The Universe is a Machine That Keeps Learning, Scientists say.

Trust me, we aren't going to shape the universe. Sounds to me like these cosmologists are religious. They have described the universe as a god.

 

That's one way to describe it. The universe is god. God is all that exists. We are all just small sparks of consciousness, part of the great whole that is god. Cut off from the source so that god has a sense of himself that would not be attainable otherwise.

 

Because of the contrast between physical consistency and less determinate levels of nonphysical existence. In our world, cause and effect are closely linked most of the time, although there are rare conditions in which the usual physical laws break down. On the subatomic level, quantum mechanics describes various counterintuitive phenomena (spooky action at a distance, quantum teleportation, etc.).

There are times in places such as the Bermuda Triangle where things can go haywire. Antigravity vortices can arise, ejecting things like human bodies from their ships and flinging them 75 miles above the earth. The establishment /deep state knows about this, but they don't take any precautions because they don't want everybody to find out about it.

Those who have claimed to have penetrated other worlds say that their physical laws are different from ours. At any rate, it is noted that restrictions are less in higher (spiritual) worlds but the opportunities are more limited. Boredom is more of a problem. Individuals then gravitate to where the action is: in physicality. As a learning environment, it's the best place to go.

 

Scientists, especially of non- biological sciences, have a tendency to view things-- even life-- based on mechanical models, that fall short, in giving true depictions. Whether this is because purely mechanical models, by nature, lack something, or is due to our own understanding of mechanics being far too crude to see how the analogies could work, is beside the point, that they are inaccurate oversimplifications. When we are considering something like an evolving universe, the cyber models-- A.I., and such-- I feel, also, are unconvincing.

Here is something worth watching, on PBS's site, from their Nova series, on slime mold. Get ready to have your minds blown--
IT THINKS!


https://www.thirteen.org/programs/nova/secret-mind-of-slime-oa3w89/#:~:text=NOVA | Episode Secret Mind of,mazes and create efficient networks.

 

We don't know where the thinking/ learning functionality resides. Since it is invisible to us, it must be in some undetectable medium or other dimension, but it must be there, since it seems to run scripts and use algorithms (as observed by Tom Campell). A somewhat useful perspective is: the programmer is invisible to the program.

The limitations of relativity are ours. The capabilities of the universe must be far more sophisticated.

Continuation of growth, even if punctuated by death and followed by rebirth.

 

Good luck, you'll need it.

 

Your meaning, of course, is unclear-- other than that you did not review the Nova program, and so are posting out of ignorance of slime mold's known and documented abilities.

Under those general circumstances, I would think that it is the person, sticking with ignorance, who would be most inclined to need luck.

 

Your leap of faith, from slime to the Universe is staggeringly absurd, so good luck, although what you really need is a miracle.

 

there is an idea that our universe gives birth to other universes, via black holes, thus evolution would give preference to the universes that favor the most black holes to populate the multiverse

 

Once again, exactly what you are trying to say, is not well defined. All I was pointing to, was something that has been recently discovered, which turns all our beliefs about "intelligence," and "volition," on their heads. It is therefore not at all a "leap of faith," to suggest that our understanding of the entirety of the cosmos, may likewise, be flawed. To the contrary, it is you-- if you are taking the argument that it is not likely that their are huge surprises in store for us, which will rewrite our understandings of fundamental scientific theory-- who is making the "staggeringly absurd," leap of faith.

 

I posted that idea-- is that where you heard it? Pretty cool thought, huh? But it's only a speculation, with not even any theoretical proofs, behind it. Yet, who can say that it hadn't been an inspired insight? It has more of a ring of truth about it, than most other cosmic/existential theories that I've heard.

 

Thanks, first laugh of the day.

In science, if you are proposing something, it's your job to convince us.

 

it was one of those science shows, not sure which one, is an interesting theory though

 

This isn't a science symposium, and I'm not describing a well- drawn, new scientific theory. We are, to my mind, just tossing out speculations, and sharing our general leanings, regarding our perspectives on this idea.


As you seem to be lost, do you also need directions to the rest room?

 

Sorry, I had no idea you were just goofing around.

When did this become a comedy forum??

 

That's not even close to an accurate interpretation of my words:

DEFinning said: ↑
This isn't a science symposium, and I'm not describing a well- drawn, new scientific theory. We are, to my mind, just tossing out speculations, and sharing our general leanings, regarding our perspectives on this idea.


When did this become a remedial reading class?

 

Works for me.

 

So, the ideas you toss out shouldn't be questioned?

Can you specify how much respect they should be given?

 

If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be humorous: you, with your long, past history of misinterpreting my posts, are taking up the case for someone else, who was a "creative" translator (and a case that has already been dismissed, by both parties, to boot)? Not surprisingly, under the circumstances, for anyone looking for misreads, or misstatements, there's no waiting. But let's kill 2 birds, here. First, my brief summary of the conversation:

(O)L- You didn't provide enough specific details, for your idea to qualify, as a convincing proof.

Me- I don't read this thread, as only for physicists, presenting full-fledged theories; we're just bouncing ideas off one another.

(O)L- Oh, so you're just turning the thread into a joke.

Me- That is not what I just said.

(O)L- It's the way I'm gonna take it.

END OF CONVERSATION

Does that not seem a representative summary, to you? My post, which you quoted, was the one that I described as saying, "That is not what I said." You, on the other hand, are maintaining that I am claiming that my ideas cannot be questioned, is that right?
Well let's all see, who understands this language we're using, and who has difficulties with it. Here is the full transcript:
The other party's challenge:

(original)late said: ↑
Thanks, first laugh of the day.

In science, if you are proposing something, it's your job to convince us.


My reply:

DEFinning said: ↑
This isn't a science symposium, and I'm not describing a well- drawn, new scientific theory. We are, to my mind, just tossing out speculations, and sharing our general leanings, regarding our perspectives on this idea.


As you seem to be lost, do you also need directions to the rest room?


My correspondent translated that as:

(original)late said: ↑
Sorry, I had no idea you were just goofing around.

When did this become a comedy forum??


And I answered:

DEFinning said: ↑
That's not even close to an accurate interpretation of my words:

DEFinning said: ↑
This isn't a science symposium, and I'm not describing a well- drawn, new scientific theory. We are, to my mind, just tossing out speculations, and sharing our general leanings, regarding our perspectives on this idea.


When did this become a remedial reading class?



The last comment is (original)late's but, as I never quoted it (and see no reason to do so, here) I cannot cut and paste the quoted version. Still, his final words, after quoting my saying that his interpretation, was not even close to what I'd said, were: "Works for me."


Now, to test our 2 versions, for accuracy. Your takeaway, once again, was that I was saying that no one was allowed to question my ideas. For convenient reference, here it is:

Well I am curious to know how you pieced that idea together, as it implies, does it not, that the other poster actually asked me a question?

And what question would that have been? Because, had he asked something in particular, I would have done my best to respond to it. But he did not say that he questioned such -n- such part of my concept, for this or that reason. He just said, that he expected me to "convince" him, while he just sat back in the audience, evaluating. Shall we look again?

(original)late said: ↑
Thanks, first laugh of the day.

In science, if you are proposing something, it's your job to convince us.


Do you see a question, there? If not, how could my answer, possibly mean, "you are not allowed to question me?" For review, here was the quote in question, you provided with your reply to me:

DEFinning said: ↑
That's not even close to an accurate interpretation of my words:

DEFinning said: ↑
This isn't a science symposium, and I'm not describing a well- drawn, new scientific theory. We are, to my mind, just tossing out speculations, and sharing our general leanings, regarding our perspectives on this idea.


When did this become a remedial reading class?
[End]

I'll note that I'd quoted my earlier post w/in the body of this later post, so that-- while the main idea of this post, certainly is, "that's not what I'd said," your translation of my meaning, clearly comes from the middle part, copied from my earlier reply.

It's too bad, after all this trouble, I can't install a poll, right here, but I highly encourage all readers, to reply with their vote, as to which of us "translated it better." The quote, just above:

A) Will Readmore is rendering as My saying, "My ideas shouldn't be questioned."

B) I translate it, simply as explaining that my idea is not to that stage of polishing, to deliver a full- throated exposition. Or, as I expressed it, just before reproducing our verbatim discourse, in my brief rundown (which I think is consistent with how I just described it), was:

Me- I don't read this thread, as only for physicists, presenting full-fledged theories; we're just bouncing ideas off one another.



The voting starts.....NOW!

So Readmore-- do you want to be the first?

 

fascinating......... I like it. the concept of self learning / evolving captures the imagination.

 

You don't like the ideas that you "just toss out" being held to any standard or even questioned.

But, the fact that someone is just tossing out ideas isn't a justification for claiming they shouldn't be questioned.

Are you not interested in whether they are robust, have easy repudiations, etc.?

 

You are, once again, demonstrating your well- developed attribute, of cognitive dissonance.
I just went to great lengths, to show that I was not asked any questions. Therefore, what you assert is both utterly false, as well as stupid, for any to persist in thinking it. IOW, hypocrite, I am holding you to the standard, that you claim I am failing to meet: reproduce my quote that validates your charge, above. If you cannot do this, then all your hot air, is devoid of any merit. You are casting a baseless criticism.

My in-kind reply, to that, is that just because a person cannot produce the mathematical computational proofs of his concept does not mean, as you are claiming, that the person should not be permitted to speak.

I never said anything of the sort, that I couldn't be questioned, you dense clod! Please show us any question that I have refused to answer. In the absence of that, all your words show is how utter incapable you are, as a perceiver of facts, and how deficient, as a thinker.

 

"In their novella-length paper, published to the pre-print server arXiV, the researchers—who received “computational, logistical, and other general support” from Microsoft—offer ideas “at the intersection of theoretical physics, computer science, and philosophy of science with a discussion from all three perspectives,” they write, teasing the bigness and multidisciplinary nature of the research."

Translation: Not published. Not peer reviewed. Could be nothing but wild speculation.

This is why the general public gets so confused about science. This is not science yet and may never be. It is A PAPER that hasn't even been published in a reputable journal.

 

I don't think THAT is the reason the public gets confused about science. There are no shortages of places to lay blame, including public education, and the disinterest of the general public. But I will mention, one almost never hears a clear description of anything scientific, on television. It is always dumbed- down to such a point that it is all but worthless to anyone who wants to actually understand, even in the most basic-- but accurate-- way. These science stories seem as if they are only meant to pass along the warm fuzzy feeling, that science is doing great things, making the future look bright.

 

What I'm talking about is taking an unpublished, non-reviewed, singular paper as "science". "Science says blah blah blah". This is a perfect example. The media made this essentially common knowledge before we know if there is anything to it. For all we know the authors were on LSD. Likewise, we see references to nonsense claims about things "science" says or said when in fact none of it is true. The right wing is chocked full of claims about what science said that are simply not true.

The dumbing down of America is another issue to be sure. The attention span of the average American keeps getting shorter and shorter. We are down to a few lines of text on a phone or YouTube videos that are frantic and often fanatical.

The media is driven to hype science to attract more readers. It is all about money. Real science is often slow and relatively boring. So let's hype the unpublished woo woo crap that will never amount to anything, to wow everyone. Something like this is so far out that any respectable treatment would require a formal publication.