| Current Replies for "My theory of everything… " |
|
 |
| |
My theory of everything…
John Reder
Posted: 29/3/2010
|
|
|
|
For what its worth, this site seems to have an interesting grip on how things work. Just for the sake of discussion here is my own belief system which seems to tie in with this one on some levels.
My theory of everything… (note: I’m probably 99.999% wrong.)
1. The universe is a computational construct of some type. This is the best terminology available at this time, it will likely change when other terms and concepts are understood.
2. Like all structured well designed systems obviously based on rules, the universe must have a creator (I like to think of the creator as the programmer or system architect and have no problem referring to this entity as God).
3. The universe is generated by something else, which is outside of the universe and its rules. This is why we may never fully understand it, Can Pac-man conceive of the computer chip that generates his little blue maze world? What frame of reference would he have? Being creatures bound inside of this universe, we may never have a proper frame of reference.
4. The “big-bang” theory may be describing the system boot sequence. The boot sequence does not follow the same rules as the program being loaded. After all, like any computer program, it initiates the rules within its logic. This may be why science cannot figure out exactly what happened at the first moment of the “big-bang” (i.e.; the state the system was in just before the rules were loaded).
5. Atomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) are made up of these little particles called quarks which appear to be pure energy and possibly artifacts from other dimensions , some appear to follow unknown rules and even ignore perceived rules of time and space as we understand them. They may be analogous to the photons glowing inside pixels on a computer display. By examining the output of a pixel and not being able to see the machinery behind it, can we really tell anything about how or why it behaves the way it does? All we can do is observe it and base predictions based on past performance and its interaction with other surrounding pixels.
6. Space and time are a construct of the universe; we cannot apply these constraints to the creator. Imagine Pac-man assuming that his creator must also eat dots and avoid ghosts… I can imagine Pac-man’s story of genesis being something like this “In the beginning there was no credit value greater than 0 in address 0x1A, then a loud clank was heard and credits incremented to a value greater than 0 and the great blue maze was formed, and from it sprang forth four ghosts…
7. All that science perceives about the universe will always be limited by its own inability to see outside of the universe. We are probably not aware of just how complex it is. We were not built to see or understand all of its layers.
8. Science is only an attempt to understand what we can about the parts of the system that we can observe and manipulate. It is not the only set of truths, just our attempt at writing them down, as we understand them.
9. Beings that exist outside of the constraints of our universe would not be affected by time or space. This could be why spiritualists, psychics, profits, Angels, Demons, ghosts etc. seem to know everything including what we perceive as the future.
10. We are expressions within the universe. Inside of it, we may exist as an object like Pac-man does within a video game and be subject to the rules of the system. Our memory and experience may be stored somewhere outside of the conceivable universe in another form. Think of a program loading and saving its data to a disk or memory space. Perhaps psychics or those who believe they have lived past lives have the ability to reference this ‘stored’ data. The A,I, controlling the ghosts in Pac-man from their perspective may be a function within their physical presence since the decisions are made regarding their physical location relative to the other objects (maze walls, Pac-man and other ghosts) in their world. They appear to be tied together but in reality, this part of the program exists outside of their physical representation. Could our brains simply be an interface that operates allowing world stimuli to be focused and submitted through our brains on both a physical level (the machinery necessary for our interaction with the physical world nerves/wires/organ control) but perhaps also on a quantum level where we are connected to a back end system where we can share information with each other? Could this be how insect hives communicate? Could this be why we have people who believe that they can communicate with, or see those who are no longer living? Or psychics who seem to be able to read your mind? Can we all gain access this info if we knew how?
11. Residual haunting may be a glitch in the system or a manifestation of that memory being referenced by something outside of the system. Intelligent haunting may be interaction with those who are outside of the system.
12. The universe is large. Life likely exists everywhere. To travel the universe and come into contact with each other we will need to exploit system features and code that allows us to work outside or around the perceived constraints. If we are being visited by others, then it is a safe assumption that they are doing this. Are we ready to learn of these and will their knowledge go against our religious, cultural or ethical beliefs? If you were one of them, would you feel ‘safe’ contacting us?
13. Religion and Ideology are all assumptions. People require these to create a framework to assist them in understanding their reality and making decisions. I think of them like operating systems (think Windows, Linux or MacOS) for our brains. Once we are booted up with one, it is hard to reload since it may require loosing data that is perceived as too valuable to loose. When we try to transfer data and work with others, we may find that our operating systems are not always compatible. This creates friction and possible data loss, so we created standards so that large groups may cooperate by running similar systems using similar parameters. This cuts down on the friction and frustration. This also explains why we have so much friction when these large groups encounter each other. In some cases we attempt a reboot or replacement of their system. Sometimes we choose to shut them off to eliminate the issue.
|
|
| |
Richard
Posted: 31/3/2010
|
|
|
|
John,
Thank you for your kind words and for sharing your theory. I think you do yourself an injustice in saying that you might be 100% wrong. I found your ideas intriguing and even (a tricky feat in this context) amusing.
I understand why you can see some overlap in our systems – we both assume an underlying structure – but of course we differ (a substantial divergence) on the origins of this framework. As I’m sure you gathered, Alphomism holds that there cannot be an ‘outside’ with a god-like creature orchestrating everything. It is maintained that the organisation has to come from the conscious beings within the universe. Of course the circular approach is difficult for people (including me) schooled in linearity but it’s surely the only thing that will work if we are to explain ‘everything’.
Anyway, today’s papers have prominent articles about the Hadron collider working up to full power. Maybe that will produce data which will make us all have to think again!
Richard.
|
|
|
|
|
