as alone as we think. Being human or >> human >> > > > >>>>> > > being >> > > > >>>>> > > might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to live >> free >> > > > >>>>> > > again. >> > > > >>>>> > > We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much >> part of our >> > > > >>>>> > > behaviour now. >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr >> > > > >>>>> > >> Allan >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light >> > > > >>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott" < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' >> then (my >> > > > >>>>> > >> > grammar and >> > > > >>>>> > >> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' >> though)! :) >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > 2012/11/28 James <[email protected]> >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> I am an aspect of what was, is, and will be, >> coextensively. >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> Maybe. >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote: >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> Attachment to life is the cause of the desire for >> > > > immortality >> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> and the >> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> readiness to believe in an after-life or re-birth. >> It is an >> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> off-shoot of >> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> the instinct for survival. >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> -- >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> >> -- >> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > -- >> > >> > > > >>>>> > > -- >> > >> > > > > -- >> > >> > > > -- >> >> -- >> >> >> >> -- > > > > --
