Quantum

Quantum
The Quantum World

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

The Logic Against the Multiverse....



Professor Paul Davies logic against the multiverse...“If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations,” Davies said, “at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we’re just typical observers, then we’re overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one.”

So far it’s the normal argument. 

Then Davies makes his move. He claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe’s physics is a fake.

Therefore, Davies reasoned, “We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe leads to multiple universes, because it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics.” That undermines the whole argument that fundamental physics generates multiple universes, because the reasoning collapses in circularity.

Davies concluded, “While multiple universes seem almost inevitable given our understanding of the Big Bang, using them to explain all existence is a dangerous, slippery slope, leading to apparently absurd conclusions.”

Davies’ reductio ad absurdum is a devastating one: the multiverse undercuts the basis of physics itself. And Davies is not alone. Physicist Paul Steinhardt, who helped create the theory of inflation but later came to reject it, declared last September: “Our universe has a simple, natural structure. The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.” Steinhardt believes that the multiverse hypothesis leads science away from its task of providing a unique explanation for the properties of nature.

The problem I see with the multiverse is akin to Prof. Davies. There has to be an absolute fixed truth about our own before we could imagine there are many others. In a universe of ordered randomness, it is still ordered and ordered by someone or something. Which means that there has to be an original absolute truth or 'pattern/model'. So which is it?  We would find ourselves slipping away into an abyss of disillusion. There has to be an original absolute truth for any of this, especially in our universe, to make any sense.

This stands true even for the atheist because why would a person who does not believe in a creator want to spend the rest of his/her life wondering if they are in the real 'world/universe' or not.  Even if they answered yes to that. They would be led down a slippery slope because how would they ever know the truth of someone else's universe if they don't know the truth of their own.

"For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." COL 1:16-17.

People who like the idea of the multiverse are really searching for the truth of their own which is the absolute truth. And, in that we can rest assured.























*Source ~ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-paul-davies-killer-argument-against-the-multiverse/

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

Nothing New Under the Sun!

Technically speaking, Moses was the first person (recorded as in written down as important information and passed on) to have download data from the cloud!

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation...

The last paper by Stephen Hawkings, named, 'A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation',  as some say may turn out to be his most important scientific legacy. Especially, if we look at it from the platform of the 'his' social imagination.

Before doing so, let us look at his and those who are in his social imagination.  Yes, his fellow researchers have said that if the evidence (evidence that theory promises) which the new theory promises had been discovered before Hawking died last week, it may have secured the Noble Prize for Hawking.  But, it had not been discovered and it likely won't be. Why? We will answer that.

Continuing to look at the social imagination of Hawking and his those in his social imagination, we should review what is still being said... Hawking's new paper seeks to resolve an issue thrown up by his 1983 “no-boundary” theory which described how the universe burst into existence with the big bang.

Now, that is a problem for the social imagination or I should say for those outside of his social imagination.  Why? Because, there are those who social imagination are closer to the truth (absolute source of our information) than others. Hence, now that Hawkings is gone, 'new' evidences promised by his theory won't be discovered or at least not in the same way by the same social imagination; which suggests already that we may be living in an eternal inflation of corrupt information.  

The social imagination in order to be true has to have and does have a source of absolute information as its source of its existence; the source of which is absolute, the creator of it. And, there are those close to the source and agreement is stronger than those farther from such truth and in disagreement. You see, in order to have any kind of reality, there must be agreement and it must stem knowing that there is an absolute source for it.

Everything that comes from that source of truth is furthest from its opposite - which is anti- truth as in totally corrupted and broken away from or far from the source of absolute truth. So, the problem with the idea that the universe just burst into existence is that in/for the social imagination that is not or cannot ever possible. Because, it requires total agreement that the social imagination came from 'nothing' and well such nothing is not possible in any social imagination.

This is a truth that stands as a platform for knowing what is knowable; an idea in that just springs up in the  social imagination. We have to start from agreeing what is known and or knowable is that it never just bursts into existence. Otherwise, we cannot know anything in the social imagination as a truth or that as such it is knowable. But, there are those who demand we be amazed that everything we know and is knowable just burst/sprang into existence. I have to smile at such imaginations as they are incredibly illogical or let's say - so far from the truth its no wonder the idea of eternal inflation was the last resort to adhere to as truth.

You see, if the universe sprang or burst into existence and we are part of that bursting, we are no greater or less than any of it in such a process we are not able to know a knowable universe because it is not knowable if it just 'sprang/burst';  yet we taut ourselves as such.

Really, how is that possible that we can't know the universe if it just sprang or burst onto the scene? You see, in order to agree on any of this, we 'man' has put himself/ourselves higher to that miraculous event so that we could know it and we would know it to be knowable being greater or higher than such an event.

You see, if we were lower than such an event, we could not know it ot be knowable; we would be like grass and be happy to be grass. You see, if we put ourselves equal to such an event as I said a bit ago, then what is the point to know it since everyone and everything exists in it in equal measure and importance; what has to be known... nothing.

As far as any account that the universe instantaneously expanded from a tiny point into a prototype of what we live in today, a process known as inflation is as much as saying that we just imagined it that way and speaking as a sociologist who writes on the social imagination well that's about right. But, only as right for those who are farthest from the absolute truth of the source of the social imagination.

And, what is more problematic is that Hawking along with 'those' like Hawkings are not satisfied yet with one big bang but insist on the theory of  an infinite number of big bangs, each creating their own universe, a “multiverse”; and of course, presents a mathematical paradox because it is seemingly impossible to measure. Why would that be? Because, its farthest from the source of the absolute truth. Why is that? Because, some people in their social imagination are caught up in an eternal inflation of untruth.




This post, in a limited part, or rather was inspired by (imagined from) an article by: Henry Bodkin with the Telegraph, U.K.; March 2018.

Monday, March 19, 2018

Mixed Reality... Where is the Agreement in that?

The latest Microsoft commercial tells us that through technology (Ai) we have the power, we are the hammer swinger, the painter i.e. and today we can use technology to change the world... "What can you do with it".  We have mixed reality, Ai is empowering us... "what will you do with it"?

Now that is the big question. It implies freedom but how could it be when we don't agree on what is freedom you or me or someone else on the other side of the planet. We think we can agree on just about everything but that is naive thinking if thinking at all; actually its irrational.

So, what is being promoted in the 'info' mercial? Isn't it freedom to be who you want to be and do what you have always wanted to do? No. Its not that at all. So, what is it? Its the precursor to virtual reality no doubt about that but what does that really me for you, me... them? That's a question no one seems to be asking.

Firstly, let's remind ourselves that technology does not go away; if its not very good to begin with its improved, if it is good to begin with its still improved upon, advanced! So, if we are talking about mixed reality in 2018, what kind of 'mixed' reality will be in 2021? And, could we imagine that by 2025, it will be called fully 'integrated'? And, what will fully integrated mean and with what? Ai, robots, machines...yeah.

Now, is that going to be good or bad for mankind? Well, if you are pretty much into mankind as in being a human being, a created being not made, then its going to be really bad. And, even if you aren't into that and you can't wait to become an integrated being, it won't be as good as you think but then you really won't be thinking for yourself as you think... you may not even think at all as a human being by today's standards. Oh, some will think that sounds really cool but they don't realize that they only image it from the perspective of being a human. Outside of being a human being at present we have no imagination for that.

Since, we looked at agreement reality in the last post, lets try to imagine agreement reality in a mixed reality and agreement reality in a fully integrated reality. Of course, we have to begin at the beginning and that means remind ourselves that we live in an information reality and in that respect there are various agreement realities out there what we might called different cultures and or philosophies.

Do we need to have agreement reality in either a mixed reality or fully integrated reality; mixed or integrated with (humans/robots/Ai)? Yes, especially if we consider that the world is shrinking every minute, shrinking into a global reality. Who is going to orchestrate the agreement as it will likely have to be imposed from the top down? Will it be by the United Nations or a global world order government or Ai? Probably, Ai... otherwise, there will be either too many agreement realities out there or none at all. The idea is to come to one world social imagination where there is no longer any disagreement and or conflict.

Yes, artificial intelligence will be 'getting us to agree with it' which may be by force of one kind or another.  Oh, you will argue that Ai is us a kind of higher form. Really? Technology even today has a mind of its own. But, of course, the other end or side of that is supposed to be utopia, right? Who will know? Those that get mixed in or fully integrated won't even be human anymore. So, its more than likely that they won't even think for themselves let alone disagree. What will be of 'our' humanity, mankind? No thing that we can imagine today in the social imagination,



Check for yourself ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tucY7Jhhs4&feature=youtu.be

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

The Importance of Agreement Reality in the Social Imagination...

How is one able to conclude that anything is real? Perhaps, by mathematical, scientific or  even by philosophical discussion? Some have said and still say that which is real is only through the known experience of the senses. 

However, we can and do experience abstract concepts such as freedom, love and justice; though rather they are a 'state of mind' experiences than they are physical as in tangible sensory experiences; but nonetheless, a sensory experience of another kind and one than cannot be seen. 

If we view social reality as an information reality and we should because there isn't any other reality; we can then say that nothing comes into our 'social' information reality (living in our mind as the social imagination) unless there is an absolute source for it and agreement that it did enter/is experienced. The fact that we can agree on anything as information that entered in as a truth especially as an 'the' absolute truth is truly supernatural; existing outside of our social imagination and perhaps of another information reality of a higher entity in a higher dimension. 

In terms of agreement reality and the social imagination, what matters is what compels us to understand that which enters in... Yes, that is what matters most - what compels. Einstein said there is no such as nothing or 'no' thing.

Hence, things, understood as 'information', cannot come into our social reality (social imagination) unless there is a source for such things 'information' that allows true information to enter in and or delivers information and in that we agree that it did enter in. The fact that we can agree on anything as a truth especially an 'the' absolute truth is truly supernatural.

Man exists in the locus of his/her mind and in that there must be agreement reality orchestrated in his/her social imagination. There is no social reality in the social imagination without agreement in/of it. Let me say like this, we exist in agreement reality via the social imagination, wherein we find/have a medium for agreement.

Now, there a lot of groups/nations that agree on this or that as their truth. And, for each in their place of being in the social imagination experience a truth. Ones' truth is always a truth as long as there is agreement.  In fact, you cannot be human unless you experience truth through agreement reality in the social imagination at least on some level about something... I think therefore I am and the sun is a star! But, is any agreement reality built on an 'the' absolute truth?

Does it matter that all man/people agree on the same things or just some things and disagree on some things or everything? That's a good question. What matters is what compels them to agree and what they end up agreeing on. But, in agreement comes also the idea (or doubt) of whether or not that which was agreed upon was not just true in a place but whether or not it the absolute truth - true for all things in all time.

Soren Kierkegaard said that there is no absolute truth in the masses of mere men because real absolute truth exists only in the One created it. As with the game of telephone, who started the information chain holds the absolute truth of it and it weakens as it passing on down the line. 

For those who are committed to the absolute truth, they are often open receivers of it. And, though we can agree that man is a social imagination, a social composite of many, if there were no absolute source to begin with for his/her social imagination, there would be no real truth to his/her social reality. For there cannot be absolutely true information agreed on without an absolutely true source for it. Only the true source can reveal the truth of it. Only the Creator of true information can share true information as true.

Can there be false information and agreed upon false truths? Yes, it happens because man exists in agreement reality. he was designed to agree and has no reality without it. We live in a social information reality; one in which we must agree on the truth of it. Created from by an absolute source and created to agree on that. To exist, we must be in agreement. So, when in doubt entered in, we agreed anyway. We were compelled to agree and perhaps out of being compelled to agree not just on any information but the absolute truth of it, we agreed on something that was not.

Information reality is our reality and we are compelled to agree for that is our existence. To agree is the truth of who we are. Being so compelled allowed error/doubt to enter in and we were compelled to agree on something even false information. Agreeing to agree always causes problems. Just as it does in the game of telephone. It happened at the fall. Man doubted the truth and its true source and then in a fear of not being real had to agree so Eve agreed and Adam agreed with Eve and a false information was agreed upon. Its seems we have been looping ever since. The reboot is coming!

2 Corinthians 6:16-17 ~ "And what agreement has the temple of God with idols" [false gods/false information]? None! For we/"you are the temple of the living God". As God has said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their/your God, And they/you shall be My people.” Therefore, “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch"/use/spread "what is unclean" 'information', "And I will receive you.”
 

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Social Reality "All Reality" is a Multi-Dimensional Building... made up of different rooms.




How do we know that? Well, since we can only know what we experience in our mind and are able to agree on here and now, we appear to exist in a kind of room which has certain rules in it as we observe and because of that, we are able to agree ... whatsoever on that which we appear to see and experience. 

So, saying that reality is a multi-dimensional building made up of different rooms is an allegory so that we can better understand our own social reality which is that it is a room inside a bigger room.
You should ask, how could or why would we imagine that and use such an allegory? It's because we have been given in this 'room-dimension' glimpses of other rooms. Quantum physics has been the main catalyst in the physical realm of things so to speak and the Bible in the spiritual realm of things.  

Out of the shear experience of being in such a room such as ours, we have no excuse to not see that there are rooms even in our own room. Observations using method which we agree on and call 'Science' and including Sociology as a science have helped us to do just that; by looking at and comparing the micro scale to the macro scale reality, we see that there are many rooms in our own room...a kind of Russian doll effect.

This allegory 'a room in a building' does describe our situation. Some rooms are surrounded by rooms. The universe is a collection of different residences and rules how those rooms can exist in the same building but not all rooms are accessible by everyone in the building. 

In the past, entities 'fallen angels' i.e. from higher dimensions 'rooms' decided to enter other rooms (higher or lower) without permission and live outside of their habitat [Genesis 6]; thus, breaches of information  regarding the order of the universe ensued. We still pay for the consequences today. 

We are not allowed to enter certain rooms as well... and we will pay the consequences. We suppose that because someone is in a different room they know more than we do or have it better. We should not suppose that. You can just walk into a room without permission even if you are in the same building. 

God tells us not to contact the other rooms, we don't understand what is there. We are supposed to ask Him to handle the traffic in other rooms. He wants us in our room for a good reason and all men and men of 'science' should consider that seriously.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Fascination with the Heavens and End of the World in the Social Quantum...

Fascination with the heavens is intrinsic in mankind. And as it should be and can only be. For man was shaped by the same Creator, the Creator of all things seen and unseen, the One who holds all things together ~ COL 1:16-17.


Any archival investigations online or by hard cover, one can read that the origins of Western astronomy can be found in Mestopamia, the "land between the rivers" Tigris and Euphrates, where the ancient kingdoms of Sumer, Assyria, and Babylonia were located. A form of writing known as cuneiform emerged among the Sumerians around 3500–3000 BC. Our knowledge of Sumerian astronomy is indirect, via the earliest Babylonian star catalogues dating from about 1200 BC.

We do know that during the 8th and 7th centuries BC, Babylonian astronomers developed a new approach to astronomy. They began studying philosophy dealing with the ideal nature of the early universe and began employing an internal logic within their predictive planetary systems. 

This was an important contribution to astronomy and the philosophy of science and some scholars have thus referred to this new approach as the first scientific revolution. This new approach to astronomy was adopted and further developed in Greek and Hellenistic astronomy.

The study of the stars was not limited to the Middle East. China and India were engaged in the study of the cosmos almost going back as far in time as any other group which sought to navigate and communicate with the heavens. 

In those early civilization's exploration of the heavens was also an understanding (through observation of the heavens and earth in a state of entropy) that there was a beginning to all things seen and unseen and likely an end.  

Its sad that more scientists today haven't studied the social reality of man. There is only agreement reality. The sun is a star and it still is as we agree that it is. And, as we to continue to agree about other things in our 'closed entropic' universe, we mistakenly think it is all being made known to us through our 'man-made' scientific method. 

But that is really beside the point given this discussion. What matters to the true sociologist is why we seek to agree on anything and in the end what we agree on or disagree on. Some agree that our universe is a closed system and some don't. Some agree that the world 'universe' is coming to an end and some don't. Perhaps, it is just the way we talk about the end of the or end of days that leads us to either agreement/disagreement. The sharing of information, the meaning in that information is important to us in terms of our agreement or not. And, what promise it holds for us.

So, why would some people want to agree that the world and or universe is coming to an end? Why do some people agree that we are in the end of days? Is it because they see it that way or there is meaning in that argument in terms of their social reality - social imagination? Perhaps, its not that the world is coming to an end but rather they may be agreeing that the world as we know it is. 

It may be that their 'information' social reality - social imagination (which is the only reality) as we/they know it/use it, is expected to be re-booted. In the meaning, that things are spiraling down in this state of social reality (an entropy of the social imagination) and when they hit bottom there is only one way and that's up. 

Thus, future man may not agree in the same way as we do now; but then, there is nothing new under the sun. However, that may be changed in a new information reality. And, in that, certainly the end of one means that the beginning of another. You see, information can never be destroyed. It cannot by man. But, it can be by the only one who has the authority to - the Creator of it; who can completely destroy it and re-create it according to His purpose. 

Regardless of being a person of faith, our fascination with the heavens and either their end and or the end of the world/end of days are rather encoded into our information reality by the absolute Creator of the cosmos. Hence, we are witness to its entropic condition and regardless of that we are able yet to imagine and agree on or hope in its new creation or at least the expectation of its renewal.