# Our universe might be a simulation after all...



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

According to scientists. It would explain so many strange things that are happening right now...








Scientists Speculate Universe May Be Simulation After ‘Trial Version Expired’ Appears Across Sky


COLLEGE PARK, MD—In what is being hailed as the first empirical evidence in support of a hypothesis that has gained popularity in recent years, top scientists speculated Friday that the universe may indeed be a simulation controlled by an unseen entity after the words “trial version expired”...




www.theonion.com




The simulation of the universe even seems to run under Windows 98 ... 
A sure sign that our gods, in their infinite wisdom, are waiting for a more stable version of Windows 11...
🐟


----------



## d.healey (Apr 3, 2022)

Ah The Onion, now this makes sense


----------



## patrick76 (Apr 3, 2022)

This explains how JFK Jr will be the next vice president of the U.S. Our creator simply needed to 1up Jr.


----------



## Soundhound (Apr 3, 2022)

This is excellent news, I’m gonna need a bigger monitor.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

Maybe it's not the Great Reset but the Great Reboot ? 

Reminds me of *this page*.


----------



## sostenuto (Apr 3, 2022)

Five ( six ? ) marvelous human 'senses' ! Remove 'sight' and little of this matters .... much. 🙈

busted ...... got put back in my room. 🤪


----------



## artomatic (Apr 3, 2022)

No. We are living in the Matrix.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

sostenuto said:


> busted ...... got put back in my room


And stay there to meditate about all this because...


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

artomatic said:


> No. We are living in the Matrix.


Which one ?


----------



## Chris Harper (Apr 3, 2022)

I’m always fascinated with this idea. It’s not a new one. It can be traced at least as far back as the late 7th Century BCE to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, where Plato suggested that our sensory perception of reality represents only a fraction of the true nature of reality, as though we are watching shadows of reality being cast upon the wall of a dark cave. Plato ultimately concluded that true reality is not physical, but metaphysical, and consists of “forms” which are purely abstract, such as geometric and mathematical axioms and abstract concepts.

Aristotle, Augustine of Hippo, and various others also addressed the problem of the inadequacy of subjective perception.

Descartes wrote the most famous early formulation of this sort of epistemological crisis in his Meditations, arguing that it is impossible to prove that one’s perception of the physical ‘reality’ is truly real. In his Second Meditation, Descartes cast doubt on not only the reality he experienced, but even his own existence. His solution was the often misunderstood syllogism of “I think, therefore I am”. In the Second Meditation, Descartes contemplates that the reality of his own existence could hypothetically be nothing more than the creation of an omnipotent evil demon who is tricking him into thinking that his subjective experience is real, possibly for nothing more than it’s own amusement. This closely resembles the Simulation Theory, in that anything (or anyone) powerful enough to create our entire universe would ostensibly be omnipotent, at least in every way that matters specifically to me. The creator of a simulated universe in which we exist would presumably have powers to control our reality in a way similar to what monotheistic religions would call “God”. In essence, the creation of a universe by an omnipotent God would, in itself, be a form of simulation. To Descartes, the problem was that he had no way of being certain, based solely on his own experience, that God is benevolent. His only knowledge of God is his own perception. Descartes argues that the only way he can prove his own existence is his own knowledge that he can question it in the first place. From there, he argues that an omnipotent creator would necessarily have to be good, an argument that was explicitly formulated by Thomas Aquinas.

Kierkegaard was critical of the Cartesian solution, arguing that it was a tautology. By accepting “I think” as the premise, Kierkegaard argued that it was necessary to presuppose the existence of “I”. In other words, the foundation of Descartes argument of one’s own existence presupposes that an “I” exists in the first place, and the existence of the “I” who thinks is also based on subjective experience, rather than being rooted in anything objective.

The German philosophers (Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Nietzsche, etc.) dealt extensively with the problems of subjective experience. Heidegger formulated a rigorous definition of the concept of “Dasein” (literally translated as “to be there” or “being there”). He argued that the peculiarity of the subjective reality of human beings is that we will ultimately die, while the reality we perceive will not. Our ephemeral nature is what makes us unique from that which exists outside of our perception, and our mortality is the primary factor influencing our perception.

The closest parallel to the modern Simulation Theory is Gilbert Harman’s “Brain in a Vat”. His thought experiment (which is formulated in a very entertaining short story) involved the possibility that one may exist only as a brain in a vat of liquid which is being manipulated by a scientist (who would presumably be evil) who is controlling one’s perception using electrodes.

When The Matrix came out, anyone familiar with epistemology immediately saw parallels to these thought experiments. It introduced them to a widespread audience in a very stunning and modern way. I loved the first Matrix movie, and I didn’t care as much for the sequels, because “the reveal” that there is a reality beyond reality was the key element. The cinematography was awesome, but the heavy lifting in a philosophical sense was already done. The sequels were just sci-fi films that took place in a universe revealed by the first film, and the development of some quasi-religious elements.

Ultimately, I consider the Simulation hypothesis to be interesting, but no more useful than its previous formulations. Suppose we were able to somehow learn that we were, in fact, nothing more than a simulation. How would that change our behavior and our subjective experiences? We would still be subject to the “parameters” of reality that are beyond our control. We would still experience the same base feelings of pleasure and pain. Presumably we would still behave similarly to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, or at least I would. There would be deep implications to people’s religious views. We would obviously know with certainty that we were created by someone or something, but the relationship we have with this entity would be different for most people.

Personally, I have great skepticism that it would even be possible to determine logically that we live in a simulation from within the simulation itself. Everything we have ever seen, heard, felt or otherwise experienced would be the simulation. We would have no knowledge of anything that has ever existed outside of it. There is no reason why the simulation would necessarily resemble the reality outside the reality in any way, in the same way that Sim City on the Super Nintendo bore no resemblance to the reality of the person playing it.

The only way of “proving” that we are within a simulation would be if it was revealed to us intentionally by the Simulator(s). To me, this would be akin to a religious revelation. In essence, every religious person who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient God who created the universe *already* believes that we are living in what could be called a “simulation”. The only difference is the nature of the Creator(s) and the ethical implications that flow from that.

To me, it’s nothing more than another thought experiment that makes me feel weird to think about, but doesn’t have any more use than the previous iterations.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

Not only Plato in the 6th century BCE but also in ancient Chinese texts such as in the Zhuangzi with "Zhuang Zhou Dreams of Being a Butterfly"


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

By the way we discussed it in an other thread here a while back:




__





This Person Does Not Exist - but do YOU?


Something fun to ponder over the weekend, during a Saturday night dinner with friends, something along the lines of the Simulation Theory. Each time the following web page is reloaded a completely fake new human face is created by this artificial intelligence (AI) system...




vi-control.net


----------



## Zedcars (Apr 3, 2022)

Chris Harper said:


> Personally, I have great skepticism that it would even be possible to determine logically that we live in a simulation from within the simulation itself. Everything we have ever seen, heard, felt or otherwise experienced would be the simulation. We would have no knowledge of anything that has ever existed outside of it. There is no reason why the simulation would necessarily resemble the reality outside the reality in any way, in the same way that Sim City on the Super Nintendo bore no resemblance to the reality of the person playing it.
> 
> The only way of “proving” that we are within a simulation would be if it was revealed to us intentionally by the Simulator(s). To me, this would be akin to a religious revelation. In essence, every religious person who believes in an omnipotent and omniscient God who created the universe *already* believes that we are living in what could be called a “simulation”. The only difference is the nature of the Creator(s) and the ethical implications that flow from that.


Flaws. Like the recurrent laryngeal nerve that betrays its evolutionary rather than intelligently designed roots, flaws within the observable universe may give an indication of any simulated construct. The processing power needed to simulate the edge of our universe as opposed to our local universe would be wasteful from the perspective of the owner of the hardware needed to run the simulation. Flaws like lower resolution, pixelation, dither and such could point to a simulated universe.

There are already many so-called supernatural or unexplained happenings such as ghosts, prophecies, out of body experiences, lucid dreaming and extra-sensory perception which may be other flaws within this simulation that manifest as interesting yet unexplained phenomena.


----------



## Chris Harper (Apr 3, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Not only Plato in the 6th century BCE but also in ancient Chinese texts such as in the Zhuangzi with "Zhuang Zhou Dreams of Being a Butterfly"



This is a very good point. I didn’t intend to be Western-centric, I just have no knowledge of any Eastern philosophy. Frankly, it’s far beyond my comprehension. I suspect that it is extremely difficult to fully appreciate Eastern philosophy without a good understanding of language and culture. 

Language has such a profound effect on thought. I think this explains why the German school gravitated toward ideas like phenomenology. While I do not speak German, it was necessary to learn how compound words are constructed in German (Komposita) to unpack the concepts themselves, particularly with philosophers like Husserl and Heidegger. It is a fascinating language that lends itself incredibly well to synthesizing very technical and scientific ideas. You just keep smashing more words together until the concept is fully captured. I can think of no other language that could adequately conceptualize a nuanced philosophical concept like “_Zuendegekommensein” (“_being-come-to-an-end”???) in a single word. 😂 The logic to understand every nuance of the concept is encoded into the word itself. The English word “death” is imprecise and has too much cultural import to be used in such a way.

Similarly, I suspect that I am totally bewildered by Eastern Philoosphy for the same sorts of reasons.


----------



## Chris Harper (Apr 3, 2022)

Zedcars said:


> Flaws. Like the recurrent laryngeal nerve that betrays its evolutionary rather than intelligently designed roots, flaws within the observable universe may give an indication of any simulated construct. The processing power needed to simulate the edge of our universe as opposed to our local universe would be wasteful from the perspective of the owner of the hardware needed to run the simulation. Flaws like lower resolution, pixelation, dither and such could point to a simulated universe.
> 
> There are already many so-called supernatural or unexplained happenings such as ghosts, prophecies, out of body experiences, lucid dreaming and extra-sensory perception which may be other flaws within this simulation that manifest as interesting yet unexplained phenomena.



Flaws compared to what? Is there an ideal universe to which we can compare the one in which we live? How *should* the universe behave? And if it didn't behave the way it should, how would we know unless we can see outside of it. Those phenomena may not be flaws, but merely features of the universe that we do not yet understand, just as people who had no knowledge of astronomy would have been confused or even terrified by a solar eclipse. Every explanation we have for how reality should behave is based on our own observation and perception of reality, and the things that other people tell us that we accept as true (based solely on their observation and perception of reality). From here, we quickly reach the problem of induction. Learning things by observation works, until it doesn't. Newtonian physics adequately explained the universe, until we learned that it didn't.

All scientific paradigms are based on observation. We make "rules" to explain reality based on what we see in reality. If reality defies the rules, is reality the problem, or did we make a mistake when we created the rule? Again, the only reference point we have to answer that question is to go back and look harder at the same reality. Without an external frame of reference, we can never escape the problem that we have made a flaw in our observation, or our inductive reasoning.

The argument could be made that the universe must necessarily be bound by certain laws of mathematics and logic, but it could also be argued that, hypothetically speaking, a universe not subject to these same laws could possibly exist, and such a universe would be inconceivable to us merely because we exist inescapably inside a universe that is subject to them.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

Chris Harper said:


> This is a very good point. I didn’t intend to be Western-centric, I just have no knowledge of any Eastern philosophy. Frankly, it’s far beyond my comprehension. I suspect that it is extremely difficult to fully appreciate Eastern philosophy without a good understanding of language and culture.


Absolutely true. And by the way I don't pretend that I know or understand much about it but that bit specifically attracted my attention for its surprising depth of reasoning so long before most other philosophers.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

Chris Harper said:


> Language has such a profound effect on thought.


Again, great point. Some wonder about came first, language & communication or consciousness. I personally think consciousness but for that (as in the case of mini-brains and organoids I discussed here before) I think that one needs to be aware (senses) of one's environment to feel separate from it and hence conscious. Which brings us back to this simulation theory again


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

Two more points in general: the simulation, if it exists, does not require an external computer to run. Our own universe could be it!

For theoretical physicists, like my husband, this metaphysical (i.e. un-disprovable) idea has _nothing_ in common with the matrix or video games.

Moreover, according to (eternal) inflation theory there are possibly an infinite number of other universes, all invisible to us forever, with their own laws of physics. We're just one of them, one with life, consciousness, humans, us!


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

Zedcars said:


> Flaws like lower resolution, pixelation, dither and such could point to a simulated universe.


Some people call it "quantum mechanics".


----------



## Saxer (Apr 3, 2022)

The simulation run well but someone decided to install Norton for security reasons.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

They had no choice as Kaspersky is banned now!


----------



## davidnaroth (Apr 3, 2022)

The only way to ascend is to purchase WinRAR


----------



## Chris Harper (Apr 3, 2022)

I haven't purchased N yet, but I have been told it is so transcendent and deeply sampled that you can actually hear metaphysical overtones.


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> According to scientists. It would explain so many strange things that are happening right now...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Might be?
The concept of reality is just another way to explain the unexplainable.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

kgdrum said:


> The concept of reality is just another way to explain the unexplainable.


Kenny you write in a deep, enigmatical, impenetrable and inscrutable way! Translation: you lost me here!


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Exactly


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

From my warped perspective every religion,philosophy & theory whether scientific or non scientific is just a way to try to explain the unexplainable.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

Ah I see... I think?  So it's like this?

Unexplainable --> Religion --> Mystery
or
Unexplainable --> Science --> Explained


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Ah I see... I think?  So it's like this?
> 
> Unexplainable --> Religion --> Mystery
> or
> Unexplainable --> Science --> Explained


In my view 

Unexplainable——-> Science———> Theory


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Religion wants people to have faith.
Science wants people to accept theories as fact even though it’s theoretical.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

It's a start then...
Unexplainable-> Science-> Theory-> Test -> Explained


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

We suspect these things are proven but …………….


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

kgdrum said:


> Religion wants people to have faith.
> Science wants people to accept theories as fact even though it’s theoretical.


Testable theory = Science
Untestable now = Metaphysics
Untestable forever = Philosophy


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> It's a start then...
> Unexplainable-> Science-> Theory-> Test -> Explained


That’s a huge leap not everyone including myself can blindly accept.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

kgdrum said:


> That’s a huge leap not everyone including myself can blindly accept.


Do you have an example of such a situation in mind?


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Example: the theory of relativity. Great concept,some of it seems to make sense but how little do we really know to accept it in its entirety?


----------



## Jett Hitt (Apr 3, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> It's a start then...
> Unexplainable-> Science-> Theory-> Test -> Explained


More accurate would be:

Unexplained > Science > Theory > Test > Explained > Debunked

See: Ptolemy/Galileo and Newton/Einstein


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

Jett Hitt said:


> Newton/Einstein


Not debunked, improved.


----------



## Jett Hitt (Apr 3, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Not debunked, improved.


It doesn’t really work with the Ptolemy thing though, now does it?😬


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Not debunked, improved.


As brilliant as Einstein was most scientists can’t understand the majority of lots of this and again these are theories.

Many people accept it as fact but we probably will never really know……….


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

kgdrum said:


> Example: the theory of relativity. Great concept,some of it seems to make sense but how little do we really know to accept it in its entirety?


I've asked my husband Kenny. His short reply is that general relativity and quantum mechanics are two of the most precise theories in existence. Measurements agree from 10 to 16 decimals with theory!! If not no electronics today would work, no computers, gps systems would be way off, etc. Absolutely proven.

He says that any reality accessible to us has been perfectly explained by current physics. Even the beginning of our universe down to the first fraction of a second. Questions remaining are like : why is our universe the way it is, why is it quantum, etc. But the current physics is solid to an incredible precision level.


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

Jett Hitt said:


> It doesn’t really work with the Ptolemy thing though, now does it?😬


Ptolemy model was not bad but unecessarily complicated. Puting the earth in the right place improved it. Newton explained why and Einstein improved it again. Incremental improvements.


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

With all due respect just because your husband accepts these theories doesn’t make it reality,they are all still largely unproven theories.


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

We love comfort foods and we all love comfort theories.


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

imo religion is the ultimate comfort theory & many scientific theories in my view are similar in nature,people trying to explain the unexplainable.


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Why are we here,how did we get here,what happens after we die etc……


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

creation,the universe and yes even reality.

do you really think we will ever know?


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

@Tatiana Gordeeva 
quote:

”Even the beginning of our universe down to the first fraction of a second.”

have you heard the expression HOGWASH?


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

kgdrum said:


> Why are we here,how did we get here,what happens after we die etc……


Where can we find answers to these important questions?


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

I think we can’t that’s why people embrace religion,scientific theories philosophies,drugs,alchol etc….


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

kgdrum said:


> With all due respect just because your husband accepts these theories doesn’t make it reality,they are all still largely unproven theories.


Kenny it has nothing to do with my husband's "acceptation" of these. These have been confronted with reality through experiments and proven valid to the precision I'm told. Read about it.

I propose that we leave this here Kenny. You're turning what started as a cute and funny little post about an April fool's prank article into some metaphysical debate where neither of us is competent.


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Kenny it has nothing to do with my husband's "acceptation" of these. These have been confronted with reality through experiments and proven valid to the precision I'm told. Read about it.
> 
> I propose that we leave this here Kenny. You're turning what started as a cute and funny little post about an April fool's prank article into some metaphysical debate where neither of us is competent.


Than the joke is on me, I was taking it seriously I didn’t occur to me that this it was an April Fools joke thread 😂


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

kgdrum said:


> Than the joke is on me, I was taking it seriously I really didn’t think it was an April Fools joke 😂


Kenny  Didn't you read the initial post of this thread, the article mentioned there or notice the little fishy 🐟 at the bottom?


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

fwiw i come from a family with doctors,research scientists etc……..I have seen too many times accepted theories/ facts get disproven all of the time.


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> Kenny  Didn't you read the initial post of this thread, the article mentioned there or notice the little fishy 🐟 at the bottom?


It might not be obvious to you but you do know I am a drummer,right?


----------



## kgdrum (Apr 3, 2022)

@Aunt Tati

😘


----------



## JimDiGritz (Apr 3, 2022)

Statistically we are certainly in a simulation.

If we agree that, on current technological trajectory, we* could create a 'lifelike' simulation then we will almost certainly create more than one.

Ergo, statistically the probability that we are in one of the simulations rather than the original base reality is high

*Plus the chances increase exponentially if you consider the possibility that a billion year old alien lifeform managed to create a simulation during their 100million year technological heyday. Of course that simulation was pure fantasy for them..."Let's simulate a universe with BOTH strong and weak nuclear forces!!!"


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 3, 2022)

JimDiGritz said:


> Statistically we are certainly in a simulation.
> 
> If we agree that, on current technological trajectory, we could create a 'lifelike' simulation then we will almost certainly create more than one.
> 
> Ergo, statistically the probability that we are in one of the simulations rather than the original base reality is high


That's textually the Bostrom argument but he himself amended it later.


----------



## Rowy van Hest (Apr 4, 2022)

The universe is made of math. I am disappointed in all of you that you didn't know that.


----------



## arafaratanran (Apr 4, 2022)

kgdrum said:


> I think we can’t that’s why people embrace religion,scientific theories philosophies,drugs,alchol


alchol???


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 4, 2022)

Rowy van Hest said:


> The universe is made of math. I am disappointed in all of you that you didn't know that.


Quite literally according to MIT physicist Max Tegmark:








Is the Universe Made of Math? [Excerpt]


In this excerpt from his new book, Our Mathematical Universe, M.I.T. professor Max Tegmark explores the possibility that math does not just describe the universe, but makes the universe




www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 7, 2022)

I’m a solipsist. I appreciate the level of detail the unknown entity put into the creation of y’all for my benefit. You’re uncannily semi-real.


----------



## Chris Harper (Apr 7, 2022)

NYC Composer said:


> I’m a solipsist. I appreciate the level of detail the unknown entity put into the creation of y’all for my benefit. You’re uncannily semi-real.



That sounds like exactly what an automaton would say if an unknown entity wanted me to believe it was sentient.
Not today, simulation. Not today...


----------



## Tatiana Gordeeva (Apr 7, 2022)

Chris Harper said:


> That sounds like exactly what an automaton would say if an unknown entity wanted me to believe it was sentient.
> Not today, simulation. Not today...


I feel the same about_ this ⬆️ _statement... 



​


----------



## doctoremmet (Apr 8, 2022)

Fermilab Says Particle Is Heavy Enough to Break the Standard Model | Quanta Magazine


A new analysis of W bosons suggests these particles are significantly heavier than predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics.




www.quantamagazine.org





I hope they’ll fix this in the next patch-tuesday update.


----------



## aeliron (Apr 8, 2022)

Tatiana Gordeeva said:


> I've asked my husband Kenny. His short reply is that general relativity and quantum mechanics are two of the most precise theories in existence. Measurements agree from 10 to 16 decimals with theory!! If not no electronics today would work, no computers, gps systems would be way off, etc. Absolutely proven.
> 
> He says that any reality accessible to us has been perfectly explained by current physics. Even the beginning of our universe down to the first fraction of a second. Questions remaining are like : why is our universe the way it is, why is it quantum, etc. But the current physics is solid to an incredible precision level.


Well … with all due respect (even Einstein made the biggest mistake of his career, the Cosmological Constant, because an expanding universe implied a beginning - he understood the implications immediately and he didn't like that, preferring a static, eternal universe) ...

It depends what each physicist chooses to believe. “We physicists tend to keep our skeleton in the closet, and some even deny its existence.” - Rosenblum & Kuttner, _The Quantum Enigma_

"Earlier than 10^-36 seconds, we simply don't understand the nature of the universe." Because before that, it's scientifically unknowable. There are competing models for the Big Bang, and none of them actually work in a truly scientific sense. The one we hear most about requires a magical "inflationary period" where stuff suddenly flew apart, which is still unexplained. As Ekeberg points out, "inflation theory relies on _ad hoc contrivances to accommodate almost any data_, and because its proposed physical field is _not based on anything with empirical justification_. This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an _unknowable_ big bang to a physics we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient invention?" https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/

But that's not the skeleton: this is. Quantum theory is proven to the max, that is true. Engineers depend on the equations and they work. But no one really _understands_ why. QED and such show that our conscious choices determine outcomes in ways we can now predict but which no one can explain, even apparently changing the _history_ of subatomic particles. How does a particle _know_ what you just chose, and _alter its own history_? We can agree that quantum mechanics has been precisely _described_, but by no means _explained_, not even close.

The bigger problem, of course, is that this extends to the whole universe: “The quantum mechanical description is in terms of _knowledge_, and knowledge requires _somebody who knows_.” - Sir Rudolf Peierls, Manhattan Project physicist. Now ... who has that knowledge about _the entire universe?_

So “[While a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, … materialism is not.” - Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize-winning physicist

This seems to have turned Einstein from his original agnosticism to this view: "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. _The child knows that someone must have written those books_. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects.”

For Antony Flew, once the most prominent defender of atheism for 50 years, the recent revelations of science were indisputable in their direction. Thus his book, "There IS a God."

Ironically, quantum physics is now pointing back to religion:



Which is, I suppose, only fair, since historians of science are beginning to acknowledge that science itself arose from some very specific religious beliefs:


----------



## Chris Harper (Apr 8, 2022)

aeliron said:


> But that's not the skeleton: this is. Quantum theory is proven to the max, that is true. Engineers depend on the equations and they work. But no one really _understands_ why.



"Why is this thus? What is the reason for this thusness?" — Artemus Ward

😉





> This seems to have turned Einstein from his original agnosticism to this view: "We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. _The child knows that someone must have written those books_. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects.”




That’s a great quotation. It reminds me of a phenomenal short story by Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges called “The Library of Babel” (“La Biblioteca de Babel”). It is a remarkable literary and philosophical exploration of infinity and of meaning.

The premise of the story is the literal manifestation of Einstein’s analogy: The narrator exists in a universe composed entirely of a vast library full of identical rooms inhabited by librarians. Each room contains a large number of books. Each of these books is exactly 410 pages and contains random combinations of 22 letters, spaces, commas and periods. The vast majority of them are gibberish, but the narrator proposes that some book must exist that explains all other books. 

There must also exist an innumerably large number of books that are nearly identical to this book-of-books, with only a single character or a few unimportant words that are different. Perhaps the book-of-books is a combination of two or three books, with one to be read subsequent to the other. Or, perhaps the book is actually distributed methodically among the text of many other books, which extends into a reductio ad absurdum, where the book-of-books could ultimately consist of every book in the library, but in a certain sequence.

The librarians spend their lives wandering the library looking for the meaning of the books. Some believe the book-of-books has been lost or destroyed already, and they feel hopelessness and despair. Others believe that one of the librarians must have read the book already, so they search for this librarian instead.

It’s a fairly quick read, and a fascinating allegory. I highly recommend it. I read it 20 years ago, and it still captivates me today.

Perhaps N is actually the library that contains all possible libraries that could ever exist… not only the best, but also the worst.


----------



## aeliron (Apr 8, 2022)

Chris Harper said:


> "Why is this thus? What is the reason for this thusness?" — Artemus Ward
> 
> 😉
> 
> ...


Interesting allegory!

To make it analogous to our current situation, though, what we have is several books that, instead of gibberish, contain highly specified information that is crucial to the existence of life. I suppose we could call them the "books of nature":


More than 40 parameters of physical law which must be fine tuned to allow our universe and life to exist. The odds of the "initial phase-space volume" alone is 1 in 10^10^123, "a number whose decimal representation has vastly more zeroes than the number of fundamental particles in the observable universe" (which is a "mere" 10^80). (Penrose)

Others are "simpler", e.g. the necessity for the moon, at the right size and orbit for life to exist, "goldilocks" distance and orbit from the sun, and a bonus combo - moon and sun size and distance _just right for general relativity to be confirmed_ by observation of a 1919 solar eclipse. It has been calculated that this is the only planet/moon in our solar system where this is possible.
The odds of finding a planet with the almost 3 dozen parameters required for life (galaxy type, star location, star age, star mass, star color, star luminosity, orbit eccentricity, tidal force, etc.) = 10^-42
Maximum number of planets in known universe = 10^22





>





Highly complex, 3D encoded information in the genome which only works in a framework inhabited by and manipulated by other complex, molecular machines, working in concert. Actually it's so complex, we should really think of it as 4D, since it has to work _when the DNA is coiled up and exposing only parts of itself on the outside_ - and that's what some of the machinery has to work on. That means any changes to the DNA have to work with this extra, coiled-up dimension in mind.


Even the origins of the "simplest" cell structure, the cellular membrane, remains a total mystery, let alone a working genome. Hint: the cell membrane is in fact extremely complex, and HAD to be from the very beginning ... including very specific molecular gatekeepers.



>




Theories involving multiverses: "many researchers (Lee Smolin, Joseph Ellis and Joseph Silk, to name just three) remain extremely uncomfortable with hypothesizing a vast multiverse and invoking the anthropic principle. For one thing, it sounds too much like a tautology with no real substance. More importantly, proposing a staggeringly large number of unseen universes, all to explain the cosmic coincidences, is a flagrant violation of Occam’s razor (“Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”)."

To put it another way: the information in _these_ books is clear. Per ex-atheist Antony Flew, of his discovery of the Author:

"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science."


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 8, 2022)

Perhaps this is reductive, but the “sacred” item in your signature established your POV to me. Your posts are interesting, but they seem like a series of affirmations of that POV.


----------



## aeliron (Apr 8, 2022)

NYC Composer said:


> Perhaps this is reductive, but the “sacred” item in your signature established your POV to me. Your posts are interesting, but they seem like a series of affirmations of that POV.


I am indeed glad to be affirmed by science and philosophy, and our intuition that we, along with our loves and hopes and yearning for justice are much more than just chemical illusions, yes. 😄 It’s the best of both worlds. And there’s plenty of room!


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 8, 2022)

aeliron said:


> I am indeed glad to be affirmed by science and philosophy, and our intuition that we, along with our loves and hopes and yearning for justice are much more than just chemical illusions, yes. 😄 It’s the best of both worlds. And there’s plenty of room!


All good.😀


----------

