Has this story progressed in any way? Any Scientific breakthroughs regarding reality being "informational"?
I was playing around with a few ideas when something obvious dawned on me..
Human cells are literally biological software. The Genetic Code is exactly that, a "code script", as Schrodinger put it. A binary list of instructions telling the cell how to behave. Cells also need to be "booted" exactly like software. Change the script, change the cell.
Are we just a collection of softwares? A human OS?
SIMULTATION
H
R
E
A
D
>>17629846
>Are we just a collection of softwares? A human OS?
Maybe.
I much rather prefer the theory that we are in a programmed reality, rather than being programmed ourselves.
I mean think about it. If we're on a code script, why are we allowed to think about said code script?
Copy pasted from an anon in other thread
I believe it has to do with the conservation of information principle. A paradox arose when Stephen Hawking attempted to explain blackholes, which, according to his theories, must, by necessity, capture all that falls past their event horizons, whether it be matter, energy or information, which are never supposed to be recoverable. The problem here is that information, by laws of logic itself, must always be recoverable in some way or form, no matter how one rearranges it. Theoretical physicist Kip Thorne found one could, in principle, solve the problem by assuming information would be conserved within the event horizon of a blackhole in the same way a hologram is a 3-D representation of information store in a two-dimensional plane, being released back into the universe in the form of energy, once the blackhole died.
And then he found the same could be applied to the whole fucking Universe, the math would hold perfectly, implying all matter and energy and dimensions are, while not illusory, merely representations of something deeper, two-dimensional, giving rise to the holographic projection we call reality.
It's not even that wild a conjecture, theoretical physics wise.
And the paper I always post since someone posted it to me.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf
And I have a theory about the development of AI and programed reality, just gimme a second.
>>17629984
After a fair time of consideration, given the chance that all the math behind this are correct. Wich I can't tell, cause my reality bending math is rusty.
If it's correct someone designed reality for us, we just live in it.
Nothing new for the believers, higher will and all that.
The implications of this are another story, if our reality is just mathematics, AI development takes a sudden twist,
We expected artifical intelligence to be intelligent, but the problem is that at this moment is surprisingly human, it makes mistakes.
We failed to develop a theory for what AI was, before creating it.
So our regular interactions with the neural network commonly know as the internet, as the compendium of actions taken by the users, are the stimuli, and the content delivered is the response.
The math works, if we consider each of our brains to be proteins in this digital cluster of neural networks.
What the internet does, is give you an intelligent response.
And is artificial, and we are not different, our reality coud be artificial, and forced to respect not only the laws of physics, but the laws of numbers.
Like the golden ratio, everything, has an algorithm, it's the code, that's how the universe looks, to our current understanding of it.
Our lifes are part of a fractal, that was written into the structure of the universe.
Under this belief reincarnation is not only possible, but mandatory.
>>17630065
>Under this belief reincarnation is not only possible, but mandatory.
remember that at least you got to forget too ,we are in good heart universe.
>>17630065
Who designed reality?
Who created mathematics?
I have no clue.
Can an artifial intelligence understand the structure of reality itself?
If the universe is mathematics, It's closer than us to do it.
>>17629846
>420 KB JPG
God made it. She made everything in it. The part we're living in is not stable, we have to get out soon. Half of us will, the other half will enter destruction.
Now as to why: Heaven was just too small, God made some pretty cool beings who began to feel unfree within the space, as vast as it was. Some top dogs of Heaven got bored basically and led a group of followers out. We're expanding Her kingdom, but there's a lot of pain and suffering we've had to endure in the process.
We're pioneers. Be proud, but don't let the pride become you. A third of this Universe will be left in darkness after it's all said and done. This third is where the half who does not return will stay. We will be able to look back on that realm from time to time and see our lives, our trials, our pain, our suffering, from end to beginning.
In the meantime enjoy yourselves, grow, prosper.
>>17629880
Nature is darkness, and uses light to move.
>>17630144
>God
>limitations
pick one , there is no limits in God.
>>17630144
Heaven needs power too, thus 'a singular unit, being cosmically enchanted' a source#
>>17629880
I mean, allowed is different from capable. As a CS student I can tell you that by Kleene's recursion theorem all Turing-complete programs are capable of set reference.
>>17630181
sorry *self-reference
>>17630170
Agreed, She is limitless, but She is not "instantly" limitless. As part of Her Creation, we are part of Her omnipotence. She requires things of us, She needs us. She is the Almighty, capable of defeating the sum of Her creations by Herself, but She first must watch the throne. It is up to us to go out and conquer, we are taking this dimension of reality for Her such that She has total and unopposed power and will construct for us a larger realm of eternal beauty and bliss.
>>17630185
>IT
is bi~ YX
>>17630185
You are talking about the Sun Queen , the virgin , the Queen dit not create the universe ,she has the power to create ,but she dit not create the universe ,
you are still caugh on the history , free yourself from the script and play your onw character to reach new levels of enlithgment.
>>17630256
TAKES X CLONES X
TAKES Y TAKES X CLONES YX
YYX
YXX
>>17630281
you can have your queen, I'll have mine.
>>17630256
>>17630285
what the fuck are you guys talking about.
>>17629846
its not a hypothesis its a fact
>>17630300
ok
but remember whatewer you pick sides , you are rejecting the whole as it is.
>>17630317
the fact that we live in a simulation , makes everiting a hipotesis , becose you dont know for 100% sure how reality goes becose you dont live on it , you live on a simulation of it.
>>17630324
It could be true that you live in a designed universe, but in that case nothing is an hypothesis, we live in a fixed universe.
Things are fact we are just wrong about it.
And before everybody jumps at the God wagon the maker of the universe can be lest than us, if we can make computers that understand the universe better than us, everything is possible.
>>17630351
I don't believe the universe could've been made by someone less than us because people would actively leave the universe or improve it. I feel that the only way your argument can be valid is if you're wholly convinced mankind is on the right track to establishing a heaven on earth. I don't think that is a bad belief to have, but at the same time we've got to keep our eyes open.
>>17630462
It's not about the maker, it's the universe itself what is fascinating, if we as lesser beings can understand it, we could reproduce it, and make our own universes.
Will a new universe be inferior to our universe, just because we created it?
You can't leave your universe, you are part of it, but you can create a new one.
A universe with life, with sentient creatures.
An absent creator.
>>17629846
Cells arnt programmed in a binary way...
Even so, those "programs" to humans are what a blueprint is to a building or structure... We still have free will as our own architects to change or bodies and do what we please with our actions
>>17630065
Exactly correct.
>>17630185
Female is XX and male is XY.... The female XX are literally two copies of a similar genome, vhosing aspects of one over the other to avoid defects..
The Male XY is the female's X, plus an additional unique piece of code in the Y... Men literally have more genetic code than female...
Also, men reciece their Y from their father, which in turn comes from their father and fathers father.... Women reciecd there X from both...
In conclusion God must be make. Because we are created in his image and therefore if a male where to be like God then God would have to have XY.... While Females have a double expression of the X
It has been told
>>17630508
fuck.
I just give a valid proof for the afterlife.
Always wanted to use this picture.
>>17630519
Actually, women have more genetic material than men. The Y chromosome contains less than half of the size of an X in terms of actual information. The reason this doesn't matter is that there are a lot of redundant genes in our full set of chromosomes. Everything the Y has is expressed on other places, but deactivated. There isnt any new info in it, just a reorganization. And it tells the fetus to replace ovaries with testes to develop testosterone instead of just more estrogen.
No one can know anything about God for sure because no one can know God exists for sure.
>>17629846
Note the similarities between the way neural networks work and the world develops
it's over many generations, becoming more perfect with each move
if I were a god, I'd build a universe that way
>>17630487
I see what you are saying. My issue is how do you think you're capable? I would imagine it would take constant work to keep this new/replicated universe going, that is you could not simply hit a button and have the new universe in front of you. While you're beating the drums of life to maintain the flow of your universe, what happens if you miss a beat? Maybe one small fuckup just kills a butterfly, maybe another creates a black hole, maybe yet another destroys the whole universe. And what then? Perhaps you just "wake up," perhaps you're now forever stuck in the cycle of destruction that you created.
The point is we know God to be mightier than us. So why not let Her handle all of that, as it appears She, in her extreme grace, is willing of such a challenge. In the meantime we can serve Her, and do what is needed of us to keep order in Her kingdom. I, for one, am happier this way.
>>17630519
I know how chromosomes work... I don't believe God to have a sex so I use whatever pronoun I feel like, it doesn't offend Him. I still don't get what those two posts were at all but whatever...
>>17629846
This guy (physicist) mentions something similar to a genetic code - applied to reality.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b6w0K5FIgsU
>>17630580
The posts are about duality.
You can have the relation you want with your deity, and viceversa, God is free to ignore you.
What you can't ignore is the world.
You're life is not meaningless, it's part of an universal structure, not only that, it will happen more than once.
If you have any amount of control of your life, any choice it will affect you from then on.
You are not under the will of a God, you are the will of God.
But I'm just talking out of the power ride, this could mean anything.
I truly don't know.
>>17630675
yeah, I mean I agree with you. The only real conclusion I can draw from all of which you said is we should get off 4chan forever though.
>>17630755
Definetly.
It was nice meeting you all.
Goodbye.
>>17630281
I feel like we are toys, puppets for the source; best description would be dream. The meaning of life is whatever you make it but I know without a doubt the purest meaning is enjoyment; ever increasing levels of joy.
>dat bliss mang
>>17630144
>commie star
>gods a grill
>>>/r/eddit the r/berniesaunderscuckoldry board will suit you
>>17631527
>commie star
Are you retarded?
>>17630144
>>>/tumblr/
>>17629846
Tom Campbell explains it, his theory of everything is pretty complete.
You can read his book on google books or watch his workshops on youtube.
Here:
https://youtu.be/2Nlbro2MNBs
>>17632870
KeK. I'm probably the guy that recommended you to Tom Campbell, bro. Nice to meet you again ;) Hope you found it as eye-opening as I did.
(Did you watch the "Intro" to MBT @Calgary? He clears up a few things I feel he left out of Part 1. It's a must-see.)
Sean Carroll explains the wave nature of reality well. It compliments Tom's Big Toe and gives a good picture of "reality" as it really is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwdY7Eqyguo
Honestly, who really gives a shit? Unless you're a scientist who wants to devote his life to finding out...I say it doesn't matter and is time better spent enjoying life. To each their own, but this isn't even fitting in terms of spoopiness/solvability.
