Well, as it turns out God might be a computer nerd. Everyone, take a look at this: http://www.transcend.ws/has-james-gates-discovered-computer-code-in-string-theory-equations-welcome-to-the-matrix/ Fascinating if true. This is just new research, in a field of science I will fully admit I know absolutely nothing about. What does everyone think of this?
Sorry Lemex, I'm having trouble being impressed here about the significance of the fact computer code can be found outside of computers. (Not that I know enough about theoretical physics myself to be offering an opinion but why should that stop me? ) It's like saying quantum mechanics has embedded computer code in it, or nature has binary patterns, or plants do math because they balance intake and output of energy. There may be something new in string theory calculations here, but I'm not impressed it's anything special because it's based on binary code. That doesn't mean string theory is any less fascinating. I love contemplating 11 dimensions when I contemplate the Universe. It's my understanding the biggest problem with string theory is, it isn't yet useful to make predictions or to actually test it. It's a theory that fits the observations, but you can't apply it to anything. And as I look at Gate's superstring theory web site I see that is still the case. It's an excellent site for understanding the field of particle physics, however. Of course, if I had more than a vague grasp of theoretical physics I might understand this potential breakthrough to be more than just another step up a very long staircase.
I always felt mathematics is the pure language of nature. Ever since I saw fractals create leaves, trees, mountains etc, I am not surprised when something like this pops up. I expect it. Also, there's been some interesting research saying that not only energy can't be created or destroyed, the same applies to information. So some have theorised that at the edge of the Universe, there's a membrane that contains all the information that ever transpired, events, thoughts, everything. I have to admit, I have a visuo-spatial issue with SST, I just can't visualise it in my mind's eye at all, but the mathematics of it is beautiful.
From a writing perspective, the idea of the membrane you mention is intriguing. Imagine being able to tap into the code for that information. If it's everything that ever was, could it be a means of communication? A way of folding space by connecting the event node of one place to the event node of another. Or a time travel device under the same paradigm as the aformentioned? Yeah... Good stuff.
[MENTION=3885]Wreybies[/MENTION]: I love the ideas Have a look at this article, which explains it in layman's terms really well. It's actually developed from the quantum mechanics and black hole theory of information conservation
I think this is one of those theories you can't develop a good opinion about until its explored fully. It would be interesting to see where this ends up in say, five years or so. I read the article and went 'mmm.' I had no opinion either way.
I'm not sure there's anything new published. Gates has his web site that I linked to above, and this from 2010: Symbols of power Here's an 8 minute Youtube interview with Neil DeGrass Tyson (my favorite smart guy after Steven Hawking). And this from 2008: Relating Doubly-Even Error-Correcting Codes, Graphs, and Irreducible Representations of N-Extended Supersymmetry 1 Gates apparently buys into intelligent design (in this extension of the interview with Tyson), which has been thoroughly debunked by the evidence (see Dr Behe's failed hypothesis of irreducible complexity) so that takes credibility points away from him in my book.
No sense starting a new story about things few if any of us understand very well but which fascinate us nonetheless: Neutrino 'flavour' flip confirmed Get a load of that raft with people in it in the middle of the "tank of 50,000 tonnes of ultra-pure water surrounded by sensitive optical detectors." Imagine getting paid to go there? I don't quite get the difference in the 3 particle forms given none of them have a net electrical charge. Electron neutrino Not to be confused with the electron, a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge. The tau neutrino or tauon neutrino is a subatomic elementary particle which has the symbol ντ and no net electric charge. Together with the tau, it forms the third generation of leptons, hence its name tau neutrino. The muon neutrino is a subatomic lepton elementary particle which has the symbol νμ and no net electric charge. Together with the muon it forms the second generation of leptons, hence its name muon neutrino. My head hurts.
Ha. This kind of stuff reminds me of the conversations I used to have with my physicist friend. I've heard of neutrinos before but never knew there are different types of neutrinos. Interesting.
Man, I think God likes math... That's really cool tho, when you stop and think about how much of the things that we can't understand can be quantified and made sense of with numbers. It makes me wish that I had the patience to really delve into mathematics and study the mechanics of it and how it affects the fabric of everything.
Same here. I've never been that good at math. I took calculus in college but didn't do so great in it. Now I wish I had put more effort into learning it. I feel like once you know the math behind the physics, you can appreciate it a lot more.
God is THE ultimate nerd. He is information and intention and thus we are intended since we bear the code in ourselves. Look at the saints with extensive experience with contemplation and meditation--they say they have found God in their inner self. Maybe, in the light of your post, that simply means deciphering the code embedded in innermost us by God. Also, should we speak in the computer/internet terminology, Jesus served as an "update" to upgrade the existing code (The Old Testament). And so is eucharisty (consumation of Christ) a perpetual "update" to the code in man.
Oh dear. This is pseudo science at it's finest. There is that famous quote "if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics". I think this whole story can graciously plummet into that category. It's an interesting idea but the simplifications made, even by scientific media, sometimes give a distorted view of what's going on. We've jumped from strings being like code to that code being made by some deity. Even if there is any sort of 'code' then that does not imply a programmer. It might imply that on earth (even though the concept of self-modifying code could be used to counter that idea), but we're bound to look through the goggles of the known. To put this in writer's terms. Someone once came to me with a story where the MC saw a dragon-like monster. However, no dragons existed in that universe so I pointed out that the MC couldn't possible describe what he saw as dragon-like (though the narrator could). My point? Well, we are used to machines, we are used to binary. What we are doing now is fitting measurements into the confines of what we already know. We can look at the human brain and say it resembles a computer, but that doesn't make it one. There are many parts of the brain that aren't computer like at all. There's also a story where a physicist goes to a magic show with a friend who's a professional illusionist. When his friend asks him how he think a certain levitation trick is done, the physicist tries to explain it with magnetism and other natural forces. Of course, the trick turns out the be an optical illusion. The point in case is that the physicist tries to explain what he sees with tools from his own field of expertise. In a similar way we might find the universe to be much alike to the computers we have build ourselves, that still doesn't make it so. We are bound to find some sort of computer resemblance in nature. You won't even have to step to the level of Strings. DNA is 4-digit code, and much more obviously like computer code than strings are. If you research DNA insertion, deletion and substition alongside the programming concept of self-modifying code, you might end up with a different conclusion than the ultimate cop-out; god did it. Lastly, I find the idea of the Jesus update quite entertaining, but one that belongs in the realm of myths and New Age talk.
I am sure it does Perhaps I am bit too eager to jump on the religion boat but that's not because I think religious people are somehow dumber. What made me reply was the confidence with which [MENTION=51404]Hwaigon[/MENTION] proclaimed his views. The universe is mind boggingly large and complex. To me it sounded like he claimed to know exactly how it all fits together. I don't think its that easy. Most importantly, when it comes to big questions like these I can just shrug and say "I don't know" instead of pretending to know based on a dusty old book. You see, I respect people too much to respect some of their (in my mind) silly beliefs. The fact that someone beliefs silly things doesn't make them retarted by the way. I sure as hell have had my fair share of silly believes and I probably still have some strange beliefs... I have yet to find something we disagree on. I find myself nodding whenever I read your comments in political/scientific/religious threads/misc threads.
I tried to give you reps for that post and apparently it was too soon after some other given reps. I too try to be respectful of member's religious beliefs, my son reminds me people make sense of the world from their collection of experiences, not necessarily because of their intelligence. But in response to a bit of preaching about the wonders of God, I think your rational reply was respectful and appropriate.
That is a good thing to remember about people. I personally believe deeply in God and the role he played in creating everything. Things like this strengthen my belief... But everyone is different and their belief system is different. And if there's one thing that I've learned from my previous discussions with Mac (and other people), it's that when a firmly established theist comes in contact with a firmly established atheist, there really isn't much point in arguing about it. As long as the individual is happy with their 'silly' beliefs, that's okay. I know what I believe, but I also know better than to broadcast it as ultimate truth. I might think it is, but to someone else, it's a 'silly' belief that serves no purpose. And I might be of the same opinion about other beliefs, but it's important to be respectful and understanding.
But it shouldn't strenghten your belief. I find the claim that because there are things in nature that resemble human machinery, therefore God (I know I am putting it a bit simple now, for the sake of argument) is a long stretch. Not only is there the problem of interpretation (we see through the goggles of what we already know), but there's also the fact that alot off human inventions and machinery are based off nature. So to come back around then and claim that there is a striking, designer, similarity between human constructions and nature is backward. I find it difficult to put this argument in words but here's another try: is a bird like a plane or, is a plane like a bird? I'd say the latter because planes, once again simlifying it, are based off birds. I think there is a point. I recall Wreybies saying that he felt enlightened (I don't recall the exact wording he used) after having had a discussion with you over PM. And, speaking for myself, I didn't think of our discussion as fruitless. Yes, I stick to my beliefs, but you've at least demonstrated that you've given thought as to why you believe in the Christian God. That's more than can be said of most Christians I have encountered. If I find myself, at the end of any argument, searching google for something to re-affirm my beliefs, then I know that I might have to change that belief. If anything, debates can lead to doubt. Doubt is a good thing, I think. I look back at my younger self and I feel I have 'improved' my beliefs, silly as that may sound. I also realize that ten years from now, I might have reverted to religion, I don't deem it likely but I've already suprised myself once. Discussions, even if no agreement is reached, are useful. I am still quite thankful to all the different people, ranging from friends and family to utter strangers on the internet, who confronted my beliefs and forced me to reconsider. I agree. However, the 'respect' part is a very fine line in my opinion. I respect you as a person, there is no doubt in my mind that you are 'good' person. Much more importantly, I respect your right to believe whatever the hell you want to belief. What I do no respect are the beliefs themselves, nor do I respect the people who 'arm' themselves with those beliefs and do horrible things because they are so convinved that what they believe is right. This might be hard for you Pheonix, but I invite you to watch this video (properly begins at 04:00). I am not putting this up because I can't defend my beliefs myself but because I wish someone had shown me this when I was on your side of the fence, he's not attacking religion in this video, nor is he attacking religious people, he's trying to demonstrate why the christian beliefs aren't necessarily good and why you shouldn't (and probably even don't) believe them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLU7KW5mED8 I say it might be hard because I never made it to the end of any videos atheists sent me when I was a more spiritual person. Oh and just to demonstrate what I said about respect, I don't approve of the two top comments below this video, I think those aren't at all constructive.
That's a long video, can you summarize a key point or two? Do you have many connections to the skeptical community? I know quite a few skeptics through James Randi and Phil Plait.
I'm not a scientist myself but can discern the nuances between a metaphor and the actual state of affairs. It's all the matter of semblance. Sure I do not take the post in literal terms. For me, it does, based on the Aquinian idea of the "original cause" being God. You made quite good points and I agree with you about them, so I'm not going to pick every single of them and just say the whole concept may be a metaphor and in such terms it should be understood. In actual fact, I am fully dependant on what scientists say, since I understand only the basic concepts. Sure, many of the technical developments we as humanity have arrived at resemble natural concepts, but again those, I believe, were intended, drafted and realized by God in the first place, even though we have arrived at some of them unintentionally (computer as a distant equivalent for brain). Moreover, as far as I'm concerned and experienced/unexperienced in my looking for God, much of the understanding and discovering of religious matters plays around the concept of language and how you refer to things in various ways and the ability/disability to refer to them in such ways, the same applies to metaphores and how they can be explained. I sure do have some degree of confidence that goes beyond logic --in terms of faith-- but that is not to say I impose my beliefs on anyone or that I know exactly how the universe fixes together. I'm sure it does fix together, but the question "how" I leave to more competent ones. I have never said I have an objectively verifiable answer. I have to say I was not in mood to include more possibility-stressing expressions like "maybe" or "might have" since for me those were facts (Jesus being an "update" - again one of the possible ways to address him), but again this is my belief and I am open to discussion on these matters.
