Can the Universe be Virtual without a designer?

[footprints]

Getting something from nothing IMHO doesn't cut the mustard. So the only logical conclusion is something had always existed. The religous call the something god but a god is a complex system made up of parts that can give god; thought, memory, and interfaces that allow god to create matter and communicate to its creations. These parts make the whole, without the complete package there is no god, so god is a product of parts.

In the end the stuff of reality, "parts", always existed, it's irrelevent if it forms a god or purposeless universe...

Anything which cannot be logically or rationally explained in its entirety, is irrelevent where human knowledge and intelligence is concerned.

Guessing as to the origin of the universe should never be described as logical, it is after all, only a guess.

One day we will have this knowledge, and it could just as easily be, God did it, as any other premise.

 

[Beyondo]

Anything which cannot be logically or rationally explained in its entirety, is irrelevent where human knowledge and intelligence is concerned.

Guessing as to the origin of the universe should never be described as logical, it is after all, only a guess.

One day we will have this knowledge, and it could just as easily be, God did it, as any other premise.

No I'm not guessing something from nothing is non-sensical. Its the same as saying: "I'm going to drink a -10 ounces of water." A god is no different than any other system, it has parts. So to say; "god did it" is the same as any other premise is wrong. My whole point is you can never escape that some kind of stuff had to exist without a cause for a universe or god to exist, both are systems composed of stuff...

 

[YmirGF]

Perception IS reality and you are the designer, at least, subjectively.

 

[Beyondo]

Perception IS reality and you are the designer, at least, subjectively.

Perception is the limited view or experience of reality.

 

[YmirGF]

Perception is the limited view or experience of reality.

Hence, I said, "at least, subjectively."

 

[Beyondo]

Hence, I said, "at least, subjectively."

:sarcastic True, but the audacity of being the designer is pushing it, its more like being the victim of your limitations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perception is the limited view or experience of reality.

Sure, but if you're in a virtual reality that appears to be objective, what's the difference for you from your own point of view?

 

[Willamena]

:sarcastic True, but the audacity of being the designer is pushing it, its more like being the victim of your limitations.

It's no different than the audacity of being a victim.

 

[Beyondo]

It's no different than the audacity of being a victim.

Not really, a designer assumes complete control.

 

[Willamena]

Not really, a designer assumes complete control.

Unless they don't. Just as some people victimize themselves, with intent, some people design unaware of their participation in the grand scheme.

 

[Beyondo]

Sure, but if you're in a virtual reality that appears to be objective, what's the difference for you from your own point of view?

I'm not sure if you realize that the virtual universe idea is not that the virtual reality is a perception by a conciousness but is actually the creator of conciousness. We're not just witnessnes of the creation but a product of it.

 

[Beyondo]

Unless they don't. Just as some people victimize themselves, with intent, some people design unaware of their participation in the grand scheme.

Well if they don't know that means they don't willfully control. As far as participation goes in the grand scheme, the same could be said for the flap of a butterfly's wing...

 

[YmirGF]

:sarcastic True, but the audacity of being the designer is pushing it, its more like being the victim of your limitations.

I disagree and frankly see that as yet another negative portrayal of the human animal, that tells us more about the writer than about the species. In my view, we need to be more audacious, lest the forces of mediocrity reign supreme. I guess what you don't understand about me is that I do not perceive limitations in regards to personality; quite the contrary actually.

Though the point is open to misunderstanding, I would say that you are as limited as you believe you are. In effect, you are locked the pine box of your own creation. When one understands that their perception of reality is driven by their beliefs about reality, it serves to unlock a rather stunning view of the nature of probabilities.

 

[footprints]

No I'm not guessing something from nothing is non-sensical. Its the same as saying: "I'm going to drink a -10 ounces of water." A god is no different than any other system, it has parts. So to say; "god did it" is the same as any other premise is wrong. My whole point is you can never escape that some kind of stuff had to exist without a cause for a universe or god to exist, both are systems composed of stuff...

Nothing can happen without a cause or a reason. Not even a deity if one exists.

Sometimes we just have to accept there are somethings in this universe which are beyond our narrow scope of knowledge at this point in time.

 

[Caladan]

But if one could hack the universe...One would become a GOD.

The idea of life as a form of 'virtual reality' is not foreign from religious philosophies. the Maya of Hinduism and Buddhism. the Maya in eastern philosophies is 'hacked' by Enlightenment, through a process of elevating oneself beyond the duality of observer and observed.

 

[Beyondo]

I disagree and frankly see that as yet another negative portrayal of the human animal, that tells us more about the writer than about the species. In my view, we need to be more audacious, lest the forces of mediocrity reign supreme. I guess what you don't understand about me is that I do not perceive limitations in regards to personality; quite the contrary actually.

Though the point is open to misunderstanding, I would say that you are as limited as you believe you are. In effect, you are locked the pine box of your own creation. When one understands that their perception of reality is driven by their beliefs about reality, it serves to unlock a rather stunning view of the nature of probabilities.

I agree with you're positive attitude and that ideas should be explored but the fact would remain that our ignorance from the limitations of our preceptions put us at a disadvantage. If we continually rely on our assumptions as to what can happen we'll be blinded and deny ourselves new possibilities. With that said exploring ideas shouldn't be abandoned, we should as a society look towards validating truths so all of society can benefit. But when we as a society fall prey to audacious claims without validation we loose the ability to improve our lives by lowering our level of ignorance and limitations...

 

[Beyondo]

Nothing can happen without a cause or a reason. Not even a deity if one exists.

Sometimes we just have to accept there are somethings in this universe which are beyond our narrow scope of knowledge at this point in time.

Nothing in physics or mathematics forbids "stuff" without a cause.

 

[Beyondo]

The idea of life as a form of 'virtual reality' is not foreign from religious philosophies. the Maya of Hinduism and Buddhism. the Maya in eastern philosophies is 'hacked' by Enlightenment, through a process of elevating oneself beyond the duality of observer and observed.

Interestingly there is a graphics tool called Maya that brings to mind how a real hack would work in a virtual reality. If these relgions could really hack the universe it wouldn't be this testomony of what they experienced through meditation. In a virtual reality one can transport oneself or any object inclusive of planets, stars and even galaxies by simply intializing the particles those objects are composed of with relative cordinates as to where you'd like to place them! In other words just as in a virtual game today where there are cheat codes that give players "god" powers that realize themselves in real control that can be witnessed by all players, so too would such a hack be in our reality.

So while the idea of these philosophies and religions is similar to the notion of a computational universe, those beliefs, if I'm not mistaken, make the virtual world seperate from the spirit mind, which is not to be confused with the brain which is a physical organ in the body in these religous beliefs. The computaional universe on the other hand creates conciousness by products of subatomic particles and so there is no seperation between mind and virtual matter.

 

[footprints]

Nothing in physics or mathematics forbids "stuff" without a cause.

Physics and mathematics are part of bigger picture called science, albeit some will argue the point that mathematics isn't a science.

Science doesn't forbid anything, not something being created from nothing, not an event without a cause, not a deity, not a pink unicorn, et al. In fact science doesn't have an opinion at all. It is only the insignificance of human intelligence which usually forbids and denys things.

Generally speaking, what we often find is, when we gain greater knowledge, that which was created from nothing, or that which seemingly exists without a cause, has had a cause all along, we just didn't have the knowledge to see it or be able to explain it.

 

[Beyondo]

Physics and mathematics are part of bigger picture called science, albeit some will argue the point that mathematics isn't a science.

Science doesn't forbid anything, not something being created from nothing, not an event without a cause, not a deity, not a pink unicorn, et al. In fact science doesn't have an opinion at all. It is only the insignificance of human intelligence which usually forbids and denys things.

Generally speaking, what we often find is, when we gain greater knowledge, that which was created from nothing, or that which seemingly exists without a cause, has had a cause all along, we just didn't have the knowledge to see it or be able to explain it.

That doesn't invalidate the inevitable logical conclusion that there is "stuff" without a cause. Ultimately the real question is when do you know you've reached the bottom? IMHO its when attributes explain behavior and with few assumptions...

Why the notion of a standing wave computational system. The attributes of the waves explain their behavior, which is they re-enforce each other or cancel each other out and converage on patterns based on their interactions with one another.

The assumptions are:

1. Stannding Waves with two states: 1, -1
2. Overlaping domains
3. Hyperdimensional manifolds for connectivity.
4. Will converge to a functional system such as a universe

Compared to say the electron attributes:

1. has mass
2. has spin states
3. has a electric field
4. has gravity field

Do the attributes explain the behavior of an electron? No, neither mass, fields or spin state explain:

1. The ability to aborb photons
2. The abiltity to decern what kind of photon it has absorbed
3. The ability to change its direction based on the detection of a photon
4. The ability to transform into photon(s)
5. The duality of the electron as a particle and a wave.
6. The abiltiy to extend a field.

Looking at that list there is plenty going on inside that electron that needs splaining...:sarcastic