Revelation is starting to make some sense..

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

Excerpts from a lengthy article at

http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.html


A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.

Here's what it means in layman's terms

Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.

Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.

Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.

Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?

Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."

The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

Can I sue because of the crappy channel programming?

 

[pspr]

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution.

I would not be happy to find out that we are just a computer science project that some kid made in a universe much different than ours populated with beings infinitely more intelligent and advanced than ourselves. Could such a being be God or would he/she/it have created our God, too?

On the other hand, could we figure out how to gain access to the software and re-write sections making us the immortal masters of the Universe?

 

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from pspr:

. Could such a being be God or would he/she/it have created our God, too?

It makes no difference.
The fact is neither condition is distinguishable from the other.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

Excerpts from a lengthy article at

http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.html


A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.

Here's what it means in layman's terms

Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.

Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.

Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.

Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?

Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."

The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

So because our universe can be compartmentalized/digitized at all sorts of levels and criteria, - alive/not alive, energy/matter, upspinning /downspinnig, positive/negative - which is sorta like a computer, there has to be a creator? Seems like quite a leap.

 

[pspr]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

It makes no difference.
The fact is neither condition is distinguishable from the other.

It would if we were to gain access to the point of view of the overriding universe.

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

Quote from pspr:

could we figure out how to gain access to the software and re-write sections making us the immortal masters of the Universe?

I asked the Guy that made it, He nixed the idea but he says since I'm his friend He can make changes for me if I ask nice..

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
it is consistent with a creator to say something came out of nothing...

Then nothing is the creator. I bet that's not what you meant to say.

Quote from jem:
what we have been arguing about is you have been denying the appearance of fine tuning...

bullshit.

What I have been arguing about, while you keep arguing against yourself, is that you can't even understand an appearance of fine tuning is no more use to explaining anything than an appearance of Flat Earth is.

Quote from jem:

a. I would argue that is quite fair to say..
our universe is extremely fine tuned.

b. whether there are alternate universes is conjecture, speculation or in a liberal sense of the word for scientists untested, unproven, theory.

a. You already have, and failed miserably, time after time after time.

b. At least scientific theory is supported by math, physics. Your so called fine tuning has no support other than some imaginary wizard is supposed to be responsible for it.

 

[stu]

Quote from pspr:

Of course, what I am telling you is the absolute truth, stu.

Of course it is. It's simply that you are incorrect.

Quote from pspr:

They have no idea what created the big bang.

That comment is what I'm saying is incorrect. Particle physics is not a case of "no idea".

Quote from pspr:

Mathematics does NOT explain the big bang to the moment of the signularity.

It might be far more accurate to say mathematics does not explain the big bang at singularity. But who said it does? I didn't.

Quote from pspr:

In the time before the first 10-44 seconds of the Universe, or the Planck Epoch, the laws of physics as we know them break down; the predictions of General Relativity become meaningless as distance scales approach the Planck length at which random quantum mechanical fluctuations dominate. Most particle physics models predict that during this epoch the four fundamental forces were combined into one unified force. Very little else is known about the early part of this era, and the mystery it poses is perhaps the central question in modern physics.

Warning.. contains Math!

 

[jem]

More pre school games from the facile mind of the troll. Then the creator is nothing... ha.

From the point of view of the observer... the big bang is creation
---
What you seem to be arguing with is documented fact...


I have cited you to their recent videos and papers.
That you continue to insistent there is no appearance of fine tunings in our universe... is troll ignorance.

How do you explain... that 20 constants taken to 32 decimal places are what was used to predict and find the higss boson... and not call that extreme fine tuning.

Your worldview is causing you to misrepresent clear science.

Quote from stu:

Then nothing is the creator. I bet that's not what you meant to say.


bullshit.

What I have been arguing about, while you keep arguing against yourself, is that you can't even understand an appearance of fine tuning is no more use to explaining anything than an appearance of Flat Earth is.


a. You already have, and failed miserably, time after time after time.

b. At least scientific theory is supported by math, physics. Your so called fine tuning has no support other than some imaginary wizard is supposed to be responsible for it.

 

[jem]

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electronsrotons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

Degree of fine tuning

Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.3

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)

The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).