Take everything you know about the universe and throw it out..

[m1dg3t]

Hmmm...

[AphexDreamer]

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

[yt]HN-BRLptkaA[/yt

I tried to watch the vid, really i did, but the guy just comes across as someone who hates ideas that are different from the "accepted norm" or his own. How many "debunking" vids does he have? Enough to debunk himself IMHO. He honestly comes across as a pretentious/nihilistic (i'm finding these to be very common trait/s amongst my generation) college student lacking any original ideas/theories and trying to make a name for himself by "shitting" on other people and their ideas.

Do i agree with everything Mr.Braden says/thinks? NO. Is he wrong about certain things? YES. Is he right about certian things? YES. Is he an original thinker? YES. Does he activate the imagination? YES. I really don't care to discuss this any further TBH as it ultimately is irrelevant to anything as you have your opinion and i have mine. Such is life.

Oh, and just to be a "dick": They debunked a million people in life untill they were "proven" to be right. I thought you would have known that

[lyndonguitar]

I was thinking the other day and have come up with a theory.

If the Universe is just one big program that is running everything, a simulation in a way, just a bunch of complex rules, if, else, not, or, etc..., and the tiniest bits of particles are the pixels, which is, like binary, just governed by just two different values.

and what we see in our eyes are just our Advanced Intelligence's 3D interpretation of what the program is processing right now.

Then that would mean we don't have free will at all, and there is no point in parallel universes, No point in alternate history, There is no randomization, Its just one big movie.

Everything and Everyone has a definite path from the start. Its just a matter of "key" when it comes to encryption. and that key has already been defined. by whom or what, I don't know.

Imagine something happening in real life, observe the results.. then imagine it happening again, having the exact same conditions, same exact particles, same position in the universe, same air movement, same everything. it would produce the exact same result right?

Just look at it, You can't really produce real random numbers in a software. you need a physical device. That physical device in turn is governed by the universe which in my opinion another more complex software that is also not truly random.

[eidairaman1]

thats it im taking the purple pill!

[Drone]

Originally Posted by lyndonguitar

If the Universe is just one big program that is running everything, a simulation in a way, just a bunch of complex rules, if, else, not, or, etc...
Then that would mean we don't have free will at all, and there is no point in parallel universes, No point in alternate history, There is no randomization, Its just one big movie.

Universe is program. Because everything is just a set of physical rules and recursions no matter how you look at them. And it's all simulation anyway because human can't perceive <reality> as is. Brain is our interpreter. "Free will" don't even exist, we just create our own will, because in simulated world we build our simulations. M-theory and cosmologists say that energy of the universe is zero (negative energy of gravity + positive energy of the matter).

Everything and Everyone has a definite path from the start. Its just a matter of "key" when it comes to encryption. and that key has already been defined. by whom or what, I don't know.

As I said above if zero energy theory is true then life has no meaning at all, even for stars which can "live" for billions of years. Because at the global scale everything is defined. In the end gravity will say "hey dudes you used my energy for a long time and now give back". In our short lives we try to find meaning because it's the best we can do now.

I don't know but maybe one day human will rise and create own universe and set own rules.

[AphexDreamer]

And if zero energy theory is true it does not mean life is meaningless simply because a certain fundamental has a value of zero... We are conscious nonetheless (Simulation or not) and we can assign and interpret our own values from nothing.

[Drone]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

And if zero energy theory is true it does not mean life is meaningless simply because a certain fundamental has a value of zero... We are conscious nonetheless (Simulation or not) and we can assign and interpret our own values from nothing.

I think you misunderstood. I just said that life has no meaning by design but it can get one if human being or other living creature with intelligence tries to find it. Energy is like a bunny hopping from one state to another. Some thing gets it, other thing loses it but in the end it doesn't really matter, just like being conscious in imaginary world.

Like they said "I need to get out to see what's outside".

[lyndonguitar]

Originally Posted by Drone

As I said above if zero energy theory is true then life has no meaning at all, even for stars which can "live" for billions of years. Because at the global scale everything is defined. In the end gravity will say "hey dudes you used my energy for a long time and now give back". In our short lives we try to find meaning because it's the best we can do now.

pretty much what I am thinking, its just one big already-done script happening right now. except I didn't thought of that zero energy thing, I just found about it now.

I based it all by comparing Real Life vs Softwares.

Originally Posted by Drone

I don't know but maybe one day human will rise and create own universe and set own rules.

We already have that. with Video Games, with Physics Engines, Graphics Engines, Simulators, Sandbox Games. but in a "less realistic" way

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

We are conscious nonetheless (Simulation or not) and we can assign and interpret our own values from nothing.

That is very interesting. from what I've said earlier there is no "true randomness" because if you observe something happening, It is not entirely random, there are reasons why it happened, The reason why we say something is "random" is because there's too many factors going on that is way more than the human's capacity to be able to predict, determine and judge.

But I can tell that we are really advancing on that "capacity". Years ago we can't predict the weather, Now we can know the probability of raining or not, and etc, maybe we are still missing in alot of factors to be able to completely predict these kind of things.

for example you observe a paper falling to the ground, why did such an object move that way? too many factors going on, to name a few.. the object's position, the things around it, air, gravity, pressure, temperature, the condition of the things around it, the properties of the object itself, and so on.

Get the same exact things/conditions again and simulate it = same thing will happen over and over again. that means there are no dynamic events, no randomization, no free will.

What buggles me now that you mention it is the human brain and our capacity to assign and interpret our own values from nothing. Its the only thing from what I know that is hard to think as being pre-determined and predictable.

I dunno if we can really create random values in our brain or it is just an illusion of freewill, An illusion in a way that our actions and our future actions are actually already defined as well, We are just given an illusion that we can think and create on our own, but really what we come up with is what the universe is exactly expecting for us to do.

Yea, I can choose whether to go left or right, I was given a choice and I'd gone left, Not knowing that left was really the predetermined choice I was gonna take. by what affecting factors? We don't know.

[AphexDreamer]

@lyndonguitar Wish we could have this discussion up close, would make things easier because I know I can go on for a while.

But the short version of it is (i think), since we don't know everything things can either be interpreted as random or not and this has been discussed since the birth of philosophy (probably) and there have been fantastic arguments on both sides but no one can ever really give an answer. Which is probably why Quantum Superposition exists to begin with.

And no matter how you choose to see it. One way or another shit is going to just happen man, whether it was random or predetermined.

And if we are some sort of simulation, then we know it is probably physically impossible to comprehend a world out side of our own if not super hard. Because that would be like saying we can manifest virtual things into our real world. So until any headway is made into that kind of technology I'm going to go on the lines of dam near impossible.

Also can't a system contain both random and constant values?

[silkstone]

I was told, when studying Astrophysics at university, that astrophysics is the only subject in which nothing can be proven. We, quite literally, do 'know' nothing about astrophysics.

[W1zzard]

Originally Posted by silkstone

I was told, when studying Astrophysics at university, that astrophysics is the only subject in which nothing can be proven. We, quite literally, do 'know' nothing about astrophysics.

sorry but that's bs. there is plenty of experiments you can do, they are just much harder to come up with because you have no control over the experiment.

to be more precise science works with observational evidence that supports or contradicts a theory/hypothesis. there is no proof in any experimental science. as opposed to math, for example, where you can make proofs because all math you are working with is clearly defined

"does the earth move around the sun or the sun around the earth?" is a simple example

[Drone]

Originally Posted by silkstone

I was told, when studying Astrophysics at university, that astrophysics is the only subject in which nothing can be proven. We, quite literally, do 'know' nothing about astrophysics.

Well I'd say that all global sciences are not 100% accurate. For instance, uncertainty principle is a pain in the ass. It says that it's impossible to measure anything without disturbing it. Any attempt to measure a particle's position must randomly change its speed. It means that every measurement will never be correct and nothing can be predicted. We all have to work with approximations and that's that.

[silkstone]

Originally Posted by W1zzard

sorry but that's bs. there is plenty of experiments you can do, they are just much harder to come up with because you have no control over the experiment.

to be more precise science works with observational evidence that supports or contradicts a theory/hypothesis. there is no proof in any experimental science. as opposed to math, for example, where you can make proofs because all math you are working with is clearly defined

"does the earth move around the sun or the sun around the earth?" is a simple example

That's what my Prof's said. I think it was something to do with the fact that nothing in Astrophysics can be directly measured. Then again, maybe it was beacuse we can only prove a theory to a certain degree of certainty based on observations, statistically, we can never reach 100% certainty. I forget the full reasoning but it made sense at the time.

The experiment whether the sun moves around the earth, i wouldn't exactly call a physics experiment. However, an equation to predict the orbit of the earth around the sun could be formed, however it would be impossible to prove to 100% certainty.

Edit Found something that explains it:

Simple Answer: Nothing is guaranteed 100%. (In life or physics)

Now to the physics part of the question.

Soft-Answer:

Physics uses positivism and observational proof through the scientific process. No observation is 100% accurate there is uncertainty in all measurement but repetition gives less chance for arbitrary results.

Every theory and for that matter laws in physics are observational representations that best allow prediction of future experiments. Positivism can overcome theological and philosophical discrepancies such as what is the human perception of reality. Is real actually real type questions.

The scientific process is an ever evolving representation of acquired knowledge based on rigorous experimental data.

No theory is set in stone so to speak as new results allow for modification and fine tuning of scientific theory.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/que...olutely-proven - There are some other good explanations on there, too.

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

[yt]7ImvlS8PLIo[/yt

You posted that already a couple pages back



<< Best part is "Continuing Education" IMO lol

Follow the links through the Yt pages and enjoy! Thank you Dr.Susskind, Internet & Stanford University for making this available to the masses!

[D007]

Wish I could see these pics at work.. ; ;.. Man you guys really know how to take something and run with it..lol..
As for predetermined fate.. All I know is I'm going to enjoy whatever control I do have. As arbitrary as it may be.

Nothing however has been set in stone imo..
For all we know we may one day figure out how to leave this universe and branch off into another...
Might even be able to create a new one..

To me that throws all the rules right out the window..
There are more possibilities in this universe than we even remotely comprehend..
We can't even see the end of it yet.. Much less understand it in all it's intricacies..

If my lack of understanding the universe in all it's glory has given me anything thing.. It's the sense of being humble and the enjoyment I get, out of simply looking up and even just thinking about how big everything out there really is. There's a lot of insanity going on in every direction I look.. Just can't see it.. Right this second a star may be going supernova.. A new species may of comes into existence on some far planet.. Anything.. Something.. Nothing... Who knows..

Even the tip of my own finger is beyond my understanding..
gotta <3 it..

[m1dg3t]

D007 They are a few vids by Dr.Leonard Susskind titled "The world as a Hologram" "Demistifying the Higgs Boson" and "Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics Lecture 1"

If you can spare about 5Hrs of your life i highly reccomend watching them, if you can spare more; Watch more of his vids

[D007]

Originally Posted by m1dg3t

D007 They are a few vids by Dr.Leonard Susskind titled "The world as a Hologram" "Demistifying the Higgs Boson" and "Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics Lecture 1"

If you can spare about 5Hrs of your life i highly reccomend watching them, if you can spare more; Watch more of his vids

That sounds like something I would actually enjoy.. ty.

[3870x2]

Originally Posted by W1zzard

sorry but that's bs. there is plenty of experiments you can do, they are just much harder to come up with because you have no control over the experiment.

to be more precise science works with observational evidence that supports or contradicts a theory/hypothesis. there is no proof in any experimental science. as opposed to math, for example, where you can make proofs because all math you are working with is clearly defined

"does the earth move around the sun or the sun around the earth?" is a simple example

I think that he means that in the scientific process, nothing can be proven in astrophysics. More like a statement about the rules than the actual logic.

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

I think that he means that in the scientific process, nothing can be proven in astrophysics. More like a statement about the rules than the actual logic.

The act of measuring/observing imparts a change on what ever it is you are observing/measuring. I think this is the problem....

[D007]

Originally Posted by m1dg3t

The act of measuring/observing imparts a change on what ever it is you are observing/measuring. I think this is the problem....

This statement says that the simple act of looking at it, causes a change in it?
Neato....

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by D007

This statement says that the simple act of looking at it, causes a change in it?
Neato....

IIRC It is a "rule" of Quantum Mechanics, don't quote me as i'm just an idiot! Plus i just partook in some herbal remedies

Edit: This is what i'm thinking about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

[Drone]

Originally Posted by D007

This statement says that the simple act of looking at it, causes a change in it?

Not applicable to our world, it only works on quantum level. If you look at hot chick she won't be yours

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by Drone

Not applicable to our world, it only works on quantum level. If you look at hot chick she won't be yours

The affect of the effect is applicable just that the observeable change is less IIRC. Has to do with mass/velocity... e=mc2 and all that shizzle...

[Drone]

Not really. If you want to "see" an electron you shoot a photon at it. When you do so electron changes its speed/location. Now apply it to a larage object, would it care? It wouldn't.