Is reality an artificial Intelligent designed illusion

Post Reply New Topic

I quit filling in those blanks years ago.

reverse entropy?

Look at the formation of a solar system in the short run. (it's first say 1 billion years)
Reverse entropy can occur without design on a local basis... local in space AND time.
Gravity, the self-replicating nature of certain molecules and a few other properties of matter are all that are required.

As for what time it was before the big bang?
There was time before the big bang, just as there is now. The problem is that causality breaks down at the point in time of the big bang. Thus nothing that happened before the big bang can be determined from what happened after the big bang, so science just uses as a semantic convenience that "time began with the big bang" (Paraphrase of Steven Hawking)

Perhaps we should say "Time began anew with the big bang" because this "time" is chrono-hermetically sealed off from time that existed before the big bang, and from time that will exist after the big crunch (if there is one). Just as physicists say that time stops in a black hole. It only stops to us. Inside that black hole within our universe (say the one at the centre of our galaxy), time would be started anew, just as it was at the point of the big bang.

If you stepped outside of our universe, our universe would be a singularity, which one could not observe the contents of. Physics also prevents us from seeing outside of our singularity too, by the fact that nothing falling into the black hole ever reaches that which is already in the black hole. (maybe someone better with physics can explain that better than I can)

Now... as for matter being an illusion of energy. That, although it may be just semantics, may be true. Insofar as matter being different from energy is the illusion. m-theory and it's success or failure as a theory will answer that question.

The other 2 questions.... The universe is a turing machine, just like any computer. It contains mini-turing machines within it, some are DNA some are other forms of matter. It is all a part of a great calculation to see how the original input (the state at the time of the big bang) will play out with the parameters that are present (or will be defined as the simulation plays out if the universe is not deterministic (whether due to randomness in quantum physics or the presence of free will))

Plato averred that God is a Mathematician (or Geometer). Now it is fashionable to say God is a Software Designer.

ruveyn

Right. And he designed the forbidden Apple.

Not bad!

ruveyn

Sure - with LSD there are plenty of ways of imagining different opportunities but in the real world, we let fact guide Science, not creative thinking and illegal substances. Science is daring to say "We do not know", religion is just being ignorant and "filling in the blanks" by painting dragons on the map to prevent others from exploring - which basically is what religion has done to science over the centuries.

When it comes down to it, there is only one truth: the truth about the know and the unknown. Only people who are prone to psychotic episodes are willing to ignore reality.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)

Read this: The streetlight Effect (july/august 2010) Discover mag.
Page 54-57. "Researchers tend to look for answers where the looking is good, rather than where the answers are likely to be hiding. The result: a lot of dubious science".
10-50 of research of some sort of misbehavior.
"wrongness infects 90 percent or more."

Last edited by ResearcherTony on 07 Aug 2010, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)

We see nothing unfiltered.
The light goes into the eye to the brain by electrical signals and the interrupting starts.

It is all open to interruption it seems.

The entropy for heat - the spreading out is one kind.
But gravity has a different kind - the pulling inward.

So the big bang is against both kinds of entropy.
Energy should not have started condensed only to disperse later naturally.
And gravity will all together in one clump does not wish to disperse naturally.
These to conditions are in conflict, added to the fact that matter is energy to begin with.

This shake will never bake in the real world.

The evolution of the cosmos has been from low entropy to higher entropy. When the cosmos was packed into a very small region it was in a minimally entropic state. Now it is diffused and more disordered, a higher state of entropy. There is nothing in the Big Bang (so-called) that contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.

ruveyn

Having the universe as a singularity gives us two choices.
(1) It was happy to be a singularity and was its natural state, and so was at equilibrium at all times. (To change would be against Lot2)
(2) was not happy to be a singularity and was not its natural state, and so was not at equilibrium at all - had the need to expand. (To get to this point is against Lot2)
(2) B: How did it get to this none equilibrium state which is unnatural and is against the laws of thermodynamics. (Without a creator this is against the law).
(2) C: Even if it were like TNT stable until ignition. You must store that energy and make it in a stable state - it is un-natural for this to occur by itself. (Against Lot2)

It takes more energy (work) so as to create stored potential then just that stored energy alone. There is no perfect energy transfer - will always be waist because of work done.
Where did the energy come from to store all that energy into a singularity so as to be stored potential energy ready for later use - creating a universe? (Naturally it would be against Lot2) It takes more energy (work) to create less energy in a stored state (potential).




Tony

Plants are not natural, and their systems are not natural either. (Bio-machinery - with intelligent DNA programming).
None of what grows is a natural process. And it still takes more energy in then you get out to create potential energy.

Tony

You are assuming that the Cosmos came from Nothing.

ruveyn

That is really a loaded question...
Let me try to answer it some how...

Almighty God always existed and so did his form of energy, if you can call it that was always there too.
Just as there is no such thing as a perfect closed system, so there can never be a time with nothing ever existing.
I would say that the basic constitutes of what we refer to as energy has always existed.
The creation of "physical" structures (electrons, protons, quarks, etc.), and that may even include our form of known energies, is what is new.
All things have structure, and so are constructed from other building blocks. There is a need for a smallest denominator - a starting point, a basic "material" that all things "physical" must start from. We may be unable to find it, do to its small size.

Any basic fundamental starting point, material - would not be physical (Exp: atoms, electrons, protons, quarks). So we should not call what is not known as yet, something like "nothing". It is illogical to even think of "nothingness". At least in the quantum world it is teeming with subatomic "stuff" all the time, and in every place. Why should it be any different as you get smaller and smaller?

Here’s a thought experiment:
Many things cease to exist at molecular levels. Life, taste, food, waste. Etc.
Even more so at the atomic level, and so what of the most basic level of all things with structure, physical and not.
Can you ever come to the point that you went down so small that you found nothing at all. First there would be a limit to how far you "could go". Going to the point of finding nothing is illogical and I would say impossible. Our limits of human logic kind of stop right here, if not sooner.


So there is no such thing as nothingness. It can only refer before our "physical universe", "physical matter", and the physical structures we know of.
Nothingness is a human perspective, and not a very good one at that.