Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
This topic is about
The Matrix and Philosophy
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
Could the matrix be real?
we are yet to see a car on Mars, so why try to make sense of things that are atm non-existent? At the end of the day, is not the question what is real and what is created by our neurons....what is the difference between the two? I remember when visiting Fatima in Portugal hearing about the miracle of the sun and thinking how can so many people at once experience something I consider an error of the mind?
Lisa wrote: "we are yet to see a car on Mars, so why try to make sense of things that are atm non-existent? At the end of the day, is not the question what is real and what is created by our neurons....what is ..."My point is we cannot examine every nook & corner of the universe, which leaves us only the faculty of reasoning to contend with. If a complexity exists, it is more likely the result of an intentional design than not so.
It is the reason why I see creationism as a scientific premise, one of only two possibilities; only one of them comes up as logical and scientific. The random or infinite premise is not only the absence of logic and science, but we equally cannot rate its proof as higher than creationism. I know its not cool to say so today :)
Joseph wrote: "The random or infinite premise is not only the absence of logic and science, but we equally cannot rate its proof as higher than creationism."You are right...it is incomprihensible to examine every nook&corner of something that is considered endless and timeless. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning of intentional design...complexity can exist because atoms exist randomly in space and as their forces attract (or repel), larger molecules are created. This randomness seems more logical to me than an intelligent design where a higher force "commands" the organization to happen.
If you lived where I do, you'd sound much cooler than me ;)
Lisa wrote: "complexity can exist because atoms exist randomly in space and as their forces attract (or repel), larger molecules are created."Respectfully disagree. The atoms are charged with certain attributes that will result in what attributes a molecule possesses; this is not random. E.g. a sperm similarly contains specific attributes and will combine with an egg; it will not combine with a pineapple.
The attraction or repulsion is not the governing factor; their results define this. Thus H2O is not a random molecule but a specifically designed construct.
No such thing as Natural Selection. It has no color, size or shape - no one has ever captured it in a vase. Nature is a state of already existing phenomenons, not its causative factor. Nature as a phenomenon never existed on this planet for billions of years before the advent of life. "When multiple mutations must be present simultaneously to gain a functional advantage, Darwinian evolution gets stuck. As Behe explains, "If more than one [mutation] is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/...
All that scientific stuff may be "true" Joseph until the next .... oh dear, I've forgotten what Jame's favorite saying is taken from one of our dear Edward's former posts. However Natural Selection makes a whole lot of sense to me. It rings "true". To preserve life, one has to adapt to changes in our climate and in our life like wars etc. Maybe we will start growing skin that is a permanent camouflage for the area we live in against our enemies. Lol.
While I'm definitely not a creationist, I do have to wonder if order is accidental. The laws of physics, as we know them, state that all systems have a tendency towards disorder.OTOH, we have the anthropic principle which is a hand-wavey way of explaining why the laws of physics make the universe suitable for life. If any one of the so-called constants were off by a small amount, we might not even have matter as we know it.
I believe that physics is still really in its infancy. One day we'll look back on the standard model the same way we look at the Rutherford model of the atom.
My point is really that we don't know enough to be sure of any conclusions.
Now that last sentence is absolutely true Jim.
Laureen wrote: "However Natural Select..."
Natural Selection relies on what is seen and declared after the fact, with selective omissions. It is the antithesis of science, assuming no law applies when a specific interaction occurs that produces a specific, repeatable result - namely, no science applies here. Such has never been proven in a lab.
Namely, if H combines with O and water is its result - it is NS. If one asks why does the H not combine with a pineapple to produce water, the answer is that both H & O secretly know the choicest path....'BECAUSE'! No science, no laws.
One day we will smack our foreheads for accepting such stuff :)
Jim wrote: "While I'm definitely not a creationist"While there is an understandable anti-religion trend today with fully contradicting theologies, rejecting creationism only applies with rejecting a finite realm of the universe. This is the premise of the text that introduced creationism, not my opinion.
I put it to Jim the correct statement must finish the sentence with: 'Because I reject a finite premise'. Only then can be correct. No one has an alternative to creationism when an absolutely finite universe applies. In its own right, Genesis is very scientific today.
Scientific fact until next revisionThat's the saying, Laureen
James Morcan wrote: "Scientific fact until next revisionThat's the saying, Laureen"
Oh, that's it James. Thank you.
Joseph wrote: "Jim wrote: "While I'm definitely not a creationist"While there is an understandable anti-religion trend today with fully contradicting theologies, rejecting creationism only applies with rejectin..."
Joseph, I know I will get laughed off this thread but we are all about free speech, aren't we? Well I am going to say this anyway. I think that sometimes scientific explanations get in the way of logical thinking! There, I said it. Now throw stones if you wish. I am brave enough to take it, I think.
I see some repetitive comments of there being an anti-religious trend going on atm...I can't speak for everybody, of course, but for me, being an atheist, puts me in minority where my opinions could affect my children's social life. So even though I don't care whether I'm shunned for my opinions, I have to make sure to keep my mouth shut so my kids don't lose their friends. Various chats, like this one, are a great outlet for me to be opinionated. Having a belief in God seems to be more accepted and perhaps not the same need to flood chatrooms :)Laureen wrote:" I think that sometimes scientific explanations get in the way of logical thinking! There, I said it. Now throw stones if you wish. I am brave enough to take it, I think."
Rejecting creationism is only logical, in my opinion. There are too many contradictions and interpretations of the same sources that any logic there once may have been has been diluted to nothingness. The only logic there ever was about scriptures, was that there were some brilliant...and some disturbed, yet talented writers who knew exactly what would captivate their audience at the time. My guess is that they had no idea what effect it would have on future societies.
I may not be able to understand all the scientific explanations out there, but it is something that I can read and study. It is not intangible. It does not expect that I trust it by faith alone, that if I believe in science with all my heart and put my faith into it, I will know it is true. Not all science IS true.But that's the beauty of it...it is something we can study and come to a conclusion about, and if we are proven wrong, that's OK, we learn from it and move on. With religion, if you feel the scripture isn't true, then it must be because of the natural man, who is a sinner and our attitudes need to be adjusted and repentance necessary. There is no new knowledge in scriptures,only personal gain (spiritual growth) in the interpretations of those scriptures where the Holy Ghost is the validator.
Whether it is science or something else, it doesn't matter...finding the truth matters, and logic tells me that science has the better explanation of what our universe is composed of than religion does.
Laureen, because I am a sinner in the eyes of the Lord, I cannot cast the first stone ;)
Thank you for not stoning me, Lisa, lol. I am not adverse to anybody's beliefs though. Whether you are an atheist, a Christian, a creationist, a scientist, or any other believer, doesn't bother me in the least except your right to say what you believe.My beliefs have developed over a lifetime and the belief I have in a uniting thread I call the life force runs through all living things, but this is a personal belief. I think that anybody who can be cruel to another living being has lost the ability to sense that life force that unites us. I don't believe I am alone in feeling that cruelty to others as if I am experiencing it myself. I don't hold with any forms of dogma but that's personal also.
Lisa wrote: "I see some repetitive comments of there being an anti-religious trend going on atm...I can't speak for everybody, of course, but for me, being an atheist, puts me in minority where my opinions coul..."Hi Lisa,
I didn't realize Iceland was so religious or intolerant of atheists. I always pictured you guys as Viking-descendant party animals.
I like reading your comments and I don't think anyone has a problem with them - not that I've noticed.
To my knowledge, a reasonable percentage of this group, like much of the world now, is atheist. It's definitely no longer some obscure minority that believers can ignore or patronize.
I think we can all be united by one thing no matter what our faith or beliefs or concept of life and the Universe are: That we are all humans and have to find a way together to make this world a better place.
Our humanity is what unites us. Beliefs are fleeting and often caused by our unique life experiences - it's all just subjective guesswork really. No matter whether there's an afterlife or not, we all are on this Earth at this moment in time together.
And besides, we still need to work out if this Earth and its inhabitants are real or just holograms in the matrix ;)
J
I don't embrace the label of atheist but I don't entirely reject it. There isn't really a word for what I am on the religious spectrum. Agnostic is defined as someone who asserts that the existence of God is unknowable. I don't assert that either. All I think is that I don't have enough evidence to make a decision but that I don't find the presence or absence of God to affect my life in any material way.I don't believe in the big bang. Redshift as a measure of distance would have been falsified 30 years ago if anyone looked at the evidence. I don't believe in black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc. These are fudge factors to prop up a failed cosmology.
Basically, I'm opposed to anything that doesn't fit the facts as we know them.
Jim wrote: "Agnostic is defined as someone who asserts that the existence of God is unknowable. I don't assert that either. All I think is that I don't have enough evidence to make a decision but that I don't find the presence or absence of God to affect my life in any material way...."
I'm pretty sure Agnostic doesn't mean the existence of God is unknowable. Rather, it means somebody who believes all of the biggest questions of life (including whether there is a God or not) are completely unknowable/unprovable until death. Therefore, Agnostics are open to there not being a God, just as they are open to the idea that there is a God.
Agnostics also are unwilling to make the leap (of faith) that atheists are willing to make when they adamantly believe there is no God (even though they have no proof of that). Likewise Agnostics are unwilling to make the leap of faith that believers make when they say there is a God - even though again they have no proof of that.
So I'd say you fit comfortably into the Agnostic category if I'm understanding the definition of that word correctly.
Lisa wrote: "Rejecting creationism is only logical, in my opinion...."Compared to what? IMHO, Creationism is humanity's greatest thought and the ushering of all sciences. Where there is no proof of anything in philosophy, science and religions, only logic applies.
Leave it you guys.
James wrote: "Lisa wrote: "I see some repetitive comments of there being an anti-religious trend going on atm...I can't speak for everybody, of course, but for me, being an atheist, puts me in minority where my ..."Lol, yes Scandinavians can be quite the party animals. Currently I don't live there, which may clear up the confusion a little bit. Icelanders may party a lot and have quite the sailor's mouths, but they have a strong belief in the afterlife... surprisingly many feel there is a thin veil between the living and the dead and believe that we all have a guardian angel. Being confirmed is also a tradition that is followed regardless of whether you are a church goers or not.
There are some people that I question their genetics as human being...I like to think that some people are of a different species. That being said, I have religious friends who definitely make this world a better place... and I'm sure not all atheists make this a better place. So, you are right, our beliefs don't necessarily define the way we treat the world around us.
I sure hope I'm more than somebody's computer character who can be deleted at any time... and the world would be even more twisted than I thought.
I don't remember which discussion it was mentioned whether Jesus was real or not...interesting in The Jerusalem Post about the James Ossuary. I guess they claim they have found Jesus buried with his son...that would not only proof his existence as a human being, but also disprove his divinity.
Lisa wrote: "I don't remember which discussion it was mentioned whether Jesus was real or not...interesting in The Jerusalem Post about the James Ossuary. I guess they claim they have found Jesus buried with his son...that would not only proof his existence as a human being, but also disprove his divinity. ..."
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, Lisa.
Jesus could still have had an offspring and also been divine. Being divine and being very human are not necessarily a contradiction and we may only think this because the Romans revised/rewrote much of Christ's life centuries later in the infamous Biblical edits.
The mystery continues!
Lisa wrote: "Lol, yes Scandinavians can be quite the party animals. Currently I don't live there, which may clear up the confusion a little bit. Icelanders may party a lot and have quite the sailor's mouths..."That's certainly been my experience with Scandanavians and Icelanders!
Lisa wrote: "I sure hope I'm more than somebody's computer character who can be deleted at any time... and the world would be even more twisted than I thought. ..."
Even if the Matrix theory is not true, I'm sure the world really is more twisted than we all can even imagine...twisted in good and bad ways...
This 3 minute video on Professor Robert Lanza's science of biocentrism is perhaps related to the concept of our reality being a matrix: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8538...THE BIOCENTRISM THEORY...
"We are not measuring the world, we are creating it," claims Professor Robert Lanza.
For further reading try Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe and Rethinking Immortality by Robert Lanza
Scientists believe we're in the Matrix!Yahoo! News today:
"Everything you know may just be part of a Matrix-style simulation, according to physicists who claim that we could all be part of a giant GAME.
A new theory has suggested that our entire lives and memories may not be real, instead being part of a computer programme played by advanced robots.
The so-called ‘simulation argument’ has been theorised for several years, with noted academics including Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, suggesting that the plot of The Matrix could be closer to real life than we think."
Read more: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/humans-real...
It's certainly interesting that small sectors of the "scientific" community are coming around to the idea of humanity being imprisoned within a Matrix. Those who have truly "done their homework" on the deeper truths of metaphysics and spirituality have known this for a long time - 2,000 years or more. And yet, here we remain.
The wrote: "It's certainly interesting that small sectors of the "scientific" community are coming around to the idea of humanity being imprisoned within a Matrix. Those who have truly "done their homework" on..."Yep- science is just catching up. :)
Harry wrote: "Scientists believe we're in the Matrix!Yahoo! News today:
"Everything you know may just be part of a Matrix-style simulation, according to physicists who claim that we could all be part of a gia..."
If it's true and we are living in a matrix, the next question would be who are the "advanced robots" mentioned in that science article that are manipulating the computer program? :)
James Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "Scientists believe we're in the Matrix!Yahoo! News today:
"Everything you know may just be part of a Matrix-style simulation, according to physicists who claim that we could all be..."
It's interesting that they went as far as to say 'advanced robots' were in control, ain't it?
In my personal world of spiritual Matrix dabblings, it's more a case of 'aliens'- but, my, words and names are so limiting, so I mean it in the broadest sense. :)
By the way, that's two things David Icke was right about in the news this week: the Matrix being real and Ted Heath.
Yes, good observation. Perhaps Obama will shapeshift on live television in the days ahead to complete the trifecta.
The wrote: "Yes, good observation. Perhaps Obama will shapeshift on live television in the days ahead to complete the trifecta."Ha! Yes! Maybe...
I actually wouldn't say the world is not real (sorry, sort of responding to the second post at the very beginning) but rather the senses and how we perceive things is the most unrealistic thing. What I have always said is that in any pursuit, religion or science or philosophy, humans are prone more to overthink than to understand. Simply because someone has a different perspective than yours doesn't mean it is right or wrong. Same goes for the logical-ness of empirical data. To say that anything is or isn't real relies heavily on the experiences of people manifesting itself as workable knowledge. In other words, people who want to convince others that the matrix is real will always find logical proof that can be interpreted one way or the other; however, even if we were in the simulation it would be impossible for us to know such a thing unless we knew the before as many others have mentioned here. But, in considering the question as it pertains to all of existence, especially the way in which the human mind tends to work both in belief and logicality, most things we think of follow what I call the Infinity Principle. At its face, the infinity symbol is a figure eight, no? Well, if we start either at the center or either end and begin to draw it, what happens is that it grows wider before becoming thing again and wider and thin again. In other words, almost all human thinking and basis for religions and science starts simple, plain, but becomes more complicated and complex do usually to the thoughts and actions of humans. Only after we've studied it or sought to understand it for a long period of time does it again simplify.
What, then, would this have to do with a possible matrix? Simply that it start simple. The human would not need as much complexity on the out-start as we might think because it will naturally complicate the simple in order to make it feel more real. The question then is not whether this is the matrix, a simulation or reality or not, but how real and complex have we as humans made it.
Are we living in a HOLOGRAM? For the first time, scientists prove strange theory could be true in 'realistic models' of our universeHolographic principle suggests there is a 2D surface that we can't see
This surface contains all the information needed to describe 3D objects
Since 1997, equations used to show holographic principle could be true have been based on models that contradict theories about our universe
Now scientists have shown how it works in universe that is largely flat
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec...
This short video is a good quantum physics introduction to the idea of our reality being holographic in nature: https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9179...Published on Mar 21, 2013
George Knapp welcomed physicist Jack Sarfatti for a discussion on cutting edge scientific concepts like the "holographic universe" theory. He explained that this theory postulates that the universe is one giant hologram being created by a conscious computer which exists in the future. "In this theory, we are all 'avatars' in a certain sense," Sarfatti said, referencing the blockbuster film which mirrors this concept. He contended that, while this idea may seem radical, it is being given serious consideration by academia. "It's not just me, it's a network of the greatest minds on the planet," Sarfatti said of the researchers who are investigating the "holographic universe" theory.
Sarfatti theorized that this concept could connect to an incident from his youth where he allegedly received a phone call from a computer claiming to be aboard a flying saucer in the future. He explained that the robotic voice told him that he was among 400 "bright young minds" chosen to be taught by these forces. Skeptical of the call, Sarfatti remembered that he was "scared but fascinated." Upon accepting the option of receiving this education, the voice told him to wait on his fire escape for an incoming UFO due to arrive in ten minutes. Sarfatti rounded up his friends and they waited for the craft, but nothing arrived. Interestingly, the voice also told him that, in 20 years, he'd meet some of the other youths who were chosen and, two decades later, Sarfatti was invited to visit Stanford Research Institute where he met such luminaries as Hal Puthoff, Edgar Mitchell, and Russell Targ.
Biography:
Jack Sarfatti graduated with a BA in Physics from Cornell and later earned a PhD in Physics from the University of California. He has been working on the post-quantum physics of consciousness and the paranormal since he directed the famous Esalen Seminars in 1976. He is also working on the connection of the warp drive physics of flying saucers to the new cosmology observations of anti-gravity dark energy.
Wikipedia
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn. As pointed out by Raphael Bousso, Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.
In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.
The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.
Yep. I agree with the hologram theory.And, in this humble f***ed up wolf's opinion, the great 'secret' is that those 'aliens' (for want of a better world) who control 'the matrix' exist as two dimensional beings.
Harry wrote: "Yep. I agree with the hologram theory.And, in this humble f***ed up wolf's opinion, the great 'secret' is that those 'aliens' (for want of a better world) who control 'the matrix' exist as two dimensional beings. ..."
And so we are 3D?
The overlords are 2D?
And G-d is 1D?
Oh shit, did I just set off an alarm bell with the matrix software? :)
James Morcan wrote: "Harry wrote: "Yep. I agree with the hologram theory.And, in this humble f***ed up wolf's opinion, the great 'secret' is that those 'aliens' (for want of a better world) who control 'the matrix' e..."
Yep.
:)
https://youtu.be/8LsHmMHfaF4í understand the logic, but I can't seem to my head around how the hologram theory works in terms of intelligence. Anybody know a good book about it?
Lisa wrote: "https://youtu.be/8LsHmMHfaF4í understand the logic, but I can't seem to my head around how the hologram theory works in terms of intelligence. Anybody know a good book about it?"
The Holographic Universe
I've not actually read it, but this seems to be the 'definitive' book on the Hologram theory.
looks like somebody scanned the book as a pdf file, so it's online for free, I suppose...but it's a 1996 edition. ..still. ..will read it over the holidays :) thnx
I use the word 'matrix' more and more these days, because that's where my own spiritual insights have taken me - that life isn't only an illusion, but also one that is controlled.But ultimately, to me, it's all the same thing. Our version of reality is only what it is because we are human. It's like when we try to imagine an alien and always make it human-esque, when it's much more likely to be something impossible to imagine.
My world isn't seeing myself as me, but as part of that Oneness. And by that, I mean that everything is a part of everything else. We think we're humans, but maybe we are just the cells of a larger creature's belly which we call the universe. Maybe the Earth is a living being, in a very real way, and we are just her thoughts.
Those are just my thoughts. I was in the mood to express!
hmmmm...I was playing with the idea of agreeing with you up until us being a part of a larger organism...to me it is almost contradictory to what you said about the way we look at aliens. If we shouldn't imagine them humanesque, then why think we are a part of a creature imagined only by our human brain...I'm not sure that came out right...this world, us included are definitely just a bundle of molecules. ..hell, we contain more bacteria than we do human cells! what if, instead of being a small part like somebody's belly, that we are just biological vehicles to other life forms to serve a greater purpose in the universe?
I think the whole subject of the paranormal and consciousness, revolves around cause and effect. You can't have solid proof of something that is not solid, only its effect upon something that is. By this I mean subjective phenomena can leave objective traces, through the medium of change. The mind for instance is software and the brain is hardware. We have proof of the latter's existence because it is a constant and proof of the former by the change motion and emotion bring upon it (time is proof of change as matter is proof of existence). What proof do you personally have that the moon landings happened? None unless you were on the actually rockets that went you (first hand experience). All you have is grainy films and items that supposedly relate to this series of events. In other words you are relying on anecdotal evidence (second hand information). This is why people in some countries don't believe the moon landings happened and why conspiracy theorists can pick holes in the subject and do.
Lisa wrote: "hmmmm...I was playing with the idea of agreeing with you up until us being a part of a larger organism...to me it is almost contradictory to what you said about the way we look at aliens. If we sho..."Yeah, I didn't express myself too well. Was just floating some ideas about.
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Simulation Hypothesis (other topics)Nineteen Eighty-Four (other topics)
Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (other topics)
The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real (other topics)
Adapting philosophy: Jean Baudrillard and *The Matrix Trilogy* (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Elon Musk (other topics)George Orwell (other topics)
Nick Bostrom (other topics)
Elon Musk (other topics)
Harry Whitewolf (other topics)
More...
So a car does have a creator? What if you saw a car on Mars, how would you conclude - would you say because we cannot find the car maker it is proof the car has none?