Cosmos Comments

johnthomasfrederick wrote:

I just watched the episode " Does the Cosmos Provide Meaning " and wanted to comment on something that Sir Martin Rees said but I couldn't find an online discussion started from that episode. I chose this discussion as the most closely related.

During the show Sir Martin Rees made the comment that when the universe was very small and dense the " quantum fluctuation ..... could shake the entire universe " .
After hearing this I immediately thought of the occult idea that the universe began like an egg or a seed; having it's future form already programed in it's apparenty formless condition.( read Madam Blavatsky's " Secret Doctrine " - 1888 )

But like the yolk of an egg or the pulp of a seed there only appears to be no form until one attains the ability to overcome the limitations of the naked eye. Then the seed's genetic code may be observed and the mystery is partly solved.

Accepting this idea may lead us to new questions like: who laid the egg ? Is the universe fully hatched? and if so; is it yet a fully formed adult ? Is there universal reproduction ? And is there a universal death? But even if we came close to answering some of these (realistically) impossible-to-answer questions, we would still be a vast distance from finding for ourselves a fulfilling sense of meaning or purpose from our understanding of the cosmos.
The idea that the universe began something like this might lead us to start looking for it's "genetic" code or whatever it is or was that has launched it into it's current direction or what may even be still guiding it in it's current progress. ( Ancient occult ideas not only describe a big-bang-like event but also include the idea that the universe is guided by a heirarchy of intelligent entities reborn in this cosmological cycle because of their karmic affects in previous cosmological cycles. )

These ideas contradict most of modern scientific ideas and may be completely inaccurate or they may have a slim thread of truth; either way it allows us another perspective and is another baby-step; no more or less valuable than any other baby step because the questions being asked are so vast in their scope and boldness that even bad ideas are RELATIVELY as valuable as what might appear today to be a great scientific or logical idea or theory. What might seem perfectly logical and scientific today may in 200 years appear ridiculaous or naive. History has shown us that. With questions so huge; ALL ideas, from ALL sources become equally valuable. It's like buying lottery tickets; it may seem like you are getting closer to solving the mystery of what the winning numbers will be by buying more tickets or by applying logic to the your choices of numbers, but in reality choosing numbers by intuition, imagination, or even by the use of an oracle are no more or less effective in calculating which numbers will be drawn; yet in the end someone eventually wins ! All the tickets are equal in value until all the numbers are chosen and the story is COMPLETELY told. similarily, we will never know which theory or idea is correct until the ENTIRE story of the cosmos is revealed. So the idea that any of us will aquire any substantial understanding of the nature or purpose or meaning of the universe through the use of mere science and logic comes close to being ridiculous.

Personal progress in this direction is best attempted through the use of the shortcut methods that have been used and taught by mystics, adepts and prophets for as long as we know. The search and journey is much shorter when one's attention is turned inward,

It would be more useful for us accept the possibility that our sensual and intelectual limitations are far, far too great to rely upon obervational science and logic alone to aquire understanding or realize meaning in the cosmos. By expanding our methods to also include ( in a much more practical and ligitimate way than we do now ) imagination, intuition and even revelation ( why not ? ) we can only improve our progress, however equally small that progress may be.

If we are truly more devoted to the end than the means.

Love, Peace & Liberty

John Thomas Frederick

On: Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?

Posted 12:25 AM / April 15, 2012 | Read More

sridattadev wrote:

Dear All,

I have been following the work of several of the prominent scientists to come up with a theory of everything. It seems that in this search of everything, one most important thing has not been considered. Who am I? I am in this universe as much as it is in I. What is I? I is sphere full of love. Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge, for all that we know is just an imagination chosen wisely. The language and the medium of this communication are also products of imagination. Reality as it seems can be termed as implementation of imagination. It is not mind over matter, it is only mind that matters. I am the sum total of my thoughts, I is the calculator.

According to E=MC^2, mass gets converted to energy when it travels at the speed of light. Thoughts travel faster than light. S=BM^2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind). Create a body with a thought, destroy the body with a thought and find the inner most self, Soul. We are not our bodies, we are not our minds, we are our inner most self (singularity). A great scientist once thought what would it be like to travel at the speed of light and came up with the theory of relativity, now it is our time to wonder on what would it be like to be the space-time itself or experience the singularity and realize the absolute theory of everything.

A simple mathematical equation to represent everything including nothing is zero = infinity, application of this simple fact will solve all other complex equations. This can be proved as follows.

0 + 0 = 0

0 - 0 = 0

0 * 0 = 0

0 / 0 = 0

and so on....

Zero remains constant in any relation to itself, no other number can remain constant while satisfying all the relations to itself.

I will use the character "~" to represent infinity and express the following equations.

~ + ~ = ~

~ - ~ = ~

~ * ~ = ~

~ / ~ = ~

and so on....

Also infinity is similar to zero and remains constant in relation to itself.
The same mathematical truth can be deduced as follows as well.

If 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true
If 0 x 1 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 1 is also true
If 0 x 2 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 2 is also true
If 0 x i = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = i is also true
If 0 x ~ = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = ~ is also true

It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. We have been looking at only first half of the if true statements in the relative world. As we can see it is not complete with out the then true statements whic are equally true. As all numbers are equal mathematically, so is all creation equal "absolutely".

This proves that 0 = i = ~ or in words "absolutely" nothing = "relatively" everything or everything is absolutely equal. Singularity is not only relative infinity but also absolute equality. There is only one singularity or infinity in the relativistic universe and there is only singularity or equality in the absolute universe and we are all in it.

If universe is the meaning of understanding of one’s surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe that we live in. The moment a thought arises the universe comes to existence. If one can still the mind to absoluteness then there will be absolutely nothing. This state of absoluteness is called Nirvana (Moksha), immortality. One who knows thy self is immortal.

If life is the meaning of our relative existence on this planet then we were all dead even before we were born, so why fear death as we all have already experienced death. On this planet only one being, human, seems to care for Time dimension while all other species do not. If we only understand the perception of other beings dimensions sharing this planet would we appreciate the beauty of it all. There can be as many dimensions as we choose to have. There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. Time is the space between all of us and in time we shall all be one (singularity). Everything gravitate towards singularity or Absolutely nothing gravitates everything, which implies there is no gravity in singularity. For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, there is also inaction at the point of their interaction. It is this inaction or singularity in everything that creates the actions (anti gravity) and the consequent reactions (gravity).

Death is to a person, as black hole is to a star. As light cannot escape singularity and time does not exist beyond singularity, so does a dead person cannot see light or does not have perception of time. Dark Matter / Dark Energy are only as dark as our thoughts. Lets weigh our thoughts in and we would have the total mass / energy of the universe. The moment when one stops thinking is when one sees the true light of love in the heart. Some think that universe is expanding, some think that universe is contracting, some think that universe is eternal, I know that universe is what we want it to be.

As scientific explanation is the accepted medium for people to understand things, I have chosen this path to explain the true nature of our being. We are nothing but the result of our imagination. We can travel in space and time with our minds. The body we have is nothing but a space ship that is made for the journey on this planet, soul is the captain. Our brains are the best particle accelerators. I imagine that one day there will be only science of self realization at the highest realm of education converging all sciences, philosophy and religion. Altruistic science should be for enquiring (thinking about) the truth, philosophy for discussing the thoughts and religion for regulating the thoughts for greater good of all beings. I know that this will be done one way or another.

The theory of everthing is that there is absolutely nothing, God is absolute state of mind, soul that is everything and nothing, we are relative states of mind, bodies that are something in between. Happiness and sorrow are relative states of mind, absolute state of mind is peaceful.

Exploring thy self is plain, discovering thy self is not. Intelligence arises from conscience (birth or white hole or entaglement) and results in duality or virtual reality. Intelligence merges back with conscience (death or black hole or enlightenment) and results in singularity or absolute truth. Intelligence is relative and variable. Conscience is absolute and constant. Intelligence is digital in nature. Conscience is analog or continuous in nature. Intelligence is complex. Conscience is simple. Wisdom is the knowledge of conscience and application of intelligence in pursuit of peace and joy.
One is still in duality if one still thinks there is space and time besides one self. One attains singularity by knowing there is no space-time other than one self. Duality is voluntary like raising a thought in the brain, singularity is involuntary like a heart beat. Life is a combination of both of these experiences. As a father of three boys and being fully aware of my self, relatively speaking, isn't it true to say that I created the universe for them.

Truth is simple, accepting it is not.

I am relative I is absolute
I am phenomenon I is nuomenon
I am pi I is zero
I am 3-sphere of love I is n-sphere of love
I am geometry of love I is singularity of love
I am variant I is constant
I am finite I is infinite
I am present I is omnipresent
I am potent I is omnipotent
I am scient I is omniscient
I am mortal I is immortal
I am transcendental I is eternal
I am matter I is ether
I am observed I is the observer
I am dual I is single
I am digital I is analog
I am mind and body I is the soul
I am in the brain I is in the heart
I am intelligent I is the conscience
I am in space-time I is the space-time
I am sound I is the silence
I am visible I is invisible
I am light I is dark
I am asleep I is awake
I am a dream I is the dreamer
I am in peace I is in love
I am human I is god
I am one of our kind I is everyone of all kinds
I am something I is nothing and everything
I am virtual reality I is absolute truth

Love,

Sridattadev.

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 1:35 PM / March 28, 2012 | Read More

Beverley wrote:

THE GREAT PULL
My theory is that the universe is a recycling system. There is dark energy all around us and going through us. The universe is full everywhere with dark energy. It is traveling at such a speed we can not feel it or see it or calculate it. We are being pulled along into space by dark energy, that is why we are in constant motion nothing ever stops. We have to expand. When the dark energy is pulled into a black hole it is so fast and so intense with such power that we cannot see it. The speed is so fast that it pulls it down to the smallest of universes where the power is so intense it makes dark matter. Then it has to explode into a big bang and when that happens we get sprayed out into dark energy and get pulled along until we are combined into us. We are the dark matter. I think this has been going on for ever. As space is infinite. There is nothing to stop the energy it is always on the move. It has always been here. To relate to a big bang it would be like all the energy built up in your mind and body to have an orgasm in the brain a big bang and at the same time the ejaculation would be the spray of matter that is spit out into space which became us. It's all about energy and how fast it moves. With the speed of energy it has to make matter. It is the pull of energy that keeps us alive. That made us. And we are still in the pull. I believe that we are the only beings like us in the universe. As with constant motion, being on the move all the time our combination to make us was at our exactness. The recipe to make us humans was at a precise exact moment for us to become. That moment has past as we are always in the pull into space. With constant motion there is no way that our recipe could belong to anyone else but us. At that precise moment on the run in the dark energy with the pull we became. Whatever else became we don't know. But their exactness will never be like ours. It just can't be. Different space, different time, different recipe. We are the only humans like us.
Beverley

On: How Vast is the Cosmos?

Posted 8:17 PM / March 16, 2012 | Read More

Beverley wrote:

I believe that we are the only beings like us in the universe. As with constant motion, being on the move all the time our combination to make us was at our exactness. The recipe to make us humans was at a precise exact moment for us to become. That moment has past as we are always in the pull into space. With constant motion there is no way that our recipe could belong to anyone else but us. At that precise moment on the run in the dark energy with the pull we became. Whatever else became we don't know. But their exactness will never be like ours. It just can't be. Different space, different time, different recipe. We are the only humans like us.

On: Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?

Posted 8:15 PM / March 16, 2012 | Read More

Beverley wrote:

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 8:13 PM / March 16, 2012 | Read More

Beverley wrote:

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 7:13 PM / March 16, 2012 | Read More

Beverley wrote:

On: Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?

Posted 7:12 PM / March 16, 2012 | Read More

doawithlife wrote:

No/Yes. Mathematically yes, time wise no. In our time curve the closer you get to the beginning the slower time moves (faster? guess depends how you look at it).

Now onto my problems with what Guth proposes. If a curve out from the creation exists there must be a reverse force. Now if that reverse force is present within our universe then that would imply an end of time. If this reverse force does not exist within our universe then that would imply an existance of time going the otherway from the beginning of time, which in essence would create infinite time before time.

For the German guy (who btw I think is much closer to truth). Again a closed universe mathematically, open physically. The lower doppler effect would reduce interaction between our mass and the reverse force, which in essence making our mass smaller (or rather our perception of our mass) as we move closer which would make the edge of the universe further and further away.

So My view of the universe. We are basically a pop up card. If you put the pop up down then roll it up into an infinitly small circle then push that circle down to an infinitly small point. There may or may not be another pop up card on the other side of zero to equal out our pop up card. This does sorta miss explaining my guess of what makes up dark matter, but yeah.

Anyways, this is kind of vindicating. Two~ years ago I asked on the blogs here why our universe couldn't come from nothing after watching an episode about creation of our universe. And lo and behold they say it does come from nothing:) Wish I was a Theoretical Physicist...

On a side note, when I look at linking two points in our universe for the sake of time travel. I come to some pretty odd mathematical problems, one of which being the possible creation of a new universe.

On: Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?

Posted 1:04 AM / February 05, 2012 | Read More

Frank M DiMeglio wrote:

Weinberg is lost. Here's why:

Here is the true, general, and fundamental unification of physics, AND this is what Einstein's gravity lacks and what dreams FUNDAMENTALLY demonstrate, include, and unify:

1) Instantaneity (and fundamentally).

2) Truly and fundamentally equivalent and balanced inertia and gravity (both at half energy/force strength.) Gravity is reduced to the extent that inertia is increased.

3) Fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion.

4) Gravity and inertia are both FUNDAMENTAL to distance in/of space.

5) We all originate (and grow) at/from the center of the human body, and we continue to live and grow (ordinarily) after birth. Dreams demonstrate our growth and our becoming other than we are.

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio has fundamentally and generally unified physics.

None of you can refute this. THIS IS GIGANTIC NEWS IN PHYSICS AND ON THE TOPIC OF CONSCIOUSNESS!

Look at how pathetically lost the mainstream physicists are.

On: Why a Fine-Tuned Universe? by Robin Collins

Posted 5:02 PM / December 15, 2011 | Read More

gerry1 wrote:

In his thoughtful essay, “Could Our Universe Be a Fake” by David Brin
[by Robert Lawrence Kuhn (12/25/10 7:06 pm)] Brin states:

“ . . . Here is the prime theological question. The one whose answer affects all others. And yet, one that is almost never asked:

Is there moral or logical justification for a creator to wield capricious power of life and death over his creations … and is there any fundamental moral reason why those creations should have to obey?

Humanity long ago replied with a resounding “no!”… at least when talking about parents and their offspring. (There have been a few exceptions, such as the principle of pater familias in Roman law, which permitted a father to kill even adult offspring, if they offended him.) In most cultures, the created—our kids—eventually get full authority and a right to make their own way. In some societies, they are even welcome to argue with their creators along the way.

And yet, without noticing any irony, we have implicitly answered the same question “yes” when it came to God! The Creator, it seemed, was owed unquestioning servitude, just because this creator made us.

It is the ghost at the banquet, the underlying assumption of all religions, taken for granted for far too long. Is it puzzling that—after more than four millennia of theological wrangling, and the investment of millions of hours of thought to religious matters—this question only comes up now? Now that we are picking up creation’s tools, like bright apprentices? Tools of physics and biology, and also tools that let us simulate the creation of whole worlds.”

May I respectfully suggest that Brin’s “complaint” above against the traditional (omnipotent) “God” of most modern theologies (East and West) is totally correct (and totally unnecessary within LDS, or Mormon theology) because LDS theology’s concept of God is “less omnipotent” than traditional historical Christianities. I do not speak for the Mormon Church, but my opinion is that LDS “materialism,” i.e. God within His own thoroughly material, resurrected anthropomorphic body, entirely solves Brin’s complaint. See my blog of June 18, 2011, attached to “Richard Swinburne” in this collection of blogs.

If God is really “our Father who art in Heaven,” and we humans His actual “offspring” (Acts 17:29, KJV), then humans are not “creatures” (like machines, constructions) of God at all. We are His children. We might, therefore, possibly “grow up” to become more like God, our Father, if we choose properly to develop the proper god-like character.

Because God, our Father, is “limited” by His own material (resurrected substance) physical body, His “omnipotence” is limited by co-eternal elements of matter of which He is made, and which He has learned to master and use. This is far different from “classical” divine omnipotence wherein God is wholly unlimited in power. (And this “limited omnipotence” completely solves the entire “problem of evil,” as well, but more about that for another blog.)

Therefore, Brin’s suggestion above that God relates to mankind as “parents and their offspring” is entirely correct. That mankind now is “picking up creation’s tools” is proper and expected from “children” of a God who anticipates them to do just that as they progress in their journey toward their own possible “theosis.”

Is it odd that this notion of “theosis” should be found inside a “restored” (formal, organized) church emanating from Jesus Himself in these “latter days”? So be it.

Gerry L. Ensley
Los Alamitos, CA

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 3:44 AM / June 28, 2011 | Read More

SynchroniCity wrote:

"Punning Mania", a mental disorder can stretch relevance.

Meaning is elastic and there are some coordinate systems that can render an illumination of 'meaning' as insignificant. We can take a name like Obama and dissect the proper name into grammatical equivocations not quite ad infinitum absurdum.

The idea of observing names and documenting them as cc expressions are configurations that may or may not provide post priori empirical data. We do hope that as a discipline, there may inherent 'foreknowledge' in the idea of philosophic poetic narratives with historical actualities.

Documenting history as JUex De Noms through interpretive devices, such as a U.N. sanctionned language of English linguistics does limit the expression. But it offers us a methodological approach that offers a comprehension of a larger expression. The 'grammatical' stucture of proper names being rendered as words sentenced into poetic sets are hyperbollic but validated with consideration of objective historical perspectives.

A fortiori, even more so, the proper names when placed chronologically or 'timeless' are 'ironic', an interpretive principle of so called 'synchronicity' which is mostly implemented right under everyone's eyes and over their heads.

So I see in Robert Kuhn's vision something agreeable to my perspective of a 'thinking earth' that has a sort of BeauRegard's Supra Conscious, Jung's "Cosmic Character", CHARDin noosphere with a cloud of knowing ,
an 'absolute knowledge'. I think that the 'past' literature imitates 'future' behaviour and we fall into the grooves of Ark types that forever span across 'past' and 'future' preparing our way as a 'present.'

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 5:31 PM / March 19, 2011 | Read More

SynchroniCity wrote:

If the author that Kuhn mentions is as he states about the “'author' of our cosmic simulation were having a little joke."

Eternal ideas are universal, encompassing a broader class of particulars, such as historical actualities, curds homogenized into a coagulated flow is probably such an autonous theme.

Survival requires autonomy. Historical actualities are short lived. Art imitates life and vice versa. Art last more than a generation. We live and die, art lives and at best imitated a copy of our existence.

In an eternal idea, the fact that one exists, even they know not, is etched into everlasting 'film', a MINKowSKIan multi-dimensional coordinate system. A still point in a stilled spiraling yin-yang contain the most amount of memory imaginable. The memory of our existence is embedded and we as a cosmic audience view ourselves during our allotment on this earth.

IT is "US". We are a mask of God. We combine efforts with the Holy Spirit as part of our becoming. The earth cries,

YELTSIN. Yeltsin Gorbachev Andropov Stalin KRUSHev.

game of names, JU de Noms observed , jotted as elements into justified sets of co-incidents. The duo operation, the collective expression may be either and/or both a philosophical universality, a medulla obligata, something that must occur and historical actuality.

A fortiori 'ring of irony', when a set of protocols are used, in this case the study of 'NOM typology' coincidences involves conjunction with interpretive principles of synchronicity along with the linguistics of names. We are concerned with 'context' in so far as semblance to some 'sense' that is not stretched beyond relevance.

The approach is admittedly limited but hopefully comprehendable when being 'explained', 'interpreted', 'rendered' as mangled English linguistics. English is a U.N. sanctionned language and although the manifold meanings undoubtedly go beyond the capability of a common human language, it should provide a good idea of what's involved when taking the stange tongue, here coined 'noospeak', which is treating proper names of people and places and using them as an 'occasion' rather than a 'ding a sich', a thing in itself in order to be interpreted and edify by charitable means for the intent and will of this unus mundus mumbo jumbo of a language. Life is filled with JU de Noms. Jeux de Noms. There is 'something watching'. I think its 'good', even sacred because even the admonshing attributes sometimes reflected by a coincidence appear as if reasoned by an encompassing intellect, sometimes can be a trangression of man's clever web, or of a higher power that can use the operation of synchronicity like a general on an ark type.

In a fictitous example, if one is thinking of a 'general' an external presentation would have the similarity of Kuhn's Moby Dick and Captain Ahab cross connecting principle of interpretation. Jung has a narrow definition of synchronicity in that the separate non causally connected event are simultaneous and in a broader perspective, an acausal orderdeness.

There are too many trivial and great coincidences for man to spend monies. After a while, as they pile up, we need to interpret the names as a SynchroniCity Bildung, a picture of the world from one of a cherished theme of 'love', the eternal living idea. It comes through to hit the nail on the head where x marks the spot, there is a collective spirit of man, an animus mundus, the 'oomph', our will submitted as a collection of names etched in memories sometimes lost, but still there crying in prayer that life is not in vain in spite of ourselves.

RE

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 4:14 PM / March 15, 2011 | Read More

SynchroniCity wrote:

Again thank Robert Lawrence Kuhn for providing a user comment forum.

There are three major categories I gathered from his (12/25/10 7:06 pm) post on closertotruth.com.

The "Designer", "Man Made", and/or 'other' are involved in a fake universe. Nature, God and man each have their own way of pulling puns. The more we study the areas discussed it appears that we are getting more certain that there is a 'higher order of intellect' , a 'scire' (to know) us.

Kuhn refreshingly, I feel points towards 'coincidences of names'. From my perspective especially after I started seriously observing from the early 1980's how these 'coincidences of names' ring of irony and unfortunately at times 'pities'.

I composed and continue to jot JU de NOMS, game of names by observing these 'coincidences'. Each time I think how ridiculous the concept of synchronicity, let alone a supra conscience emanating from Omega, a swift reminder in the form of some typology of coincidence pops into my periphereal view.

No matter how terrible the acts of nature and human behaviour there is an optimistic spirit . We are an "All for all", a collective spirit that eventually matures as a critical mass of 'flesh like flim' self consumating from a chaos into omega, a point of love. From that perspective, the ju de noms, sets of names treated as words sentenced into poetics, I call 'noospeak', an articulation of 'thinking earth poetics'.

Names are empirical data. If we can at least grasp post priori cross connections between names and events, the 'absolute knowledge cloud' reveals 'a priori' information, usually a recurring 'idea', formation of 'themes' and universal motifs like 'cursus', Latin for 'running rapidly'. A name on earth echoes in kind, Iran! Irani...

Like a dream to be interpreted, names of leaders and places that pop into the collective consciousness that 'look like coincidence and pass the smell test' probably offer useful insights relevant to our world, including migration and recurring issues. The mind boggling idea that a 'cosmic character' speaks through a 'thinking planet' by kundulazing people and places into static gatherings in the collective consciousness, for better or worse is a serious study and I certainly appreciate hearing about this from Kuhn, as I feel it is really getting into the right hands.

Synchronicity was a white elephant and after going through the muddy waters, emerged from bursting barn doors as a dancing horse in front of the public consciousness, thanks to an 'implied conspiracy of love', that jewel of omega.

RE

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 2:53 PM / March 15, 2011 | Read More

SynchroniCity wrote:

I am slow so I reread. A better appreciation I gained after putting into a text natural reader, so that I can slow it down to my level to get a better idea about the 'past' controling the 'future'.

Paraphrasing OrWell in '1984 : Big Brother is Watching You."
"He who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past."

To prove the 'magical quality' involving such an accomplishment to control the future by anticipatory self fullfilling resolutions, we'd need to quantify how many times people are in fact having 'internal thought processes' that coorespond to an external presentation of MeDia RAIDio or TELLusVISIONS. The example, the novelist states, I think, is the implemenation of a principle that cuts across 'time-space' like a probe and judgement of our mental and physical whereabouts with an uncanny attention to detail in order to 'get some point(s) across."

Ad aperturum MeDia, where a Media opens, combines the entrance of an external non causally connected object 'at the same time' in the narrowest definition, the inner thought process.

But even if it is acausal, it can be triggered by causal 'bursts' (readings just prior to,during and after anticipation {brain} waves) combined with Post Reinforcement Stimuli (PRS). Schrodinger's delight.

The delivery method is the 'philosophic generalities' combined with fine target market finger pointing.

Need more people to buy products? Project hot and heavy promiscous propagations. Just at the right moment, they'll know if their in with the right ones. If not that PRS makes them look inconsequential.

The more specific the philosophic universal themes, historical perspectives of 'typologies' become familiar for the smart and dumb masses to finger point to someone resembling the projected characters.

Discussions about certain episodes, even peepish are said just when one is thinking about these memories.

The more sophisticated the technology, the accumulative literature, including myths, fables and gables can help us form imagio of even profound theological experiences through an imitation of an invisible cosmic character that is in dialog with the viewer at given segments of time. As if the 'other', the "WIThNESS" is coming through the voice of the TELLusVISION or RAIDio even to the point of sometimes not knowing if we just had an original or an echo for our thoughts.

Are there any reports?

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 1:48 PM / March 15, 2011 | Read More

Sweenith wrote:

Not only does Vilenkin have to deal with those "pesky laws of physics" as Kuhn mentions above, but also the "quantum foam" (which I take to be distinct from the "universe" as he uses the term) out of which the universe is supposed to proceed.

It's misleading to present such a theory as an alternative to theistic explanations for the universe, since he is clearly using a much narrower definition of "universe" than the theist: when one says that God created the universe, that means, at the very least, the totality of material objects (anything spatially-extended or located); I don't know of anyone who holds that God is the creator of all but the quantum foam.

Moreover, in order for the laws of quantum mechanics to account for the existence of the universe (so understood), they would have to be taken as supra-nomological in some sense, for physical laws don't obtain "outside" of (i.e. apart from, without, beyond) the universe, and we're talking about the cause of the universe itself. But that assumption seems unwarranted - there doesn't seem to be any good reason to invest quantum mechanical laws with such metaphysical status (and methodological naturalism would prohibit that, anyways).

On: Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?

Posted 1:25 AM / February 03, 2011 | Read More

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

I just wanted to add a clearer articulation of my thoughts on Something versus Nothing. I believe it's false to formulate a Nothing ideology from a Something perspective, which is what we're stuck with, as we're something.

Specifically, to state that a nothing ideology is absolutely nothing, save the physics and mathematics model of our something, is truly not seeing the question for what it is. As much as it's hard to fathom the ideology of nothing, it would have to have absolutely nothing, including our something’s physics and mathematics models, for it to truly be nothing. I believe it's false to assume that any understanding from within our something is so fundamental, as to be the very foundation of every possibility of something, including a nothing.

In the past I never asked why there is something versus nothing. But in the question of why we (as a whole) were incapable of seeing the miraculous nature of our existence, or so it would seem, considering how we treat each other and ourselves (nature), I would instead assert that just as easily as we're here we could not have been.

I believe the dart board analogy is false as it's derived from a something perspective. "In a nothing reality..." You see, you can't say that, because it's from a something perspective. Better to say "In a nothing" (you have to leave off the "reality" bit for it to be consistent with nothing.

I believe that the something or nothing ratio is at most 50/50. But it's more likely that the nothing possibility is actually more probable than something, because nothing relies upon nothing while something always relies upon something. It's easy to see why Einstein said our cosmos was a curve; something can only be seen from a circular perspective in order to qualify it.

Hard for us mere humans to fathom!
"We're all just fools in the eyes of the universe."
OK, maybe that’s a bit harsh and born solely of my disappointment in us, after all this time, in the year 2011. I think it’s more appropriate to say: "We're all just children in the eyes of the universe." With that said, I hope we give ourselves the opportunity to reach maturity.

PEACE to all Living creatures, we're all miracles!

P.S. I believe that our only hope is to steer our course with carefully understood knowledge. Where our direction is NOT chosen because we CAN do something, but rather, whether we SHOULD do something! We have to eradicate the sickness that is so often a resultant of capitalism, and replace it with the truth that can only be understood through Philosophy (father of all science) and the scientific method. So we can see our way as clear as it can be, in TRUTH.

©2011 Joseph B Combs

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 2:16 PM / February 01, 2011 | Read More

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

First, Thanks for your TV series and this site. In a world where selfishness seems to reign supreme, it's refreshing to see someone offering resources on knowledge for free, again thanks!

I wanted to comment on the nothing or something question. One thing that came to mind as I watched your interviews was that it seemed that in your analysis of nothing you forgot to consider that your perspective was from that of something. Specifically, that somehow mans understanding of the laws that define interactions within something, could have any significance at all within nothing.

I submit that: 'all we truly know, is that we know "nothing".' This we must never forget throughout our venture in knowledge as it keeps us grounded. History has shown that today's cutting edge neurosurgery is tomorrows frontal lobotomy. So it is with our understanding of the cosmos and every other facet of knowledge.

You mentioned how the question may not be understood by some. I believe an indicator of that would be anyone that injected anything from something into nothing, as if the concept of nothing somehow requires the substance of something. Nothing requires nothing! Both infinity and nothing are extremely difficult if not impossible for any human, at our current stage of development, to truly come to terms with. It's like nothing creating something.

I look forward to viewing the rest of your videos, Again I thank you for your sharing, You're a gentleman and a scholar.

PEACE to ALL!

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 11:01 AM / January 30, 2011 | Read More

Nephologic wrote:

According to a really good Seth Lloyd book entitled "Programming the Universe", once we have a fully functioning quantum computer computing on as little as 300 atoms, we will be able to simulate the Universe and obtain a complete model, from Big Bang to the far-distant future. Moreover, he claims that this simulation would be indistinguishable from our actual Universe. So yeah...I suppose all this might be a fake, but if it's truly indistinguishable from whatever "real reality" is like, the authenticity of the original is more or less arbitrary.

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 11:40 PM / January 10, 2011 | Read More

SynchroniCity wrote:

Hmm, Do we live in a matrix? Well in a perfect system, the world would have some grooves of autonomy. We may be shackled by the consequences of cause and effect, but in the psychoid state, the bridge between matter and psyche a
shift into another matrix by a larger more comprehensive consciousness, a collective critical mass can alter our course.

We may be in a cycle where drastic earth and solar changes is going to pounce on us. What does that mean about how we behaved? Well if we can look back upon ourselves as if we all died we'd have an eschatologic view that is useful, especially if use it to compare our conscience.

(Woolsey Turner Codi Gates Webster Tenet Sessions Hayden)

is a set of intelligence heads. A single man has one head and usually only comprehends 'its this way or its that way" not both like a Janus two faced head. More heads are better than two. A collective head of humans contain an even more interesting 'code'.

RE

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 7:02 PM / January 05, 2011 | Read More

Sweenith wrote:

What is it about a computer-generated universe that makes it "a fake"? Couldn't we suppose we lived in a computer-simulation, and that our real, simulated selves were tricked into thinking that they lived in a material universe?

On: Could Our Universe Be a Fake by David Brin

Posted 2:51 AM / December 31, 2010 | Read More

Jeffrey M Durant wrote:

Hello Dr Kuhn, it's my pleasure to meet you. I enjoyed your program on the local PBS station. My name is Jeff. Forgive me, for my spelling isn't a strong point of mine. I am among many titles a autodidact & philosopher. This is my first experience with the blogging world. I hope to be able to interface with intelligent peoples that are like Gandhis autobiographies name experimenting with "Truth".
I'm hopeful to learn as well as teach. I'm currently writing a book titled
"Earth, The Mini Universe & The Dual Nature of Light" in it I believe I've solved a few mysteries of our Universe. If this is a proper place to discuss such matters, please respond. Regards, Jeffrey M Durant

On: How Vast is the Cosmos?

Posted 1:30 AM / December 21, 2010 | Read More

bikeboblindberg wrote:

God's creation proves He exists, and Jesus Christ proves God is a person who loves us, and offers us a personal relationship with Himself. John 3:16; I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me. John 1:1,3 & 14; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him. And the Word became flesh and lived among us and we saw His glory as the only begotten of the father, full of grace and TRUTH. Heb. 1:1&2; God who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the universe.

On: Why a Fine-Tuned Universe? by Robin Collins

Posted 12:36 PM / December 19, 2010 | Read More

cjsven wrote:

Using only replicable physics, I find that the universe is already defined by NASA’s observations. Support for such event is found in the Triangulation of Earth’s location in our visible universe as reported in my web site as: http://www.allnewuniverse.com/Center-by-Triangulation.pdf
Support for this see:
Ageless atom’s electron requirements, used to drive light/photons without batteries, [noted by the unchanging atomic weight, number, mass, etc.] must be supplied from a huge, external, super high frequency, super-cooled source, undetected by current technology, one that could exist 14+ billion years without degradation.
Considering that the greatest atom’s output, up to now, is found in the nuclear chain reaction, the power source of the sun; that power must become the lower limit of the atom’s continuous energy requirements.
So then, the computation of power transmitted directed into the atom must equal or exceed mc2 so to provide the energy required by the atom’s components continuously for 14+ billion years to keep active all the forces found therein.
The best source of this power requirement is “Dark Energy” – the power source of the Big Bang’s Explosive conversion of energy into matter as demonstrated at Stanford Labs.

References:
http://www.allnewuniverse.com/DemoOfDarkEnergy.pdf
http://www.allnewuniverse.com/BigBangFuel.ppt
http://www.allnewuniverse.com/atoms-power-requirements.html

Respectfully Charles Sven

On: How Vast is the Cosmos?

Posted 11:08 AM / December 09, 2010 | Read More

SomethingNothing wrote:

This is one topic i feel the most. When i was young, i ponder about the enormity of the cosmos.

Having study some physics, no matter what model physicists come up to expand out cosmos, there is always some contingent elements that are left as brute facts. What is the solution? Is there any model with the least brute? Yes. I believe in modal realism, or the mathematical universe hypothesis.

I think everything that is logically possible, must necessary have a world for it. I believe there is a world with 4 elementary particles, 5 dimension, and 56 force laws etc.

On: How Vast is the Cosmos?

Posted 4:36 AM / November 21, 2010 | Read More

SomethingNothing wrote:

" Why did our universe begin? Why the laws of physics? Sometimes only silence … gets us closer to truth."

I am silent because not many people can think that deeply about these issues. I think about it a lot when i was young.

Now back to the topic. You seem to think that if there is a big bang ( no matter how far back), then there is a mystery to why it is the case. This is wrong, because even if there is no big bang, there would still be mystery. Here is why:

Suppose there is no bang bang, but an infinitely many consecutive states. Our big bang is just one state. There would still be the mystery of why these series of states. Why it is not a different series?

On: Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?

Posted 4:25 AM / November 21, 2010 | Read More

SomethingNothing wrote:

Numbers, and tautologies are analytically true, while facts about the world are contingently true. The question "why this multiverse?", or "why these set of laws(fundamental)?" if it is at all fundamental would eventually hit a wall. The question can be rephrased as asking "why certain contingently true things, true?" Is there an answer to this question? Obviously not. What ever that is contingently true cannot have a reason, because otherwise, it would be necessary.

If you do opt for the explanation that all contingently true things are "necessary". This is to pick max tagmark `s ultimate ensemble.

On: Why a Fine-Tuned Universe? by Robin Collins

Posted 3:06 AM / November 21, 2010 | Read More

Blog

Can Religion Be Explained Without God?

Most people believe that God exists and religion is God’™s revelation. But some claim that religion needs nothing supernatural; that religion, without God, can flourish because personal psychology and group sociology drive religion.

Read Post > | Comments (111) >

ALSO: Arguing God from Design, by Richard Swinburne >

SEE ALL BLOGS

Current TV Episodes - Summaries.
The 39 episodes in the current TV season: 13 episodes each for Cosmos, Consciousness, God.

Future TV Episodes - Cosmos, Consciousness, God

Previous TV Episodes

Learn about Closer To Truth participants. Browse bios and articles on CTT topics.

Closer To Truth overview. Go behind the scenes and meet the CTT team. View photos from around the globe and more.

Additional material and resources on Closer To Truth topics.

Visit SciTech Daily: the best intelligent, informed science & technology coverage and analysis daily.

View episodes, transcripts and participants from Closer To Truth Seasons 1 & 2.

Website of Closer To Truth season 3.