It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What We Still Don't Know About The Cosmos

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Awesome documentary:

Part one: www.spikedhumor.com...

Part two:
www.spikedhumor.com...

Part three:
www.spikedhumor.com...

Part four:
www.spikedhumor.com...




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Just to let you know, you shouldn't be posting just a bunch of links without more of your own description/commentary etc.


TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Just to let you know, you shouldn't be posting just a bunch of links without more of your own description/commentary etc.


Well, that's a documentary by Martin Rees discussing and questioning why the universe is the way it is....I don't know it's hard to explain.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
What did you find interesting?

Surely you have some comments and thoughts of your own after reading that material no?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
What did you find interesting?

Surely you have some comments and thoughts of your own after reading that material no?


TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
What did you find interesting?

Surely you have some comments and thoughts of your own after reading that material no?


Yea, I do.... it was very interesting for me because it is a subject I don't know much about. It makes me want to know more...about the universe...although sadly I know mankind will probably never know.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by TL]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Interesting documentary.

To me though, it comes across as rather preachy science. The idea of a "multiverse" seems more like a desperate attempt at trying to grapple with the idea of life having purpose. The outcome of our intelligence with physics and maths has led to a theory which in the end is as untestable as any religious explanation for life.

The idea that a bigger brain should yield higher intelligence which it mentioned stuck out aswell. Do we really know enough about consciousness and different states of mind to be able to say what intelligence is, how consciousness arises in the brain at all (because afterall, the brain is just "matter"). Replacing the brain with silicon and computer tech is just an insult to the perfection that is our organ of consciousness.

In the end it comes back to how life is only a simulation, yet somehow manages to say that due to multiverses, we can not measure it or observe it, yet we should believe this over the already present theories from cultures going back hundreds or more years. I get the impression that it because we are only a simulation in a computer like mind of another universe, we are just merely matter without responsibility since a higher mind of "benevolance" in another multiverse has made us. We are just the outcome of an equation, which has no real purpose. I think this is far from the truth, and to be honest, listening to the "scientists" explaining how reality is just simple "logic" made me laugh.

Science has simply stumbled over several key points to reality, yet has failed to make any substantial connection, or explanation to life. It hasn't really explained WHY the big bang happened, or how everything just popped out of nothing into nothing, to create everything. Or how evolution has led to conscious beings who have the potential to love and feel empathy, yet have managed to bring themselves to the point of the apocalypse by manipulating physical materials. It still just seems to be "chance" due to "fine tuning" of the "laws" of reality, that there is a creator (high intelligence running our simulation), yet, we as beings don't have any real connection to it all. Nature is just a set of laws we live under.

It is trying to reinforce how important "matter" is, breaking the connection between humans and our manifestation on this world, thus alievating the need for responsibility. It gives backing to our (inefficient) way of life, that we need materialism to be the "higher beings" that we are. The video only just touched upon the idea of the "observer", but it tried to suggest that our universe was created for us to experience, rather than IMO the correct truth; that we our the creators of our own reality, because ultimately we are one/unity.

I see science as more of a hindrance than religion, honestly i do. It has become a tool of conditioning, rather than truthful investigation into the most important quetions of reality. No wonder why so many children are put off by sciences in todays world!! Notice the media attention to science of late, how GW is real and a threat to our way of life, how celebs shouldn't use science unless they are "factually" correct etc. It is being used as a tool to keep us distracted from the truth of our interconnectedness with reality, that we are the creators of our own reality as a collective!

Science has ignored the idea of our own awareness, consciousness, and states of mind, without properly investigating these areas, and instead thrown us an idea they are telling us we can't measure or observe, yet it is promoted as truth simply because thats what science says at present.

Science and religion have both lost the integrity of truth, and are being used by the rulers of our planet to keep us seperated from our higher selves. This time i believe is close to ending. The Mayans mapped the evolution of consciousness, and i believe these times near to 2012 are the apocalypse (revealing) where we move on to greater things.


TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

We are just the outcome of an equation, which has no real purpose. I think this is far from the truth, and to be honest, listening to the "scientists" explaining how reality is just simple "logic" made me laugh.


Not really...that is the truth. What do you call the "truth"?


It hasn't really explained WHY the big bang happened


The string theory has. 2 branes/muliverses collide to create a huge explosion. Watch this documentary to learn more about the string theory: www.pbs.org...


how everything just popped out of nothing into nothing, to create everything.


True, the string theory doesn't say how the first or second multiverse was created.


The idea of a "multiverse" seems more like a desperate attempt

The string theory says there are mutliverses mathematically. But we cannot prove it.


We are just the outcome of an equation, which has no real purpose. I think this is far from the truth


We have no purpose. A being is born, makes money, dies, another is born, makes money and maybe invents something for other beings to have a easier life even though they will die, more are born,they die, etc. What is the point of that cycle? If we existed or not, it wouldn't matter now would it?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by TL]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TL

We have no purpose. A being is born, makes money, dies, another is born, makes money and maybe invents something for other beings to have a easier life even though they will die, more are born,they die, etc. What is the point of that cycle? If we existed or not, it wouldn't matter now would it?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by TL]


And your proof that we have no purpose is what exactly?


TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by TL

We have no purpose. A being is born, makes money, dies, another is born, makes money and maybe invents something for other beings to have a easier life even though they will die, more are born,they die, etc. What is the point of that cycle? If we existed or not, it wouldn't matter now would it?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by TL]


And your proof that we have no purpose is what exactly?



What is our purpose then? To pollute Earth? To produce more humans even though they will die along with all their memories of their life? All your memories will be gone...when you die your brain cells won't get any oxygen and your memories will be erased. What was the point of living if you weren't going to remember your life anyway? Say you weren't born, you have no memories, you are born but then you die, you have no memories. Say you die right now. Your brain cells are gone, memories gone, what was the point in being born then?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TLWhat is our purpose then? To pollute Earth? To produce more humans even though they will die along with all their memories of their life? All your memories will be gone...when you die your brain cells won't get any oxygen and your memories will be erased. What was the point of living if you weren't going to remember your life anyway? Say you weren't born, you have no memories, you are born but then you die, you have no memories. Say you die right now. Your brain cells are gone, memories gone, what was the point in being born then?


You haven't said why we have no purpose, and also claiming that there is nothing after death...ok.

Polluting the earth and colonizing the planet are two things that have happened because thats what we as a collective decided to manifest.

How do you know there is nothing after death? You mite die physically yes, but consciousness itself it not physical, so how can you be sure it doesn't live on afterwards? There are many people who have recalled past lives, there was even a story in the London Metro about a child who did this, and it was impossible to have been coincidence.

Even the mourning of death is designed to keep your focus on the physical, with graves, ceremonies etc, rather than accepting the natural cycle and the returning of energy back into various places. Science doesn't really like to deal with the idea of consciousness itself, and prefers to just see it as a physical cycle, rather both physical and spiritual.


TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

You haven't said why we have no purpose


And you haven't said why we DO have a purpose.


TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

Here are SOME quotes about Simulated reality from Wikipedia.


If intelligent life achieves immortality, either through salvation or through technology or through the slow march of evolution, then a serious problem of boredom could arise. Immortality implies the absence of needs and threats, and so immortal creatures need not seek any values, nor any knowledge at all (if knowledge is understood as information about how values may be obtained). If the immortal creatures' intelligence is nevertheless of a goal-directed nature, then they will be plagued with boredom. (This is called the "I am sick of playing this harp" conjecture, which is a reference to certain religious portrayals of heaven in which ascended souls are shown spending all their time singing praises to God.)

In order to satiate their desire for goal-directed activity, the immortal creatures may design devices or simulations that constrain their own immortality, omniscience, and/or invulnerability. With the help of these devices or simulations, the immortal creatures would be able to once again experience curiosity, goals, peril, uncertainty, danger, adventure, perhaps even death.

The argument, then, is that bored immortal creatures will eventually experiment with such "adventures in mortality", and so in infinite time such experiments will inevitably occur. This is support for Bostrom's conjecture that advanced intelligences will "run a very large number of so-called ancestor simulations". They will be driven to do so not only by curiosity, but by the sheer boredom of being perfectly safe. They will create and enter virtual worlds for the exact same reason that humans play video games today.

The rest of Bostrom's argument then follows. The argument predicts that this turn of events has almost certainly already occurred, and that we are now inside such a simulation. (We may have willed ourselves to forget that we have entered a simulation in order to keep it exciting.)




A computed simulation may have voids or other errors that manifest inside. If one can be found and tested, and if the observers survive its discovery, then it may reveal the underlying computational substrate. However, lapses in physical law could be attributed to other explanations, for instance divine intervention, or inherent instability in the nature of reality.

In fact, bugs could be very common. An interesting question is whether knowledge of bugs or loopholes in a sufficiently powerful simulation are instantly erased the minute they're observed since presumably all thoughts and experiences in a simulated world could be carefully monitored. Of course, if this is the case we'll never be able to act on our discovery of bugs!


The simulation may contain secret messages or exits, placed there by the designer, or by other inhabitants who have solved the riddle, in the way that computer games and other media sometimes do. People have already spent considerable effort searching for patterns or messages within the endless decimal places of the fundamental constants such as e and pi. In Carl Sagan's science fiction novel Contact, Sagan contemplates the possibility of finding a signature embedded in pi (in its base-11 expansion) by the creators of the universe.

However, such messages have not been found, and the argument relies on the messages being truthful. As usual, other far-fetched hypotheses could explain the same evidence.


TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

A computer simulation would be limited to the processing power of its host computer, and so there may be aspects of the simulation that are not computed at a fine-grained (e.g. subatomic) level. this might show up as a limitation on the accuracy of information that can be obtained in particle physics.

However, this argument, like many others, assumes that accurate judgements about the simulating computer can be made from within the simulation. If we are being simulated, we might be misled about the nature of computers.

Also, the point can be turned round. If we are in a simulation run on limited hardware, why is it so detailed? Why bother with atoms at all? After all, humans went for thousand of years without knowing anything about atoms.

Taken one step further, the "fine grained" elements of our world could themselves be simulated since we never see the sub-atomic particles due to our inherent physical limitations. In order to see such particles we rely on other instruments which appear to magnify or translate that information into a format our limited senses are able to view: computer print out, lens of a microscope, etc. Therefore, we essentially take on faith that they're an accurate portrayal of the fine grained world which appears to exist in a realm beyond our natural senses. Assuming the sub-atomic could also be simulated then the processing power required to generate a realistic world would then be greatly reduced.

But not reduced as far as simulating a world where microscopes just don't do anything interesting. People who have never heard of atoms do not find their experienced world to be unrealistic. Who knows what reality ought to be like?




As of 2006, the computational requirements for Molecular dynamics are such that it takes several months of computing time on the world's fastest computers to simulate 1/10th of one second of the folding of a single protein molecule.[citation needed] To simulate an entire galaxy would require more computing power than can presently be envisioned, assuming that no shortcuts are taken when simulating areas that nobody is observing.

In answer to this objection, Bostrom calculated that the whole of human history would require roughly 10^33 to 10^36 calculations to simulate. He further calculated that a planet-sized computer built using known nanotechnological methods would perform about 10^42 calculations per second -- and a planet-sized computer is not inherently impossible to build, (although the speed of light could severely constrain the speed at which its subprocessors share data).

In any case, it is erroneous to apply our current sense of feasibility to projects undertaken in an outer reality, where resources and physical laws may be very different. It also assumes designers would need to simulate reality beyond our natural senses.

Also, a simulated reality need not run in realtime. The inhabitants of a simulated universe would have no way of knowing that one day of subjective time actually required a billion years to calculate in their host computer, or vice-versa.


A simulated reality may be programmed to prevent its inhabitants from discovering its nature. The creators of a simulation would probably add such defensive programming in order to protect their simulation from spoilage.

Assuming that discovery of the simulation is even possible, the inhabitant that does so might be subsequently memory-wiped, punished, killed, or removed from the simulation altogether. The other inhabitants would therefore have no way of learning about the discovery.

The discovery might even cause the simulation to reboot itself, ending the lives and goals of all of its inhabitants. Therefore, any investigation into the question will imperil the continued existence of the entire cosmos.

However, the fact that we're all still alive would seem to bring this theory into question.




[edit on 26-1-2007 by TL]

[edit on 26-1-2007 by TL]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TL

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by TL

We have no purpose. A being is born, makes money, dies, another is born, makes money and maybe invents something for other beings to have a easier life even though they will die, more are born,they die, etc. What is the point of that cycle? If we existed or not, it wouldn't matter now would it?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by TL]


And your proof that we have no purpose is what exactly?



What is our purpose then? To pollute Earth? To produce more humans even though they will die along with all their memories of their life? All your memories will be gone...when you die your brain cells won't get any oxygen and your memories will be erased. What was the point of living if you weren't going to remember your life anyway? Say you weren't born, you have no memories, you are born but then you die, you have no memories. Say you die right now. Your brain cells are gone, memories gone, what was the point in being born then?


Your argument seems to contradict itself a bit. While you imply that we have no existence past death, you also make the point that life is pointless because WE won't remember it, as if it will make a difference to a non-existing entity. By your argument I would say the point of life is simply to exist, or perhaps it is to advance as a species. Each individual may not keep their memories, but through the great development of written language, the future generations can. As far as the average Joe goes that doesn't contribute directly to the advancement of the human race, I guess I would just say that the state of each individual being a contributor is hit and miss, and someone has to fill in the misses


Although, that is only an answer following the notion that we have no existence past death, as to where I personally believe we do. As shrunkensimon said, "consciousness itself it not physical," and as our own understanding of the universe shows, energy does not simply poof out of existence.

[edit on 1/26/2007 by somedude]


TL

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by somedude

Originally posted by TL

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by TL

We have no purpose. A being is born, makes money, dies, another is born, makes money and maybe invents something for other beings to have a easier life even though they will die, more are born,they die, etc. What is the point of that cycle? If we existed or not, it wouldn't matter now would it?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by TL]


And your proof that we have no purpose is what exactly?



What is our purpose then? To pollute Earth? To produce more humans even though they will die along with all their memories of their life? All your memories will be gone...when you die your brain cells won't get any oxygen and your memories will be erased. What was the point of living if you weren't going to remember your life anyway? Say you weren't born, you have no memories, you are born but then you die, you have no memories. Say you die right now. Your brain cells are gone, memories gone, what was the point in being born then?


Your argument seems to contradict itself a bit. While you imply that we have no existence past death, you also make the point that life is pointless as WE won't remember it, as if it will make a difference to a non-existing entity. By your argument I would say the point of life is simply to exist, or perhaps it is to advance as a species. Each individual may not keep their memories, but through the great development of written language, the future generations can. As far as the average Joe goes that doesn't contribute directly to the advancement of the human race, I guess I would just say that the state of each individual being a contributor is hit and miss, and someone has to fill in the misses


Although, that is only an answer following the notion that we have no existence past death, as to where I personally believe we do. As shrunkensimon said, "consciousness itself it not physical," and as our own understanding of the universe shows, energy does not simply poof out of existence.


So what if we devolope new things for other generations? They will die to, forgetting everything. And what energy are you talking about?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   


So what if we devolope new things for other generations? They will die to, forgetting everything. And what energy are you talking about?


Well if you are speaking of the extinction of the human race, then yes the development will eventually stop. Or on the other hand, that development could eventually lead us to an eternal state of being. I just find it hard to call life pointless while there is still so much for us to learn and understand, simply because the meaning of life isn't boringly obvious.

The energy i was speaking of is the energy in E=mc^2. Because consciousness isn't a form of matter, assuming it is energy wouldn't be totally absurd. Although, that was really just a last point and I can't really elaborate on what I was getting at without brushing up on the workings of the brain first.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Interesting documentary...but I find it funny how it is on spiked humor


x08

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
The whole idea of our earth being a computer, so on has been covered by many. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe, in which the Earth was a giant computer designed to compute the ultimate question to the ultimate answer (42)... The Matrix - we are within a simulation, while robots harvest our electrical energy for power.

Our brains act through series of electrical impulses, much like a computer. How do we know if we are not just programmed to act certain ways, and our response would be inevitably the same? We have a choice? Or is the choice you make what you were programmed to make? Kind of like the theory of destiny.

Whoever said adding silicon etc. to our brains, I presume you are referring to things like cybernetic implants and so on. You claim that it is just destroying the perfection of our organic design. But what says we are perfect? Implants are designed (usually) to improve our brains. Better memory etc. etc. If our design were perfect, why would we need to improve? Even if the design is 'good enough', it's clearly not perfect otherwise why would we be able to find areas to improve? The only 'perfect' could be considered much in the same way that the Honda Civic is a 'perfect' car for certain applications.

Perfection is only applicable to applied usage. The Civic is a wonderful, economical, cheap, small family car - perfect for such a use... does it have power? No. So using it as a sports car - it's NOT perfect. So what do we do? We improve it. We add turbo chargers, better shocks, upgraded braking systems etc. etc. Then it becomes closer to perfect for a sports car. But "oops!" There goes your economy, and your drivability. It is no longer perfect as a small family car.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by x08
Our brains act through series of electrical impulses, much like a computer. How do we know if we are not just programmed to act certain ways, and our response would be inevitably the same? We have a choice? Or is the choice you make what you were programmed to make? Kind of like the theory of destiny.

Whoever said adding silicon etc. to our brains, I presume you are referring to things like cybernetic implants and so on. You claim that it is just destroying the perfection of our organic design. But what says we are perfect? Implants are designed (usually) to improve our brains. Better memory etc. etc. If our design were perfect, why would we need to improve?


I believe in both destiny and freewill, although it may appear that these will contradict themselves, i think they both are present at the same time; The human race has its own destiny, as do individual humans, but this destiny is always moving forward/back in time depending on the free will decisions we make as individuals added up to a collective.

The video suggested adding silicon to our brains, not me.

What says we aren't perfect? We may only use 5-10% of our brain at any one moment, and our DNA may have massive amounts of "junk" DNA in it, but does that mean there is no more room for potential in both systems? We may just need to unlock the potential that already exists within us.

The idea that implants would increase our perfection is science being ignorant. We do not know enough about the brain, consciousness and memory to be in a position to claim we are not perfect. it is just an attempt to suggest that materialism can solve our problems, again.

The human mind is capable of amazing things. There was a child i read about who could look at building for a second or two, then never look at it again, yet be able to draw it EXACTLY as it was, demonstrating his ability to memorise a huge amount of information in a small time plot. Of course, he was seen to be "not normal" (he has austism i think), instead of the other way around, that he had merely unlocked the potential of his brain.

Schizophrenics are said to have openned their third eye completely, so they are recieving massive amounts of information from various places, and can't make sense of it all, and lose their grounding/their ego, yet at the same time remain physically alive, although appearing to be "crazy".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join