Do we live in the matrix?

badbrains

Here's an awesome yet sort of hard to follow (for me at least lol) article on the universe and us. Do we live in the matrix, is everything one giant scam?

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/09-do-we-live-in-the-matrix

Last-12-Exit

Uhhh, sure. Give me the blue pill. It may make me oblivious, but I'll have a blast for four hours.

benjs

It's an interesting notion... I like to follow Occam's Razor, which suggests that the simplest solution is usually the right one, and that's why the multiverse model makes sense to me.

We've slowly but surely found smaller and smaller building blocks of the universe: tangible and intangible things consisting of compounds consisting of many molecules consisting of even more atoms, separated into protons, neutrons, and electrons, consisting of quarks, expressed with basic binary ideas (i.e. electric charge and spin are either positive or negative). What we've found is that the universe's changes over time (i.e. the introduction of various attractive or repulsive forces - hydrogen bonding forces, weak and strong electromagnetic forces) are simply extensions of simple behaviours exhibited by collections of quarks in our universe. Why do the collection of quarks exhibit those behaviours? Randomness.

Our universe's set of rules are likely a byproduct of initial boundary conditions (starting rules of attraction/repulsion catalyzed by occurrences such as the Big Bang Theory), which stabilized after rapid universe-driven computations (which, at the time were inherently randomly developed) and have remained consistent over time. The multiverse model suggests that there are a number of universes which randomness gave rules to over time, and some of those rules would lead to stable universes, others would lead to unstable universes which would implode, never grow, never provide life, provide too much life, etc. The model also suggests that our specific universe had just the right set of rules randomly developed to create and sustain life (and while the odds of this happening are slim - the number of potential universes which have been created are infinite, which certainly raises the odds).

As for a Matrix construct which we live within - we as a civilization haven't figured out true randomness: there is always influence. Our random number generations are actually long algorithms which give almost random, but not true random: that's the universe's territory. Because of this, we can approximate randomness, but never actually obtain it. And if a universe's rules are a direct byproduct of iterative and true randomness (which even rolling a dice isn't truly random because the weight of ink and/or grooves changes things), then we could never simulate the creation of a universe - only closely approximate it. And even if we could simulate such a universe - to assume that we could stumble upon the right set of approximately-randomly-created rules that are equatable to our universe's are slim to none. In other words - if you want to label the randomness of the creation of universes 'God', our computational power is simply not even close to that of God's to create a Matrix construct.

PS, My quantum physics knowledge isn't too great, so if anyone can help clarify, correct, or elaborate, that'd be awesome

badbrains

What Ben said ^^^^.

Holyshit that's a lot of info by my smart friend Ben. I'm gonna have to reread that a few times for it to settle in.

Idris

Yes.

badbrains

Last-12-Exit said:

Uhhh, sure. Give me the blue pill. It may make me oblivious, but I'll have a blast for four hours.

I'll take the red pill. I would LOVE to know all. Mite have to try the Ayahuasca plant for this.

chadwick

badbrains said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Uhhh, sure. Give me the blue pill. It may make me oblivious, but I'll have a blast for four hours.

I'll take the red pill. I would LOVE to know all. Mite have to try the Ayahuasca plant for this.

a ayahuasca ceremony... holy shit, batman! i want to do this some time myself. serious business

badbrains

chadwick said:

badbrains said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Uhhh, sure. Give me the blue pill. It may make me oblivious, but I'll have a blast for four hours.

I'll take the red pill. I would LOVE to know all. Mite have to try the Ayahuasca plant for this.

a ayahuasca ceremony... holy shit, batman! i want to do this some time myself. serious business

Chadwick, my buddy went to Peru couple years ago and did it. Said he wants me to go next time with him. He wants to do it again. I want to sooooo bad, would love to join him on this vision quest.

mickeyrat

benjs said:

It's an interesting notion... I like to follow Occam's Razor, which suggests that the simplest solution is usually the right one, and that's why the multiverse model makes sense to me.

We've slowly but surely found smaller and smaller building blocks of the universe: tangible and intangible things consisting of compounds consisting of many molecules consisting of even more atoms, separated into protons, neutrons, and electrons, consisting of quarks, expressed with basic binary ideas (i.e. electric charge and spin are either positive or negative). What we've found is that the universe's changes over time (i.e. the introduction of various attractive or repulsive forces - hydrogen bonding forces, weak and strong electromagnetic forces) are simply extensions of simple behaviours exhibited by collections of quarks in our universe. Why do the collection of quarks exhibit those behaviours? Randomness.

Our universe's set of rules are likely a byproduct of initial boundary conditions (starting rules of attraction/repulsion catalyzed by occurrences such as the Big Bang Theory), which stabilized after rapid universe-driven computations (which, at the time were inherently randomly developed) and have remained consistent over time. The multiverse model suggests that there are a number of universes which randomness gave rules to over time, and some of those rules would lead to stable universes, others would lead to unstable universes which would implode, never grow, never provide life, provide too much life, etc. The model also suggests that our specific universe had just the right set of rules randomly developed to create and sustain life (and while the odds of this happening are slim - the number of potential universes which have been created are infinite, which certainly raises the odds).

As for a Matrix construct which we live within - we as a civilization haven't figured out true randomness: there is always influence. Our random number generations are actually long algorithms which give almost random, but not true random: that's the universe's territory. Because of this, we can approximate randomness, but never actually obtain it. And if a universe's rules are a direct byproduct of iterative and true randomness (which even rolling a dice isn't truly random because the weight of ink and/or grooves changes things), then we could never simulate the creation of a universe - only closely approximate it. And even if we could simulate such a universe - to assume that we could stumble upon the right set of approximately-randomly-created rules that are equatable to our universe's are slim to none. In other words - if you want to label the randomness of the creation of universes 'God', our computational power is simply not even close to that of God's to create a Matrix construct.

PS, My quantum physics knowledge isn't too great, so if anyone can help clarify, correct, or elaborate, that'd be awesome

You must be fun at parties. :-??

Last-12-Exit

But seriously, my answer is no. I am not a computer program. The universe exists as it is.

benjs

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

It's an interesting notion... I like to follow Occam's Razor, which suggests that the simplest solution is usually the right one, and that's why the multiverse model makes sense to me.

We've slowly but surely found smaller and smaller building blocks of the universe: tangible and intangible things consisting of compounds consisting of many molecules consisting of even more atoms, separated into protons, neutrons, and electrons, consisting of quarks, expressed with basic binary ideas (i.e. electric charge and spin are either positive or negative). What we've found is that the universe's changes over time (i.e. the introduction of various attractive or repulsive forces - hydrogen bonding forces, weak and strong electromagnetic forces) are simply extensions of simple behaviours exhibited by collections of quarks in our universe. Why do the collection of quarks exhibit those behaviours? Randomness.

Our universe's set of rules are likely a byproduct of initial boundary conditions (starting rules of attraction/repulsion catalyzed by occurrences such as the Big Bang Theory), which stabilized after rapid universe-driven computations (which, at the time were inherently randomly developed) and have remained consistent over time. The multiverse model suggests that there are a number of universes which randomness gave rules to over time, and some of those rules would lead to stable universes, others would lead to unstable universes which would implode, never grow, never provide life, provide too much life, etc. The model also suggests that our specific universe had just the right set of rules randomly developed to create and sustain life (and while the odds of this happening are slim - the number of potential universes which have been created are infinite, which certainly raises the odds).

As for a Matrix construct which we live within - we as a civilization haven't figured out true randomness: there is always influence. Our random number generations are actually long algorithms which give almost random, but not true random: that's the universe's territory. Because of this, we can approximate randomness, but never actually obtain it. And if a universe's rules are a direct byproduct of iterative and true randomness (which even rolling a dice isn't truly random because the weight of ink and/or grooves changes things), then we could never simulate the creation of a universe - only closely approximate it. And even if we could simulate such a universe - to assume that we could stumble upon the right set of approximately-randomly-created rules that are equatable to our universe's are slim to none. In other words - if you want to label the randomness of the creation of universes 'God', our computational power is simply not even close to that of God's to create a Matrix construct.

PS, My quantum physics knowledge isn't too great, so if anyone can help clarify, correct, or elaborate, that'd be awesome

You must be fun at parties. :-??

Eh. I don't pigeon-hole myself into one set of interests. I assure you, at a party I'm much more likely to take a few shots of gin and whip out my guitar than to talk quantum mechanics.

Last-12-Exit

If the matrix keeps the Bombay sapphire flowing, then let me be in the matrix!

brianlux

I've often taken to the idea that we live in "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". Is that sort of what the Matrix is about?

(Math and physics challenge my brain!)

unsung

Do you think you produce for a machine? If you stop producing, stop playing along, what will happen?

whispering hands

badbrains said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Uhhh, sure. Give me the blue pill. It may make me oblivious, but I'll have a blast for four hours.

I'll take the red pill. I would LOVE to know all. Mite have to try the Ayahuasca plant for this.

That shit is CRAZY!!! But it's not just the Ayahuasca plant that makes you hallucinate.. There is a second part of the ritual that involes a root which I can't remember the name of, but god that's one helluva trip to take!! ( sorry to derail, but having tried it.. I had to say)...

badbrains

whispering hands said:

badbrains said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Uhhh, sure. Give me the blue pill. It may make me oblivious, but I'll have a blast for four hours.

I'll take the red pill. I would LOVE to know all. Mite have to try the Ayahuasca plant for this.

That shit is CRAZY!!! But it's not just the Ayahuasca plant that makes you hallucinate.. There is a second part of the ritual that involes a root which I can't remember the name of, but god that's one helluva trip to take!! ( sorry to derail, but having tried it.. I had to say)...

Hell ya, you tried it? Sick, plz derail or start a thread about it. I'm sure people would love to hear about it. With all these lame ass song request threads, something interesting for us to read would be welcomed no doubt.

zarocat

http://www.amazon.com/The-User-Illusion-Cutting-Consciousness/dp/0140230122

mickeyrat

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

It's an interesting notion... I like to follow Occam's Razor, which suggests that the simplest solution is usually the right one, and that's why the multiverse model makes sense to me.

We've slowly but surely found smaller and smaller building blocks of the universe: tangible and intangible things consisting of compounds consisting of many molecules consisting of even more atoms, separated into protons, neutrons, and electrons, consisting of quarks, expressed with basic binary ideas (i.e. electric charge and spin are either positive or negative). What we've found is that the universe's changes over time (i.e. the introduction of various attractive or repulsive forces - hydrogen bonding forces, weak and strong electromagnetic forces) are simply extensions of simple behaviours exhibited by collections of quarks in our universe. Why do the collection of quarks exhibit those behaviours? Randomness.

Our universe's set of rules are likely a byproduct of initial boundary conditions (starting rules of attraction/repulsion catalyzed by occurrences such as the Big Bang Theory), which stabilized after rapid universe-driven computations (which, at the time were inherently randomly developed) and have remained consistent over time. The multiverse model suggests that there are a number of universes which randomness gave rules to over time, and some of those rules would lead to stable universes, others would lead to unstable universes which would implode, never grow, never provide life, provide too much life, etc. The model also suggests that our specific universe had just the right set of rules randomly developed to create and sustain life (and while the odds of this happening are slim - the number of potential universes which have been created are infinite, which certainly raises the odds).

As for a Matrix construct which we live within - we as a civilization haven't figured out true randomness: there is always influence. Our random number generations are actually long algorithms which give almost random, but not true random: that's the universe's territory. Because of this, we can approximate randomness, but never actually obtain it. And if a universe's rules are a direct byproduct of iterative and true randomness (which even rolling a dice isn't truly random because the weight of ink and/or grooves changes things), then we could never simulate the creation of a universe - only closely approximate it. And even if we could simulate such a universe - to assume that we could stumble upon the right set of approximately-randomly-created rules that are equatable to our universe's are slim to none. In other words - if you want to label the randomness of the creation of universes 'God', our computational power is simply not even close to that of God's to create a Matrix construct.

PS, My quantum physics knowledge isn't too great, so if anyone can help clarify, correct, or elaborate, that'd be awesome

You must be fun at parties. :-??

Eh. I don't pigeon-hole myself into one set of interests. I assure you, at a party I'm much more likely to take a few shots of gin and whip out my guitar than to talk quantum mechanics.

Meant as a joke. I appreciate the intelligence you bring here and your way with words.

benjs

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

benjs said:

It's an interesting notion... I like to follow Occam's Razor, which suggests that the simplest solution is usually the right one, and that's why the multiverse model makes sense to me.

We've slowly but surely found smaller and smaller building blocks of the universe: tangible and intangible things consisting of compounds consisting of many molecules consisting of even more atoms, separated into protons, neutrons, and electrons, consisting of quarks, expressed with basic binary ideas (i.e. electric charge and spin are either positive or negative). What we've found is that the universe's changes over time (i.e. the introduction of various attractive or repulsive forces - hydrogen bonding forces, weak and strong electromagnetic forces) are simply extensions of simple behaviours exhibited by collections of quarks in our universe. Why do the collection of quarks exhibit those behaviours? Randomness.

Our universe's set of rules are likely a byproduct of initial boundary conditions (starting rules of attraction/repulsion catalyzed by occurrences such as the Big Bang Theory), which stabilized after rapid universe-driven computations (which, at the time were inherently randomly developed) and have remained consistent over time. The multiverse model suggests that there are a number of universes which randomness gave rules to over time, and some of those rules would lead to stable universes, others would lead to unstable universes which would implode, never grow, never provide life, provide too much life, etc. The model also suggests that our specific universe had just the right set of rules randomly developed to create and sustain life (and while the odds of this happening are slim - the number of potential universes which have been created are infinite, which certainly raises the odds).

As for a Matrix construct which we live within - we as a civilization haven't figured out true randomness: there is always influence. Our random number generations are actually long algorithms which give almost random, but not true random: that's the universe's territory. Because of this, we can approximate randomness, but never actually obtain it. And if a universe's rules are a direct byproduct of iterative and true randomness (which even rolling a dice isn't truly random because the weight of ink and/or grooves changes things), then we could never simulate the creation of a universe - only closely approximate it. And even if we could simulate such a universe - to assume that we could stumble upon the right set of approximately-randomly-created rules that are equatable to our universe's are slim to none. In other words - if you want to label the randomness of the creation of universes 'God', our computational power is simply not even close to that of God's to create a Matrix construct.

PS, My quantum physics knowledge isn't too great, so if anyone can help clarify, correct, or elaborate, that'd be awesome

You must be fun at parties. :-??

Eh. I don't pigeon-hole myself into one set of interests. I assure you, at a party I'm much more likely to take a few shots of gin and whip out my guitar than to talk quantum mechanics.

Meant as a joke. I appreciate the intelligence you bring here and your way with words.

Much appreciated - your input is also always great to see around here

And my apologies for seeming standoff-ish, in hindsight I came off that way and didn't intend to.

mickeyrat

Still think you'd be a riot at parties. I think like that guy in animal house who gets the guitar taken from him from bluto. Black turtleneck.

23scidoo

Plato's cave..Carlos Castaneda ..Gnosticims..