Oh yes, please, explain the mouse matrix to Neil! :)
2012/12/5 Allan H <[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > > >>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr
> > > >>>>> > >> Allan
>
> > > >>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
> > > >>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott"
<[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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.
>
> > > >>>>> > >> >>> --
>
> > > >>>>> > >> >> --
>
> > > >>>>> > >> > --
>
> > > >>>>> > > --
>
> > > > --
>
> > > --
--
--
--
