Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Ruquist
Sep 3, 2012, 4:51:02 PM9/3/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com, 4dwo...@yahoogroups.com, Swi...@yahoogroups.com
FYI
Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer - Says JPL Scientist
3 September, 2012
Share this story:
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More
Sharing Services
5
Follow us:
MessageToEagle.com - Are we just a computer simulation? Who or what is
the creator? More and more scientists are now seriously considering
the possibility that we might live in a matrix, and they say that
evidence could be all around us.
Rich Terrell, from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology has helped design missions to Mars, discovered
four new moons around Saturn, Neptune and Uranus and taken pictures of
the distant solar system.
Terrell has his opinion about our creator who most refer to as God.
"One has to think what are the requirements for God? God is an
inter-dimensional being connected with everything in the Universe, a
creator that is responsible for the Universe and in some way can
change the laws of physics, if he wanted to. I think those are good
requirements for what God ought to be," Terrell says.
This is the same as programmers creating simulations, Terrell explains.
Rich Terrell goes through his argument using Moore's Law and the Turing Test.
Terrell wondered, how much computing power would a simulation of the
Earth require?
Humans are doubling the computing power every 13 months and Terrell
says that computers already match the human brain in computational
speed.
Right now our fastest computers on the planer are capable of one
million billion operations per second Terrell says.
At this rate, in 10 years, Terrell believes computers will be able to
create a "photo real simulation of all that we see around us" - the
Earth.
But can a computer populate such a simulation with thinking beings,
artificially intelligent simulated beings, like humans? Terrell thinks
so and that humans are on the verge of creating worlds inside
computers populated by sentient beings.
Terrell says he has found evidence that God is a programmer in nature.
"Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of
pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is
quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels. Which means the
Universe has a finite number of components. Which means a finite
number of states. Which means it's computer.
That infers the Universe could be created by lines of code in a
computer," Terrell says.
Our creator is a cosmic computer programmer, says Rich Terrell.
Is there evidence of computer processing of our "objective reality"?
One clue is an experiment in the physics laboratory at the California
Institute of Technology. A 1928 experiment (the Thomson experiment
plus the Davisson-Germer experiment) provide evidence.
Using an electron beam transmitted through a piece of graphite with a
screen behind is set up. The background screen records how the
electrons ricochet off the graphite. At this subatomic level, the
pattern is not random, as might be expected, but is a diffraction
pattern.
The idea that we might live in a computer simulation ahs been
suggested by a number of scientists.
Terrell notes, "The experiment shows something really rather
extraordinary, that matter, even though it behaves when you are
looking at it, measuring it, as individual particles, when you are not
looking at it, matter is diffuse. It spreads out, it doesn't have a
finite form in the Universe." When observed they are "dots", when we
look away, they lose their physical form. Is this behavior of matter
similar, or parallel, to the behavior in a simulation? Terrell says
this is the case!
As in a simulation, "The Universe gives you what you are looking at
when you look at it." Further, "When you are not looking at it, it's
not necessarily there".
This results in a Universe that is pixelated and only assumes definite
form when observed. This is how computer simulations operate.
Terrell's idea is not really new and he is not the only scientist who
has suggested we might be living in a computer simulation.
In his science paper "The Simulation Argument" Professor Nick Bostrom
of Oxford University, suggested it is likely we are already in a
simulation being run by a "post human" civilization in our own future.
We discussed Bostrom's ideas in our article Do We Live In A Computer
Simulation Created By An Advanced Alien Civilization?
Research conducted by other scientists such as for example David Bohm,
Karl Pribram and Alain Aspect suggest that Our Universe Is A Gigantic
And Wonderfully Detailed Holographic Illusion.
The idea that our creator is a computer programmer is controversial
and can even be offending to religious people, but Terrell has his own
views on religion, spiritultiy and science.
"Our world bears all the hallmarks of one that is simulated. Who would
be more likely to simulate humans than humans from the future, our
descendants?
They would be god-like beings able to create their own universes."
Terrell actually finds spirituality in this scenario.
"I take great solace in this. It shows that along the line we have
evolved from nothing into self-awareness and that self-awareness has
reached the stage now where our future selves have become gods.
To me that's a very, very spiritual thing and that's where my
spirituality comes from in seeing things like that. To me, that's a
religion."
© MessageToEagle.com
Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer - Says JPL Scientist
3 September, 2012
Share this story:
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More
Sharing Services
5
Follow us:
MessageToEagle.com - Are we just a computer simulation? Who or what is
the creator? More and more scientists are now seriously considering
the possibility that we might live in a matrix, and they say that
evidence could be all around us.
Rich Terrell, from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology has helped design missions to Mars, discovered
four new moons around Saturn, Neptune and Uranus and taken pictures of
the distant solar system.
Terrell has his opinion about our creator who most refer to as God.
"One has to think what are the requirements for God? God is an
inter-dimensional being connected with everything in the Universe, a
creator that is responsible for the Universe and in some way can
change the laws of physics, if he wanted to. I think those are good
requirements for what God ought to be," Terrell says.
This is the same as programmers creating simulations, Terrell explains.
Rich Terrell goes through his argument using Moore's Law and the Turing Test.
Terrell wondered, how much computing power would a simulation of the
Earth require?
Humans are doubling the computing power every 13 months and Terrell
says that computers already match the human brain in computational
speed.
Right now our fastest computers on the planer are capable of one
million billion operations per second Terrell says.
At this rate, in 10 years, Terrell believes computers will be able to
create a "photo real simulation of all that we see around us" - the
Earth.
But can a computer populate such a simulation with thinking beings,
artificially intelligent simulated beings, like humans? Terrell thinks
so and that humans are on the verge of creating worlds inside
computers populated by sentient beings.
Terrell says he has found evidence that God is a programmer in nature.
"Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of
pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is
quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels. Which means the
Universe has a finite number of components. Which means a finite
number of states. Which means it's computer.
That infers the Universe could be created by lines of code in a
computer," Terrell says.
Our creator is a cosmic computer programmer, says Rich Terrell.
Is there evidence of computer processing of our "objective reality"?
One clue is an experiment in the physics laboratory at the California
Institute of Technology. A 1928 experiment (the Thomson experiment
plus the Davisson-Germer experiment) provide evidence.
Using an electron beam transmitted through a piece of graphite with a
screen behind is set up. The background screen records how the
electrons ricochet off the graphite. At this subatomic level, the
pattern is not random, as might be expected, but is a diffraction
pattern.
The idea that we might live in a computer simulation ahs been
suggested by a number of scientists.
Terrell notes, "The experiment shows something really rather
extraordinary, that matter, even though it behaves when you are
looking at it, measuring it, as individual particles, when you are not
looking at it, matter is diffuse. It spreads out, it doesn't have a
finite form in the Universe." When observed they are "dots", when we
look away, they lose their physical form. Is this behavior of matter
similar, or parallel, to the behavior in a simulation? Terrell says
this is the case!
As in a simulation, "The Universe gives you what you are looking at
when you look at it." Further, "When you are not looking at it, it's
not necessarily there".
This results in a Universe that is pixelated and only assumes definite
form when observed. This is how computer simulations operate.
Terrell's idea is not really new and he is not the only scientist who
has suggested we might be living in a computer simulation.
In his science paper "The Simulation Argument" Professor Nick Bostrom
of Oxford University, suggested it is likely we are already in a
simulation being run by a "post human" civilization in our own future.
We discussed Bostrom's ideas in our article Do We Live In A Computer
Simulation Created By An Advanced Alien Civilization?
Research conducted by other scientists such as for example David Bohm,
Karl Pribram and Alain Aspect suggest that Our Universe Is A Gigantic
And Wonderfully Detailed Holographic Illusion.
The idea that our creator is a computer programmer is controversial
and can even be offending to religious people, but Terrell has his own
views on religion, spiritultiy and science.
"Our world bears all the hallmarks of one that is simulated. Who would
be more likely to simulate humans than humans from the future, our
descendants?
They would be god-like beings able to create their own universes."
Terrell actually finds spirituality in this scenario.
"I take great solace in this. It shows that along the line we have
evolved from nothing into self-awareness and that self-awareness has
reached the stage now where our future selves have become gods.
To me that's a very, very spiritual thing and that's where my
spirituality comes from in seeing things like that. To me, that's a
religion."
© MessageToEagle.com
meekerdb
Sep 3, 2012, 5:08:15 PM9/3/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 9/3/2012 1:51 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
"Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels
That's way overstated. The evidence is against space being quantized. There is no refraction effect on gamma rays of different frequencies from distant supernovae. Energy is quantized in local potentials, not in general. What is quantized in general is changes in action.
Brent
Richard Ruquist
Sep 3, 2012, 5:32:08 PM9/3/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I did not write that. I know about the Fermi telescope results
as they falsify Loop Quantum Gravity.
Richard
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
as they falsify Loop Quantum Gravity.
Richard
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Stephen P. King
Sep 3, 2012, 11:21:46 PM9/3/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
--
Hi,
Yep, the evidence contraindicates for any kind of Planck scale foaminess as well. It is almost as if gravity's effects vanish above some very high energy / very small scale. This would solve the singularity problem if understood...
-- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
Craig Weinberg
Sep 4, 2012, 12:00:09 AM9/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Even if there were evidence of quantized space, it could not be distinguished from evidence of quantized synchronization of detection.
All instruments that we can interface with directly are made of solid matter. When solid matter interacts with itself, the result is quantifiable (as it would be, whenever exteriors of discrete phenomena interact, it is logical to imagine a discretely quantifiable interaction.
It could just as easily be the case that there is an entire universe of continuous interiority which is precisely eclipsed by any methodology that uses material interaction as its basis. It's not even change that is quantized, it is our analysis of our measurement of material changes against other material changes of material instruments. This effectively renders all possibility of consciousness in the cosmos undetectable.
Craig
All instruments that we can interface with directly are made of solid matter. When solid matter interacts with itself, the result is quantifiable (as it would be, whenever exteriors of discrete phenomena interact, it is logical to imagine a discretely quantifiable interaction.
It could just as easily be the case that there is an entire universe of continuous interiority which is precisely eclipsed by any methodology that uses material interaction as its basis. It's not even change that is quantized, it is our analysis of our measurement of material changes against other material changes of material instruments. This effectively renders all possibility of consciousness in the cosmos undetectable.
Craig
meekerdb
Sep 4, 2012, 1:09:22 AM9/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 9/3/2012 9:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Even if there were evidence of quantized space, it could not be distinguished from evidence of quantized synchronization of detection.
All theories of discrete space proposed so far predict that there will be a slight dependence of the speed of photons on their frequency. Over cosmic distances this implies that photons from a supernova will arrive here at different times depending on their frequency. Since this would be *non-synchronized* detection I expect it is easily distinguished from whatever is meant by "quantized synchronization of detection".
Brent
Alberto G. Corona
Sep 4, 2012, 4:53:49 AM9/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com, 4dwo...@yahoogroups.com, Swi...@yahoogroups.com
In my humle opinion, This is a sign of the times.
In an era of nomadism, God was a shepherd . Peasants thought that the world was the God vineyard. During the XVIII XIX where most of the cities were expanded,God was an architect. Apparently the mecanicist metaphor of the industrial revolution was not clean enough as an image of God, but some saw in the animation of the dirty steam-driven gears a principle alternative to the unmoved mover, so that atheism had a ground. This suggestion seems so naive today that we do not realize how naive is to assign the same God or anti-God image on anything new.
Now, s it is a Computer programmer., or alternatively, God does not exist because programs exists. Amont these two you can choose your actualized religion.
I think that, in the deep, there are many explanatory principles that are true, Although apparently contradictory they may have isomorphic dualities: computationalist and mathematical explanations may be dual, for example.
God and Godless reality may also be dual. A God which creates a universe absent from contradictions, among other possible universes, in the way that Saint Thomas Aquinas proposed, is undistinguisable from an impersonal creation principle, and its creation becomes a Revelation, written in the laws of nature.
Roger Clough
Sep 4, 2012, 7:55:46 AM9/4/12
to everything-list, 4dworldx, Swines
Hi Alberto G. Corona
I agree. I would say that God is not a computer program,
rather, God is the programmer (as in preestablished harmony).
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----From: Alberto G. CoronaReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-09-04, 04:53:49Subject: Re: Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer
In my humle opinion, This is a sign of the times.�In an era of nomadism, God was a�shepherd�. Peasants thought that the world was the God vineyard. During the XVIII XIX where most of the cities were expanded,God was an architect. Apparently the mecanicist metaphor of the industrial revolution was not clean enough as an image of God, but some saw in the animation of the dirty steam-driven gears a principle alternative to the unmoved mover, so that atheism had a ground. This suggestion seems so naive today that we do not realize how naive is to assign the same God or anti-God image on anything new.
锟絅ow, s it is a Computer programmer., or alternatively, God does not exist because programs exists. Amont these two you can choose your actualized religion.I think that, in the deep, there are many 锟絜xplanatory principles that are true, Although apparently contradictory they may have isomorphic dualities: 锟絚omputationalist and mathematical 锟絜xplanations may be dual, for example.�
� � � � 锟紿umans are doubling the computing power every 13 months and Terrell
Roger Clough
Sep 4, 2012, 7:55:50 AM9/4/12
to everything-list
Hi Craig Weinberg
There is nothing in space to quantize.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
9/4/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig WeinbergReceiver: everything-listTime: 2012-09-04, 00:00:09Subject: Re: Our Creator Is A Cosmic Computer Programmer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0A5nrluUGeUJ.
Bruno Marchal
Sep 4, 2012, 10:19:30 AM9/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
indeterminacy, and ignore that digital physics is inconsistent (with
or without the comp hyp).
Digital physics (the physical universe is a program or a program
output) entails comp, but comp entails that the physical reality is
not a program nor a program output (by UDA).
So digital physics => non digital physics,
So digital physics => 0 = 1.
Digital physics is still very interesting to approach some phenomena
in nature, but not for fundamental study.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages