Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: What if planets, stars are "natural supercomputing syst

  1. #1 What if planets, stars are "natural supercomputing syst 
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Forgive me If I distract your attention for a little but I would like you to consider (just for a little) some very unexpected possibility for stars, planets, moons...

    Some times we don't find just what we are not looking for.

    I know it would be hard to accept mainly at a first view but became to make sense someway to me since some time ago.

    Here it goes:

    What if the Universe is much more alive than we curently believe and stars are not just a "ball of fire" and planets and moons are not just "balls of some earth".
    What if some kind of what we could call "natural supercomputing system" (I mean some kind of "harware/software" system) could exist inside some "superprotective sphere" inside stars, planets, moons and some kind of "software entities" could actually exist being what we could call their "Gods" or something like that.
    What if a sophysticated "super system" exist in the Universe in which those "software entities" communicate (through some totally unknown communication mechanism) in some sort of "Universal network".

    What if what we, humans, are doing here at Earth with computers and the internet is the same that those "intelligences" do naturally.

    I apologize if this would be a too "fantastic" possibility.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Does anybody knows about some experimental evidence towards or against this possibility?
    For example about collisions between stars, have some collisions between stars have been observed through telescopes?
    Do the stars have some kind of "ellastic collision" where the two stars separate after the collission remaining quite as if they were before the collision or they "smash" one into the other remaining as one bigger star after the collision?
    Is there some information about real collision between stars?
    I made a search in the web but only found computational simulations of stars' collisions only (with theoretical assumed models of course)...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Super System 
    Forum Freshman Amy Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ark.
    Posts
    27
    A really interesting theory. It would explain that feeling of having been in a place that we are in for the first time and other things. That would mean we could tap into this "Network" if we only knew how.
    After all "WE are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars."
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
    "E pur si muove,"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    A really interesting theory. It would explain that feeling of having been in a place that we are in for the first time and other things. That would mean we could tap into this "Network" if we only knew how.
    After all "WE are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars."
    Are you worried about "deja vous"?
    I'm worried about this: http://www.anewlightinphysics.com/se...ystem_flaw.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Nice Page 
    Forum Freshman Amy Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ark.
    Posts
    27
    Liked your page. Cool thoughts.
    Amy
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
    "E pur si muove,"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,239
    In a way, all matter operates like a computer does. Matter can receive, process, and send forces and interact with other matter in a similar way to how computers can receive, process, and send information and interact with other computers. From this infinity we get all the mystery and beauty of the universe. The possibilities you can get from a huge cloud of gas in space is endless. It all looks so intelligent because it all is at the atomic level.

    Perhaps our universe formed some kind of intelligent forces, that work similar to how our minds operate, like it formed other forces, such as gravity and magnetism, when the universe came to exist. Perhaps all the intelligence we see in the universe is just an illusion created by our minds. But, then again, what are our minds but a collection of matter, a collection of interacting cells and atoms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    In a way, all matter operates like a computer does. Matter can receive, process, and send forces and interact with other matter in a similar way to how computers can receive, process, and send information and interact with other computers. From this infinity we get all the mystery and beauty of the universe. The possibilities you can get from a huge cloud of gas in space is endless. It all looks so intelligent because it all is at the atomic level.
    Matter alone doesn't look/seem intelligent for me.

    Perhaps all the intelligence we see in the universe is just an illusion created by our minds.
    I don't know what intelligent things you see in the Universe but what we see are not illusions. The problem is how to interpret what we see. In this thread I'm considering the possibility of stars, planets and moons, which have not any apparent intelligence, to hold intelligence inside.

    But, then again, what are our minds but a collection of matter, a collection of interacting cells and atoms.
    What you described is the brain not the mind: "a collection of matter, a collection of interacting cells and atoms". This is the "hardware" for me. Actually the real way the thinking process takes place hasn't been understood properly yet. The "mind" is something different and would include análisis of perceptions, consciousness, reasoning, imagination and who knows what else...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    In this thread I'm considering the possibility of stars, planets and moons, which have not any apparent intelligence, to hold intelligence inside.
    I apologize, if you mean super computers, downloaded with intelligence and experience, contained, highly protected, within outer space masses, able to communicate with each other, then I would have to say that it is a possibility. What better way for an intelligent being to exist than in a virtual reality where they are safe from pain and free from restriction. Good idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I apologize, if you mean super computers, downloaded with intelligence and experience, contained, highly protected, within outer space masses, able to communicate with each other, then I would have to say that it is a possibility. What better way for an intelligent being to exist than in a virtual reality where they are safe from pain and free from restriction. Good idea.
    You got it. That's what I'm thinking about.

    Just one step further: And what if when we die our "minds" (or "souls" or whatever) go to (or are "uploaded") inside some "star"?
    That would also be great isn't it?

    I think this new approach/point of view could bring lot of new things.

    Of course the problem is how to demonstrate that, I know, but as I said at the begining "Sometimes we don't find what we are not looking for" and so is just a possibility to have in our minds. I mean sometimes we need to speculate a possibility before it would be demonstrated/proved and with time arguments, justifications and proofs could come (following the "Rationalism" way?). Meanwhile we could think if it could make sense and the new possibilities it could open.

    Although we could think we "know it all" may be fortunatelly there could be lot of things "hidden" in the Universe yet. The problem is that they could not agree with some things currently believed...

    Thanks for your comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    That is making the assumption that consciousness can exist without a host, even temporally…. I mean after all we could simply be the result of our brain processing data….
    Why would our souls/minds be freed in death but not life? Why would we be trapped in the brain in life but released in death?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    In a way, all matter operates like a computer does. Matter can receive, process, and send forces and interact with other matter in a similar way to how computers can receive, process, and send information and interact with other computers. From this infinity we get all the mystery and beauty of the universe. The possibilities you can get from a huge cloud of gas in space is endless. It all looks so intelligent because it all is at the atomic level.
    Matter alone doesn't look/seem intelligent for me.

    Perhaps all the intelligence we see in the universe is just an illusion created by our minds.
    I don't know what intelligent things you see in the Universe but what we see are not illusions. The problem is how to interpret what we see. In this thread I'm considering the possibility of stars, planets and moons, which have not any apparent intelligence, to hold intelligence inside.

    But, then again, what are our minds but a collection of matter, a collection of interacting cells and atoms.
    What you described is the brain not the mind: "a collection of matter, a collection of interacting cells and atoms". This is the "hardware" for me. Actually the real way the thinking process takes place hasn't been understood properly yet. The "mind" is something different and would include análisis of perceptions, consciousness, reasoning, imagination and who knows what else...
    I like what you said in your last part there.

    I like to look at the reality in the sense of “I have never seen myself, I see the body in which I live but I can't see me."

    Never forget we as conscious beings live inside a machine made up of millions of other living things, but yet the mind has individuality.

    Anyways that was a side note. One day it could be easy enough to upgrade the hardware and move to living as a star. Stars project light, using sonar type deals it would give us a 360 degree field of vision, stars have much longer lives then people. You give a star the ability to "walk" and it great body to have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Why would our souls/minds be freed in death but not life? Why would we be trapped in the brain in life but released in death?
    This seems to not be easy to answer in a post...
    Let me try to show my viewpoint.

    First of all it is necessary to distinguish in how "things" should be and how they currently are. I mean, under the premise that the Universe is not in its ideal state and some things do not work as they should do.

    Now, have you heard about the dualism on body/mind proposed by Plato, Descartes and others? I'm thinking in something just a little different may be inspired in the "Matrix" film but in an inverse mode. I'm thinking in the possibility that our "minds" could actually belong to and reside in the stars but they are "plugged" in these animals beings we could see as "humans bodies". The duality is then in the animal part and the more intelligent "stellar intelligence" which has the characteristic to rationalize, have sense of right and wrong, develop knowledge and technology, etc.

    You may ask why?
    I think that we intentionally choused to do that to directly see/hear/feel this World and its life because something is wrong in the Universe, life is not as enjoyable as it should be, and we are here to find the possible errors/flaws.
    Please take a look at the link I provided which clarifies better some things: http://www.anewlightinphysics.com/se...ystem_flaw.htm

    You would ask now that if so why aren't we conscient about all this?
    The answer is that as in this bad state of the Universe some things do not work as they should work and in this situation we loose the conscience of inside the stars and also we don't bring any "inherent" knowledge when we "download" here .

    Let me say at this point that the situation inside the stars could also be not ideal and we could not feel good in the return to it. The pointed flaw(s) in the Universe could also affect the stars inside and may be we would decide to "return here" untill the Universe flaws would be determined precisely enough for the "Primordial Intelligences" be able to make the necessary changes and really ideal Worlds could be developed where life could be really enjoyable in the surface of planets and inside stars.

    Well, that's my viewpoint summarized as I could.

    May be it could seem too "fantastic" I know, so fantastic as the subject proposed at the opening post and so fantastic as "Matrix" film isn't it? But let me say something: it became to make some sense since some time ago...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    Why would our souls/minds be freed in death but not life? Why would we be trapped in the brain in life but released in death?
    This seems to not be easy to answer in a post...
    Let me try to show my viewpoint.

    First of all it is necessary to distinguish in how "things" should be and how they currently are. I mean, under the premise that the Universe is not in its ideal state and some things do not work as they should do.

    Now, have you heard about the dualism on body/mind proposed by Plato, Descartes and others? I'm thinking in something just a little different may be inspired in the "Matrix" film but in an inverse mode. I'm thinking in the possibility that our "minds" could actually belong to and reside in the stars but they are "plugged" in these animals beings we could see as "humans bodies". The duality is then in the animal part and the more intelligent "stellar intelligence" which has the characteristic to rationalize, have sense of right and wrong, develop knowledge and technology, etc.

    You may ask why?
    I think that we intentionally choused to do that to directly see/hear/feel this World and its life because something is wrong in the Universe, life is not as enjoyable as it should be, and we are here to find the possible errors/flaws.
    Please take a look at the link I provided which clarifies better some things: http://www.anewlightinphysics.com/se...ystem_flaw.htm

    You would ask now that if so why aren't we conscient about all this?
    The answer is that as in this bad state of the Universe some things do not work as they should work and in this situation we loose the conscience of inside the stars and also we don't bring any "inherent" knowledge when we "download" here .

    Let me say at this point that the situation inside the stars could also be not ideal and we could not feel good in the return to it. The pointed flaw(s) in the Universe could also affect the stars inside and may be we would decide to "return here" untill the Universe flaws would be determined precisely enough for the "Primordial Intelligences" be able to make the necessary changes and really ideal Worlds could be developed where life could be really enjoyable in the surface of planets and inside stars.

    Well, that's my viewpoint summarized as I could.

    May be it could seem too "fantastic" I know, so fantastic as the subject proposed at the opening post and so fantastic as "Matrix" film isn't it? But let me say something: it became to make some sense since some time ago...
    No offense but this idea seems very flawed to me.

    For starters if we as these stellar beings where attempting to fix a problem with the universe, why would we limit ourselves in our quest to do so?

    Why not design machines to surpass limitation that may be blocking the mission?

    Why would we lower our what would be superior intelligence to a lower amount of intelligence to fix a problem that "our" superior intelligence could not?

    Most importantly you associate feelings with the state if the universe, why?
    Feelings are a human concept, pain happiness, can all be attributed to a physical reactions to an outward stimulus. Also possibly a mental creation....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    No offense but this idea seems very flawed to me.

    For starters if we as these stellar beings where attempting to fix a problem with the universe, why would we limit ourselves in our quest to do so?

    ...

    Why would we lower our what would be superior intelligence to a lower amount of intelligence to fix a problem that "our" superior intelligence could not?
    I don't know if I understand properly your point but what I think is that something is wrong in the Universe, particularly in the Physics of the Universe, but the problem hasn't been determined precisely yet. I think that may be all the theoretical specifications in the Physics Laws would be right but the reality does not match with them (I also assume all the "stellar intelligences have the capability to run powerfull simulations on how life should be) and so something, yet unknown by the "Primordial Intelligences", is not working fine as it should do.
    So I think we have "downloaded" here to directly observe the real life with the aim to detect what could be wrong.
    As I wote in the linked page for me the real running values of some physical parameters could be wrong, they would be different from the theoretically specified values and so the reallity of the Universe and its Worlds, life, and living beings does not match with the theoretical predictions, they are not as they should be.
    I think that only we humans with the highly developed technology could be able to detect the problem. You know, for example the presence of ultra-violet photons etc have been detected in recent years only and we are just realizing their effects in current life and living beings.
    Note that may be other problems which I'm not considering could also exist. I'm just pointng to one I consider important but some other(s) could also be needed to be yet detected, analized, evaluated, verified, etc.

    Why not design machines to surpass limitation that may be blocking the mission?
    And what do you think we are doing here in our World?
    "Stellar intelligences" cannot build machines outside the stars. We can do it here.

    Most importantly you associate feelings with the state if the universe, why?
    Feelings are a human concept, pain happiness, can all be attributed to a physical reactions to an outward stimulus. Also possibly a mental creation....
    Well, pain is a feeling we feel when something is not good/right for us and hapiness is a feeling when something seems good/right so they are important to be considered too. They are the intuitive reaction of our minds to things that happen in our life and we can feel them although we don't understand them properly. For example we feel pain with death and may be we don't understand why it happens but we know we don't like it. I'm considering aging and "natural death" as something that should not exist but is part of the reality of our World isn't it? Well I'm questioning that, I think in an ideal World deaths and births would be rare and special things, not like currently are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by martillo
    No offense but this idea seems very flawed to me.

    For starters if we as these stellar beings where attempting to fix a problem with the universe, why would we limit ourselves in our quest to do so?

    ...

    Why would we lower our what would be superior intelligence to a lower amount of intelligence to fix a problem that "our" superior intelligence could not?
    I don't know if I understand properly your point but what I think is that something is wrong in the Universe, particularly in the Physics of the Universe, but the problem hasn't been determined precisely yet. I think that may be all the theoretical specifications in the Physics Laws would be right but the reality does not match with them (I also assume all the "stellar intelligences have the capability to run powerfull simulations on how life should be) and so something, yet unknown by the "Primordial Intelligences", is not working fine as it should do.
    So I think we have "downloaded" here to directly observe the real life with the aim to detect what could be wrong.
    As I wote in the linked page for me the real running values of some physical parameters could be wrong, they would be different from the theoretically specified values and so the reallity of the Universe and its Worlds, life, and living beings does not match with the theoretical predictions, they are not as they should be.
    I think that only we humans with the highly developed technology could be able to detect the problem. You know, for example the presence of ultra-violet photons etc have been detected in recent years only and we are just realizing their effects in current life and living beings.
    Note that may be other problems which I'm not considering could also exist. I'm just pointng to one I consider important but some other(s) could also be needed to be yet detected, analized, evaluated, verified, etc.

    Why not design machines to surpass limitation that may be blocking the mission?
    And what do you think we are doing here in our World?
    "Stellar intelligences" cannot build machines outside the stars. We can do it here.

    Most importantly you associate feelings with the state if the universe, why?
    Feelings are a human concept, pain happiness, can all be attributed to a physical reactions to an outward stimulus. Also possibly a mental creation....
    Well, pain is a feeling we feel when something is not good/right for us and hapiness is a feeling when something seems good/right so they are important to be considered too. They are the intuitive reaction of our minds to things that happen in our life and we can feel them although we don't understand them properly. For example we feel pain with death and may be we don't understand why it happens but we know we don't like it. I'm considering aging and "natural death" as something that should not exist but is part of the reality of our World isn't it? Well I'm questioning that, I think in an ideal World deaths and births would be rare and special things, not like currently are.
    Feeling sadness and pain are not the same thing. Sadness at the lost of something is not pain. And it can be classified.

    So these intelligent beings did not build people?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    Feeling sadness and pain are not the same thing. Sadness at the lost of something is not pain. And it can be classified.
    Anyway, I don't see where's a problem.

    So these intelligent beings did not build people?
    Yes I think they do.
    I think if they want they can participate in the developing of beings over planets defining their specifications at all levels (micro, macro, instincts, etc).
    I think some "nano-objects" with the size of molecules but made of "a different thing" not yet seen/discovered with our technnology and powerfull enough to implement the specifications acting at the atom/molecular level and building some molecules and even DNA codes sometimes (not always).
    I think they can also interact some way with living beings through "nano-objects" in the brain which acting as interfaces between living beings and those "stellar intelligences".
    Let me say at this point that they cannot produce miracles since everything is made following the Physics Laws of the Universe but I think they can interact someway for example seeing/hearing through the living beings' eyes/years and may be influentiating their instincts/intuition sometimes but for this some "stellar intelligences" must be "focused" in some living beings what not always happens.
    In the case of humans this interaction seems to be "stronger"...
    Please note that even to express all this in the right way is not really easy for me and I could make mistakes.
    I'm not infallible, I make mistakes may be everyday, so take all this with caution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    So these intelligent beings did not build people?
    Yes I think they do.
    I think if they want they can participate in the developing of beings over planets defining their specifications at all levels (micro, macro, instincts, etc).
    I think some "nano-objects" with the size of molecules but made of "a different thing" not yet seen/discovered with our technnology and powerfull enough to implement the specifications acting at the atom/molecular level and building some molecules and even DNA codes sometimes (not always).
    I think they can also interact some way with living beings through "nano-objects" in the brain which acting as interfaces between living beings and those "stellar intelligences".
    Let me say at this point that they cannot produce miracles since everything is made following the Physics Laws of the Universe but I think they can interact someway for example seeing/hearing through the living beings' eyes/years and may be influentiating their instincts/intuition sometimes but for this some "stellar intelligences" must be "focused" in some living beings what not always happens.
    In the case of humans this interaction seems to be "stronger"...
    Please note that even to express all this in the right way is not really easy for me and I could make mistakes.
    I'm not infallible, I make mistakes may be everyday, so take all this with caution.[/quote]

    So why not make organism better then people in the physical sense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    I don't know if I understand your question properly but let me say that, as I sustain in the page I have posted before, nothing could have been done better than it is now because there's a flaw in the Physics System of the Universe and lot of things do not work exactly the way it was supposed to work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 my 3 cents on the op 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24
    i believe that we cannot even speculate on this question at all
    I like to think about your original question in two ways
    1. even if there is/isnt a creator of existence. say a stone tablet fell from the sky one day saying that the the universes is in fact a giant "supercomputer of sorts" and that sub-atomic particles translate as "0" and atoms translate as "1." We still wouldn't have any better understanding of different dimensions/the beginning of the universe, or why we are here. let alone what role we play.
    2. i sometimes try to imagine myself as being able to converse with a tiny scientist sitting on a piece of bacteria living on a semi. While this would allow me to become familiar with the bacteria and in time im sure i could manipulate it in ways the world has never seen. however, im more interested in what scale his tiny mind could comprehend... what i mean is someone can show you a picture of a skyscraper and tell you how tall it is, one can create a mental picture from this (an image ive found through experience, to still grossly underestimate the actual size of the building/object) would he be able to comprehend how large a semi is? I think not, it would either seem like an impossibly huge planet like structure stretching into infinity, or it would appear unimaginably mountainous (steel isn't smooth!). Its pointless to speculate on most things going on outside our solar system b/c any info we do receive is eons out-dated, or its like looking through the eye's of that bacteria sized scientist and trying to figure out what the sun is. when the real question is; What is a semi? only through asking the right questions AND getting extremely lucky would the answer be found. the problem is that scientist would still be ignorant of the size of the earth because its just too unimaginably huge..
    anyone agree that we are asking the wrong questions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    i believe that we cannot even speculate on this question at all
    I think is a very interesting and important thing to think and speculate about.
    We all could be lost with wrong theories present and may be this possibility could bring a new "light" on many subjects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: my 3 cents on the op 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by RAWasFCK
    i believe that we cannot even speculate on this question at all
    ...
    anyone agree that we are asking the wrong questions?
    Disagree. Your little scientist may theorize quite a bit about the semi.

    She may assume the semi-universe has energy gradients. Given that, life is possible. Then evolution is possible. Reckon gravity, or some comparable force, exists "up there" and she theorizes surfaces. With life evolving on surfaces, the little scientist may imagine it evolves or invents wheels to get around on the surfaces...

    Ultimately she may find her role, or challenge, in the universe. Answers "What am I?" and "What should I do?"

    And then pass out drunk in front of her little television.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24
    touché pong, touché

    Albert Einstein's dying words were lost to the world because his bedside nurse didn't speak German.
    However, i feel that if we are going ask questions i believe we should start with the most wild and obscure, and slowly eliminate them. i cant say for certain. but its highly probable that any answer is going to be unimaginable to the human mind, and only through looking at our obviously false and idiotic ideas while eliminating the most improbable and ridiculous of them will we narrow the scope only leaving ideas that are at most.. plausible, (hopefully with lots of luck) slowly inching towards a scientific conclusion.. what im saying is baby-steps is our best option.
    *i admit that i use this site to throw around some ideas and see what comes back... so goin along with the op i would lean toward our universe being some sort of hologram based supercomputer functioning on a multiverse/multidimentional scale???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree martillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Uruguay
    Posts
    463
    *i admit that i use this site to throw around some ideas and see what comes back... so goin along with the op i would lean toward our universe being some sort of hologram based supercomputer functioning on a multiverse/multidimentional scale???
    Now considering you also wrote:
    However, i feel that if we are going ask questions i believe we should start with the most wild and obscure, and slowly eliminate them. i cant say for certain. but its highly probable that any answer is going to be unimaginable to the human mind, and only through looking at our obviously false and idiotic ideas while eliminating the most improbable and ridiculous of them will we narrow the scope only leaving ideas that are at most.. plausible, (hopefully with lots of luck) slowly inching towards a scientific conclusion.. what im saying is baby-steps is our best option.
    Then I would discard now: no "multiverse", no "multidimensions", no "dark matter", no "dark energy", no "Big Bang", no "wave-particle duality", no "matter waves", no "space-time distortion", no "black holes", no "wormholes"...
    As a starting point I suggest: www.anewlightinphysics.com but we should not deviate from the op too much.

    Note: I don't expect to reach a "scientific conclusion" here at the forum but reach satements on what can make sense following rational approachs like Descartes rationalism and greeks philosophers and physicists (as Aristoteles) who worried at first that everything must make sense and, if something doesn't, is because we haven't understood it properly or because there's something wrong; without all the probably observations, proofs and demonstrations necessary to follow the current, empirical only, "scientific method".
    Greeks didn't know about the electric and magnetic fields nor they had electronic microscopes but they already speculated about "atoms" of matter and light as emitted particles...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •