'Multiverse Theory' - the Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix

[indigobusiness]

'Multiverse Theory' Holds That the Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix

Sydney Morning Herald | July 22 2004

Comment: Isn't it amazing that scientists have finally had to admit that the design of the universe is so perfectly crafted so as to indicate intelligent design and yet they still try to avoid any explanation which includes the word God.

---

Now cosmologists have got in on the act, suggesting that what we perceive as the universe might in fact be nothing more than a gigantic simulation.

The story behind this bizarre suggestion began with a vexatious question: why is the universe so bio-friendly? Cosmologists have long been perplexed by the fact that the laws of nature seem to be cunningly concocted to enable life to emerge. Take the element carbon, the vital stuff that is the basis of all life. It wasn't made in the big bang that gave birth to the universe. Instead, carbon has been cooked in the innards of giant stars, which then exploded and spewed soot around the universe.

---

Now some scientists are suggesting it should be taken seriously. "We may be a simulation ... creations of some supreme, or super-being," muses Britain's astronomer royal, Sir Martin Rees, a staunch advocate of the multiverse theory. He wonders whether the entire physical universe might be an exercise in virtual reality, so that "we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself".

---

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/220704multiversetheory.htm

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. "I was a hidden treasure who longed to be known"....

from a hadith (saying of the Prophet)...Sufi's explanation for why it all happened.

[skjpm]

2. we are stardust, we are golden

we are billion year old carbon

[indigobusiness]

3. That says it well.

The universe seems to be an urge determined to be realized.


to message #2: And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden.

[roguevalley]

5. one would not have to believe in the god of our feeble human ruminations

to believe a force of some kind, some kind of reckoning was in charge of our universe. I personally find the Christian/Judaic/Islamic, etc.
definition of god too small for the hugeness of everything. I anthro-
pomorphize my car: BlueBell. I am sure our species has anthropomorphized this 'urge', making a god with many faces and attributes, something to make personal the incomprehensible.

[Political_Junkie]

7. I absolutely agree, Rogue.

I just don't see that humans can even begin to comprehend something so powerful. Making a god more human helps them to cope with the feeling of being insignificant in comparison.

[indigobusiness]

8. I have to disagree, Rogue. Mixing the literal with the symbolic

is a failing of interpretation, not the teachings.

Massaging the teachings to fit comfortably within our psychological
comfort zone is a lazy and unworthy approach. God is not Santa Claus, though we seem to insist it is so, nobody made the claim.

The urge is within all matter, it is not anthropomorhized...that is just the direction it seems to take.


-comma added

[Wilber_Stool]

4. We are part of

a organic computer called Deep Thought. Designed to answer the question of life, the universe, and everything. The answer, by the way is 42.

[realisticphish]

10. the question

lies in scrabble.....


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Flagg]

22. Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy ?

Haven't read that one in a while.

[slutticus]

6. You should read...

..."A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram. The book is long-winded, but there's some neat stuff in there.

[Spinzonner]

9. Well, if the laws of nature

weren't 'concocted' to enable life to emerge then there wouldn't be anyone around to wonder why not.

[Bruce McAuley]

11. Mere motes in the Mind of God...

and everything IMAGINABLE will happen.
May you have an interesting life!(old curse)
Money, sex, drugs, and Rock and Roll, who could ask for anything more?
A pink BMW convertible?
No problem!
George Bush banished to Crawford or behind bars?
Gotta squint just right for THAT one! LOL
:hi:

Bruce

[indigobusiness]

25. Or maybe nachos...

[lastknowngood]

12. Don't buy it. It's just clever math. Steven Hawkins says no

parallel universes. I believe him above the small brains.

[indigobusiness]

14. It's Hawking...and that is a gross oversimplification of Hawking's take.

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/iy/news_blended/stephen+hawking/1/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040721/wl_uk_afp/science_physics_040721174537

Hawking doesn't claim to have it pinned down... he is always admitting he's wrong.

Besides, Timmy can kick his ass.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

38. One major difference between science and religion

is that a scientist -- even one as accomplished and respected as Stephen Hawking -- will admit his theory is wrong when it isn't supported by subsequent testing or analysis. Religion teaches that its tenets are perfect and unchallengeable.

[indigobusiness]

39. Misguided science is very much like misguided religion.

The opposite is also true.

[enki23]

13. oh for christ sake... paging bishop berkeley

this is absolutely nothing even slightly new here.

Comment: Isn't it amazing that scientists have finally had to admit that the design of the universe is so perfectly crafted so as to indicate intelligent design and yet they still try to avoid any explanation which includes the word God.

what we have here, to paraphrase the 9-11 commission, is a serious ####### failure of imagination.

[indigobusiness]

15. not for Enki nor Enlil, maybe...

Explain to us Marduk and Nibiru, then.

[indigobusiness]

19. The reason the word "God" is dificult to use meaningfully...

is because everyone has their own definition.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Big deal...

anyone can fudge the numbers to come up with a neat theory.

The fact remains that we are here, and if it was random activity that got us here, so be it-- that randomness would be seen to have an underlying logic since it got us here.

If the random activity ended up with something else, then those creatures would assume it was the hand of their gods who crafted it.

If the random activity ended up with nothingness, then no one would be around to question it.

So, we are still left with solypsism in the end, and we are unable to see beyond our own little universe, whatever that may be.

[indigobusiness]

18. From your perch, that would seem sensible...I guess.

But it isn't about massaging numbers, or creating a comfortable theory that feels good psychologically.

There are avenues of deep insight that reveal clues that render superficial scenarios moot.

The post about built-in intelligence seems on track, to me.

Perhaps we do live a holograpic universe?

edited to add-

You said: "If the random activity ended up with nothingness, then no one would be around to question it."

...the point is, it didn't. So the questions remains why...and how?

Random is a value judgement...perhaps all matter possesses within it a drive to ultimately be realized by concious thought? Which seems to be the case, and is hardly random.

Nature seems driven toward certain forms (ie bilateral symmetry) and
spheres cones, rods etc. Perhaps the drive toward conciousness and self examination is built-in, as well.

[ixion]

17. evolution indicates intelligence by design

so how does that coincide with some type of god?

God is something humans need to get over.

God is not 'up there','God' is in you.

God is in every molecule, and in the very spark of your existence. Every human has the power to ascend to that which is godly. In fact, it's pretty much the best excuse for our continued existence, in my opinion. We are here, simply to move on to the next level, which is godliness.

Just because there is intelligence in the design of a system, that does not undeniably lead to the existence of a single, solitary consciousness that sits on top and controls all below. That is an arcane notion (again, in my opinion), held over from before the Age of Enlightenment... which really was only sort of enlightenment.

That aside, I've followed the Multiverse theory for years, and believe it's one of the more cogent descriptions of the space around us.

[indigobusiness]

20. The God problem is in the percieving and defining,

God gets lost in the ridiculous rhetoric. The concept has meaning, or it wouldn't have been central to human existence since the beginning.

We seem determined to make God in our image. What a shame.

[ixion]

21. it is a shame

that civilizations have, and continue to try and define what which would otherwise be called 'God' in human terms, given humans collective historical amesia, our flawed and limited perception capabilities, and the fact that we're probably one of the most brutal species in existence. :-(

[bemildred]

23. Just can't get over that subject/object duality, can we?

So we have this simulator thingy that is outside the universe
as we know it sort of simulating it. But what about the simulator
thingy, is it really real, or is something simluating it too?
Does this not just lead to an infinite recursion? Have we not
just displaced the problem one step further away? Why not just
assume the world itself is singular, rather than displacing the
singularity a step or more away? It's simpler, actually.

[indigobusiness]

24. Who said it is "outside"?... It wasn't

Cheesus.

[bemildred]

26. What is "it"? The "it" that is not "outside" I mean.

If you mean the simulator thingy is inside, then it's
simulating itself, which leads to a self-referential system,
and those can confuse even Cheesus.

[indigobusiness]

27. That's the question?

Forgive me for saying so, but a Zen approach might help, or a Tibetan Buddhist style logical discourse - they are surprisingly scientific in their rigorous debates. The suggestion has helped keep trees from hiding the forest.

There is no getting "there" with balance sheets and bottom lines.

Can't find God by measuring a church.

The ineffable is beyond reference.

[bemildred]

28. What is "that"? The "that" that is the question, I mean?

I wanted to know what the "it" is that is not "outside". But
if you can tell me what the "that" is that is the question, I
will settle for that.

[indigobusiness]

29. You coined the "it" I referenced

"So we have this simulator thingy that is outside the universe
as we know it sort of simulating it. But what about the simulator
thingy, is it really real, or is something simluating it too?"

[indigobusiness]

30. Perhaps it is "a self-licking ice-cream cone"...

...like the Pentagon.

[bemildred]

31. There are two "its" there.

The reasonable inference would seem to be that you meant the "it"
that refers to the "simulator thingy", in which case you are
implying (perhaps) that the the "simulator thingy" is not
outside, in which case you have either the self-referential
situation I mentioned in post #26 or you are agreeing in some
degree with my original statement that dualism fails here, in
which case I do not understand your original complaint, hence
my request for clarification.

[indigobusiness]

32. I see, I got a little bleary there for a minute...

But my point is that dualism is illusory. How does dualism operate in the quantum paradox? It seems to me physics is just catching up with Vedic concepts.

Actually, I'm perplexed by it all...fascinated, but perplexed. Maybe I am not up to your question? I'll try...let me think about it some more.

[bemildred]

33. I think we agree.

Hence, I suggest we not argue.

I am actually, perhaps ineptly, paraphrasing one of Alan
Watt's arguments as to why dualism is seen to be illusory.
It leads to ludicrous conclusions.

My basic position is that everything is magic, all of it;
but there is no special magic, no tricks, all one big lump
of the same kind of stuff.

[indigobusiness]

35. I only argue to learn, not to prove my point of view....

But, I wouldn't argue that, in any case. Yes, magic, but fun to analyze.

[indigobusiness]

34. I tthink the answer to your question is somewhere

in the interconnectdness implied by quantum entanglement.

The universe is a self-referencing organism, matter is inherently driven toward conciousness so that the universe can ponder its navel and marvel at its sexiness.

[Bruce McAuley]

36. As in Heaven, so on Earth...

The word that describes the entanglement of every piece of matter of all kinds, along with the entanglement of every form of energy, is the word we call "God".
This is a mistake, but to our limited view, it might be the best we can do today.
The Buddhists DO have the best theological insights today, but the cheesus nachos are right up there too!
Does the MATRIX collapse if Cheesus forgets to put another quarter in?
:hi:

Bruce

[Bridget Burke]

37. Let's hope the Supreme Being doesn't lose his map....

Or lose it again....

[Bruce McAuley]

40. No problem! He could just ask His WIFE!

She Who Must Be Obeyed! LOL
:hi:

Bruce

[indigobusiness]

46. She'd just want to

inquire at the nearest gas station.

[klook]

42. A few words from the Supreme Being

Supreme Being: I'm going to transfer you to the undergrowth department... bracken, small shrubs... with a nineteen percent cut in salary, backdated to the beginning of time.

Randall: Oh, thank you, Sir.

Supreme Being: Yes, well, I am the nice one.

Thanks for the reminder that Time Bandits is one of my all-time favorite movies!

[klook]

41. Check out "Microcosmic God" by Theodore Sturgeon

edited to include URL of story description
This short story is about a scientist and the miniature race of beings he creates. Here's a description of the story, from the Foresight Institute:

One of the first SF stories to describe what might be loosely called nanotek is Theodore Sturgeon's much-anthologized "Microcosmic God" (Astounding, 1941). The protagonist, James Kidder, is a biochemist who, by establishing the conditions for a speeded-up form of natural selection, "evolves" the Neoterics, a tiny race of super-intelligent creatures. The Neoterics have an accelerated metabolism which permits them to accomplish any task very rapidly. Kidder causes them to solve problems for him by subjecting them to selected external forces that can cause death and destruction.

Soon the Neoterics are producing a string of inventions and discoveries that make Kidder a very rich man in our society. To the Neoterics, however, he is a cruel and capricious God. Finally the clever Neoterics develop an impenetrable shield that isolates them from their "God," allowing them to continue their progress in unknown directions. The human race is left to wait nervously for the day when the Neoterics lower their shield and emerge.

Sturgeon's Neoterics were small (sub-millimeter in size?), but not nanometer-scale molecular machines, and Kidder's control of them was more at the level of coercion than of programming; further, they are evolved rather than designed. If there is a warning in Sturgeon's scenario, it is that evolution, as opposed to design, may be a dangerous path for developing nanomachines because it is difficult to control.

Ted Sturgeon, 1963

[indigobusiness]

44. Interesting...thanks

There are meaningful clues here.


on edit--- Check this out



'Tighter controls' for tiny science


Tighter UK and European regulation over some aspects of nanotechnology -manipulation of molecules - is needed to ensure its long-term safety.
A Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report said that there was no need to ban nanoparticle production.

But more formal research of them was "urgent". Nanoparticles should also be treated as "new chemicals", it said.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3930179.stm

[Dancing_Dave]

43. Simulation or Dissimulation?

Is the Universe really a cunningly designed simulation of some Conspiring God, or do we live under a Regime so full of dissimulation that nothing seems quite real to us anymore???

:think:

[indigobusiness]

45. Neither

It seems to be a self-realizing field of being.