ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Physics discovers the Mind of God

Sooner or later, the physicists are bound to follow the philosophers in gradually coming to recognize the need to choose between Christianity and nihilism.

Futurism: Your paper argues that the universe might fundamentally be a neural network. How would you explain your reasoning to someone who didn’t know very much about neural networks or physics?

Vitaly Vanchurin: There are two ways to answer your question.

The first way is to start with a precise model of neural networks and then to study the behavior of the network in the limit of a large number of neurons. What I have shown is that equations of quantum mechanics describe pretty well the behavior of the system near equilibrium and equations of classical mechanics describes pretty well how the system further away from the equilibrium. Coincidence? May be, but as far as we know quantum and classical mechanics is exactly how the physical world works.

The second way is to start from physics. We know that quantum mechanics works pretty well on small scales and general relativity works pretty well on large scales, but so far we were not able to reconcile the two theories in a unified framework. This is known as the problem of quantum gravity. Clearly, we are missing something big, but to make matters worse we do not even know how to handle observers. This is known as the measurement problem in context of quantum mechanics and the measure problem in context of cosmology.

Then one might argue that there are not two, but three phenomena that need to be unified: quantum mechanics, general relativity and observers. 99% of physicists would tell you that quantum mechanics is the main one and everything else should somehow emerge from it, but nobody knows exactly how that can be done. In this paper I consider another possibility that a microscopic neural network is the fundamental structure and everything else, i.e. quantum mechanics, general relativity and macroscopic observers, emerges from it. So far things look rather promising.

I've long been under the impression that whether it is the Big Bang, the need for a quantum observer, or a universal neural network, modern physics has relentlessly pointed towards the existence of God for those with the intelligence required to understand the evidence. I suspect that is why string theory, which is little more than the usual retreat from science that points in directions that atheists and Prometheans fear, has been holding on despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence to support the theoretical framework.

These are fascinating times. Darwin is all but dead, Einstein is being exposed, Ricardo has been destroyed, and postmodernism is fooling no one as it clowns about like a naked emperor in drag.

Labels: ,

97 Comments:

Blogger rikjames.313 September 15, 2020 11:23 AM  

Scientific American has endorsed a person for president for the first time, ever, in 141 years. Joe Biden.

The reason for the endorsement now, in 2020, is that Trump is not scientific. Not joking.

Blogger Jim September 15, 2020 11:25 AM  

Neural physics, you say?

Blogger Barbarossa September 15, 2020 11:28 AM  

I recall sitting in my second year thermodynamics class in engineering school and the thought suddenly hit me: None of this is random. It is by design, even if I am too puny to grasp the enormity of the scope and too ignorant to understand the purpose. The evidence of God, Our Creator is all about us. We only have to open our eyes and hearts.

Blogger Matthew Baker September 15, 2020 11:31 AM  

God will keep plausible pathways towards destitution open, until he doesn’t.

Blogger Uncle_Ted September 15, 2020 11:46 AM  

Imagine the materialists when they discover that matter isn't physical.

Blogger Joe Smith September 15, 2020 11:52 AM  

As soon as physicists fall back on some type of anthropic principle, it's clear they're just trying to substitute science for God. At least this guy is trying something new that doesn't end in infinite bubble universes emerging out of the inflaton in order to solve the problem of precisely tuned physical constants.

Also, it's probably just the nitpicking physicist in me that reads GR "works pretty well" on large scales and facepalms. He means, "GR works pretty well if we assume the existence of a bunch of magical mystery matter that no one can see or interact with but has to exist or GR breaks."

Blogger Wazdakka September 15, 2020 11:56 AM  

"A naked emperor in drag"
That boggles the mind more than schrodinger's cat

Blogger SidVic September 15, 2020 11:56 AM  

Can anyone point me to a critique of Einstein's theoretical work?

Blogger OK September 15, 2020 12:01 PM  

On one hand, I'd be willing to accept that the mathematics of symmetry groups, &c., are beautiful and elegant enough to incline the hearts of theoretical physicists towards string theory. On the other hand, the science establishment is so full of sh*t on so many things that I can't take their word for anything anymore.

Blogger Pyrex September 15, 2020 12:14 PM  

To the extent that I can understand him, it seems to me that this is something like what Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (http://hology.org/), wherein the world is itself a manifestation of the mind of God, and reality is itself a kind of language.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

Blogger PJW Gent September 15, 2020 12:16 PM  

Uncle_Ted wrote:Imagine the materialists when they discover that matter isn't physical.
Since it began with "And God said..." it procedes from the Word, the Logos, and it is through him and in him all things consist. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:17.

Blogger tdcommenter September 15, 2020 12:17 PM  

@8 The post stated "Einstein is being exposed", not the theories attributed to him. An excerpt from "A Few Historical Frauds" by Larry Romanoff:
"... It is an undisputed fact that David Hilbert sent Einstein a draft of his work (which had already been submitted for publication), containing precisely these equations, evidenced by the existence of a letter from Einstein to Hilbert thanking him for doing so. Yet a few weeks later, Einstein delivered a public speech of Hilbert’s work, claiming full credit for the derivation of Hilbert’s equations. Similarly, E=mc², the famous equation relating mass, energy, and the speed of light, had been published several times by Italian physicist Olinto De Pretto, long before Einstein was suddenly given credit for it."
https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/a-few-historical-frauds/

Blogger xevious2030 September 15, 2020 12:17 PM  

It’s why the Prometheans are fundamentally retarded. They consider that, by trying to influence one aspect of the communication, that they can fundamentally direct the overall consideration of the universe. These people are stupid.

Blogger Robert What? September 15, 2020 12:19 PM  

As an amateur scientist I have no doubt that the Universe points to the existence of God. Genesis is the only holy book that jibes with our understanding of the Universe. What I don't understand is how you extrapolate the Christian God and Jesus from that?

Blogger Crush Limbraw September 15, 2020 12:21 PM  

To SidVic - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Einstein+theory&updated-max=2020-07-12T09:54:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=0&by-date=false&m=1 - several headnotes and links to critiques of Einstein's theoretical work.
All I did was word searched Einstein theories from DaLimbraw Library. You can do the same.
You're welcome!:)

Blogger ZhukovG September 15, 2020 12:22 PM  

I am no physicist, but it seems that the Universe is impossible without God.

Blogger Karen took the Kids September 15, 2020 12:32 PM  

I felt sorry for Ed Witten. Incredibly intelligent but spent the majority of his career following strings that lead nowhere, literally. So maybe not incredibly intelligent ha.

Blogger cmate September 15, 2020 12:46 PM  

Someone once said,"I've believed in divinity since I pondered the square of infinity".

Blogger Yossarian September 15, 2020 12:46 PM  

Metaphysics explained this centuries or millennia ago, this is nothing new. They're slowly moving in the direction of the transcendental argument for God. It's funny; they'll probably die thinking they've made progress or die regretting never solving the puzzle when the answer is staring them right in the face.

Blogger Leahn Novash September 15, 2020 12:46 PM  

@8 He doesn't have any. All that he did was to copy multiple other people's work, glue everything together, have his wife do some math to prove he was not wrong, and claim everyone else's work as his own. He was propped up by the Jewish establishment because he was a Jew himself, and it supports their myth of superior inteligence.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer September 15, 2020 12:46 PM  

..We only have to open our eyes and hearts....

Pictures like these...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3342950/What-universe-Hot-gas-mainly-Cosmic-web-filaments-make-space-galaxies-reach-temperatures-18million-F.html

that there , is the physical manifestation of God. It is math. It is beautiful. It is true. What a coincidence that they look like neurons which also seem to be mostly empty space. God is also an efficient engineer. That I cannot grasp the magnitude and enormity is because I have a 120hz 8066 meat brain.

Blogger cmate September 15, 2020 12:47 PM  

Someone once said,"I've believed in divinity since I pondered the square of infinity".

Blogger Ceirwyn September 15, 2020 12:51 PM  

String theory is interesting, particularly M-theory because of it's occultist significance. The fact it is describing a Sephirot Tree-of-Life system comprised of dimensions in exactly the same number as Kabalists talk about is certainly interesting. IMO, it says more about how few atheists are really out there and what the cultists have been poking in the atheists faces.

Blogger Goy Rogers September 15, 2020 12:56 PM  

http://milesmathis.com/gr.html

Miles has also published groundbreaking work on the scaling question and unified fields. Cheers.

Blogger Scuzzaman September 15, 2020 1:02 PM  

postmodernism is fooling no one as it clowns about like a naked emperor in drag.

That does look like an oxymoron - until one remembers the modern affinity for body paint, tattoos, and ritual self-mutilation.

Blogger digz September 15, 2020 1:04 PM  

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1579550355?psc=1&pf_rd_p=8cce2158-9ed7-4657-9f82-d87dc722d64b&pf_rd_r=SNVRNJSGKWT38SCJCVHY&pd_rd_wg=V85IM&pd_rd_i=1579550355&pd_rd_w=2KSdC&pd_rd_r=08a67eaf-b1d7-41e9-9d2d-cb7d677a9b3b&ref_=pd_luc_rh_crh_rh_hashrec_01_01_t_img_lh

Stephen wolfram might offer some alternatives to this neural network theory.

Blogger N.Schuster September 15, 2020 1:13 PM  

Some of the Kabalists talk about how the Universe was the size if a mustard seed and expanded.They 5akk about cycles of creation as well.

Blogger d September 15, 2020 1:17 PM  

All the most recent findings point to the polar opposite of their narrative. E.g,. the Holographic Principle implies the physical world is but a lower-order projection of a greater reality. The Cosmological Constant implies the physical world has a designer. In fact, the whole "infinite universes" absurdity they're marketing is their last-gasp attempt to avoid that finding specifically. And that notion they proffer is not only infinitely less believable, objectively, but one that presupposes certain physical laws (momentum, as when their universes supposedly "collide"), which nullifies theory itself.

Blogger Dire Badger September 15, 2020 1:20 PM  

Bah, Shroedinger's cat is not quantum mechanics problem, it is an EGO problem.

The cat is not a 'cloud of possibilities', it is alive or it is dead, and the observer is irrelevant. The entire argument is based on 'scientificists' unwilling to admit their ignorance, as is most quantum mechanics.

Blogger Yossarian September 15, 2020 1:24 PM  

SidVic wrote:Can anyone point me to a critique of Einstein's theoretical work?

- E=m*c^2
- it was proven c is not a constant, it depends on the medium through which it passes
- thus given the same mass we can extract different levels of energy in different locations
- this is in contradiction with the first law of thermodynamics

Doesn't matter which of these premises is the Truth because the whole thing is incoherent. If one of them is true then another one has to be wrong. If one of them is wrong then it invalidates the true one as well because it was proven using the same flawed method.

Blogger Mast Abeam September 15, 2020 1:28 PM  

Indeed Vox, lots to ponder for the philosophers. For if so, each node is its own quantum observer yes/no-ing its input/output thereby either expanding or pairing the sum mass—in effect evolving as a neural network does.

I can’t begin to understand the specifics of Vanchurin’s position (oh internets help me with the vocabulary and mechanics) but I do understand the concept of a loving God that wants to raise us up not to become like him, but in fact one with him.


Milton makes this a theme as Adam and Eve leave Paradise together choosing love and commitment to their own created universe, validated by the quantum effect of free will to know the mind of God—a perpetual learning machine with purpose and history.

As my life goes on, I've become more and more fascinated with the triune aspect of God as Spirit. Perhaps there are some mainliners who can contemplate this physics as new metaphors of revelation.

Vanchurin is right about one thing—it is crazy stuff.
Thanks for pointing your blog along this direction.

Blogger MarioM September 15, 2020 1:50 PM  

Complete false that the string theory is unproven. One of the most distinguished Polish theoretical physicist and a deeply devoted Catholic, Krzysztof Meissner has numerous online lectures on that subject. His most famous quote: "Physicists, a theist and an atheist, use the same equations describing the same phenomenon and arrive at the same conclusions. The difference is, one of them will say that it is a reflection of the perfect God, while the other will simply consider it the way things are."

Then this physicist - a Catholic priest nevertheless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Heller

Pity that you dismiss that but ignorance is a bliss. I suggest sticking to economy, books and games - you have some valid points to share there. On physics, not so much.

Blogger Evstratios September 15, 2020 2:11 PM  

In my own personal philosophy, God has always been Universe and Universe has always been God. Anything ever written with the word Universe or concept thereof is interchangeable with God, try it. One thing they will eventually get to is removing the plural from observers. The only observer is God.

Max Planck puts Einstein to shame and the vast majority of 'scientists' to this day and I have always been fascinated by Planck space, Planck energy and his personal works show exactly what the true meaning of science is(plug for his works to be in the classics).

For me, entanglement means that the fundamental processes that create you are also responsible for myriad processes spread across the entire universe (God). Some winking quantum of Planck energy in your baby toe mirrored in the corona of some distant proto star and vice versa, scaled to unimaginable degrees across the entire fabric. This sounds like it's getting there. How the nomenclature ends up is unimportant to me, personally, but mathematical neural networks are something todays kids can probably identify with better and wish this guy all the best in his research.

Ive also been following Wolfram for some years now and consider his methodology likely more accurate than higher order neural derivatives. I believe his lifequest may eventually uncover the original Word, in terms of what we can actually understand. His newest treatise is a great read, irregardless.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 15, 2020 2:14 PM  

MarioM wrote:Complete false that the string theory is unproven.
Absolutely true that String Theory is unproven. It is by definition unprovable, because it is, by any means we can imagine at this time, unfalsifiable. The best, and in fact only argument for string theory is that "the math works". The math works even better for LaGrangian Gravity, but it's not even considered, let alone considered proven.
SCIENCE! is unable to prove anything. Science works on the principle of falsification.

Blogger VD September 15, 2020 2:23 PM  

Complete false that the string theory is unproven.

That statement is either incredibly stupid or a lie.

Blogger Macs September 15, 2020 2:27 PM  

I'm trying to picture naked drag, but maybe I shouldn't...

Blogger Evstratios September 15, 2020 2:29 PM  

Take it easy mario. String theory is a fun mathematical game that many smart people and not so smart people have gotten their degrees on the basis of however that has also yet to be linked to anything we can actually perceive. That is telling of itself in the decades of study so far and chromodynamics was and continues to be more efficient, relatable, and most importantly provable to this date at that level of reality.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy Calabi-Yau vortices as much as the next guy and string theory certainly has some elegance about it and also enjoyable to conject about but as yet still firmly in the realm of imagination.

Further, when you join in the discussion here, one leaves their own ignorance at the door, you oh so secret king. If you can't do that most basic and polite thing, you shove whatever nonsense spilling out of your gob, up your eleven dimensional ass, faggot.

Blogger Daniele Grech Pereira September 15, 2020 2:33 PM  

Quantum entanglement might be another indication of some sort of network.

Blogger MarioM September 15, 2020 2:35 PM  

"That statement is either incredibly stupid or a lie."

Stupid is someone who speaks in absolutes about the things that they know nothing about.

Blogger Silly but True September 15, 2020 2:46 PM  

It is foregone conclusion that the universe ends in Biblical terms:
If the universe cyclically behaves, and ultimately ceases expanding and then contracts its mass to zero-point, the Ideal Gas Law holds that as volume approaches zero, temperature will tend towards infinite discontinuity: our fallen world is consumed by the fire of Hell.
If the universe keeps expanding, then the Ideal Gas Law holds that as volume approaches infinity, temperature will approach zero and our fallen world dies of separation from sufficient life-sustaining energy.

Humanity’s only salvation at the end times is its embrace of a power which exists above and beyond the frame of reference of our fallen world, who can maintain humanity within a continuity after the end — infinite afterlife.

Blogger Valar Addemmis September 15, 2020 3:08 PM  

MarioM wrote:"That statement is either incredibly stupid or a lie."

Stupid is someone who speaks in absolutes about the things that they know nothing about.


I wouldn't be so smug, as a person who seems to have confused "string theory is unproven" with "string theory is disproven".

One needs to know almost nothing about physics to know that the former statement is accurate. Even string theory proponents (smart ones, at least) don't claim that string theory is proven.

Blogger Solon September 15, 2020 3:22 PM  

@30
Do you have a link somewhere that shows C is not constant? I admit to ignorance on the matter.

Just off the top of my head though, C could still be a constant, so long as you ditch the assumption that photons of light have no mass: I should say that they clearly do, since they have measurable energy and affect things that they impact by imparting that energy to them. They're not non-baryonic particles, they have a physical existence that we can measure and observe, so to say that they have no mass is just a flat-out lie.

It is simple to rectify the contradiction from a theoretical standpoint: photons have mass, and their mass can differ or change. This would explain an observed loss of energy when traveling through different mediums: they lost part of their mass to the medium they traveled through via collision. They would still travel at speed C, they would just be smaller/have less mass.

This of course implies that photons are NOT the smallest quantifiable unit of energy, that photons themselves are comprised of something else, something even MORE fundamental, that we have yet to identify or properly describe, and that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not even remotely qualified to ponder or consider.

However, it's an alternative hypothesis that doesnt just discard the idea of the Universal Constant Speed of Light and destroy decades of math and physics foundational theories that have been observed to be true.

Blogger xevious2030 September 15, 2020 3:35 PM  

“- it was proven c is not a constant, it depends on the medium through which it passes”

Depends on the flow of energy. One direction, it is gravity, another direction it is currently immeasurable, and balanced it is the observable universe. Haven’t entertained how the medium facilitates this. The problem was in the assuming of the observed universe being the extent of the available energy, both high and low. Remove the closed system (or at least extend the boundaries, for modeling), and there is “infinite” energy available in a stable form, and it explains why large and small scale physics are a continuum and not a loop. The closed system supposed, ain’t. And neither is the multiverse.

Blogger Dan Karelian September 15, 2020 3:37 PM  

@10
The CTMU is an impressive work in philosophy but it subjugates Christianity and every other religion underneath it's framework.
This is to be expected of course in a "theory of everything" that also deals in paradigms, but it is not the Christian God he is proving in his worldview.

The reality principle dictates that the god he is referring to is the metaphysical identity of the universe AKA pantheism.
The essence and nature of God is completely different from anything created and certainly cannot be identified with the whole of creation. So Langan's god is entirely opposed to an apophatic understanding of God.
The self-configuring self-processing-language is not God the Father of the Holy Trinity or a personal god of anykind.

There are many fascinating aspects in the CTMU and lots more can be said, good and bad, but to the extent that it gets things right it should be interpreted from the Christian worldview and not the other way around as Langan insists.
Saint Maximos the Confessor articulated a grandiose metaphysical framework incorporating Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics but with Scripture and Tradition as the highest organizing principles, the exact opposite of what Aquinas did.

@27
Yes a lot of theoretical physics is literally Kabbalah & Neoplatonism with mathematical masturbation concocted by the (((leading physicists))) to support it.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 15, 2020 3:57 PM  

"Bah, Shroedinger's cat is not quantum mechanics problem, it is an EGO problem.

The cat is not a 'cloud of possibilities', it is alive or it is dead, and the observer is irrelevant. The entire argument is based on 'scientificists' unwilling to admit their ignorance, as is most quantum mechanics."


This is mostly accurate. A lot of quantum physics boils down to our inability to quantify in certain ways at that scale, yet we insist we can. The cat shows that we don't know the boundary between when our observations proceed from reality and when our authority reshapes it. Entanglement says that there's a level at which we lose the ability to tell one thing from another and sometimes think that one thing is two different things. The quest to quantify to the utmost extent found a lot of its limits pretty fast.

"Stupid is someone who speaks in absolutes about the things that they know nothing about."

Oh, like saying that a scientist proved string theory even though the scientific method was intrinsically created incapable of proving anything? Checkmate.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 15, 2020 3:59 PM  

"If the universe cyclically behaves"

As far as we can tell this isn't the case, and even if it was at one time, it isn't anymore. The expansion of the universe is accelerating as far as we can tell.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd September 15, 2020 4:13 PM  

MarioM wrote:Complete false that the string theory is unproven.
MarioM, what falsifiable prediction comes from string theory?

Blogger xevious2030 September 15, 2020 4:19 PM  

There was a demonstration of moving energy through cesium, in which the energy traveled at 300 times the speed of light, and appeared to arrive at the destination almost before it left. The BS afterward was that it was not matter, and so it could always do that. But before the BS, the idea was that it would take more than all the energy of the entire universe to move something faster than the speed of light. July of 2000AD.

Added, there are no quantifiable units of energy, in the way there are no definitional points in the universe. The precision of math is an abstraction, but a useful one. As a side note, it’s been said that nothing in the communication/language that is the universe can exist which is not of the closed universe, which given the notion of a “point,” provides for something interacting which is not the universe.

No need for understandings to be destroyed, but simply recognized as incomplete based on the imposition of an abstraction of value, the abstraction, be definition, differing from some quality of reality.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 15, 2020 4:34 PM  

What is the maximum speed in the universe?

Not the speed of light. Gravity is at least 20 times faster, though the physics model treats it as instantaneous.
And Physics has no explanation of how this can be. The Standard Model waves its hands and tells you to ignore it.

Seriously, look up LeSage Gravity model and tell me it doesn't make more sense.

Blogger Section 8A September 15, 2020 4:40 PM  

Not sure about any of this but I got over an 80 in high school physics. That has to count for something, amiright?

Blogger Silly but True September 15, 2020 4:41 PM  

Azure,
Agreed to a point: the important value is critical density of the universe — essentially the “escape velocity” point which determines if universe will expand forever (universe is not as dense as critical density requires), or will contract (universe is as dense or denser).

I’m good with theory; I’m not quite sure I’ve bought completely into us having accurately guesstimated the density of the universe yet.

Blogger Xellos September 15, 2020 6:17 PM  

"physics emerging from a microscopic neural network" - pseudoscientific blather, it's what you get when you try to look for truth but your thinking is founded on rejecting Christ

Blogger Gettimothy September 15, 2020 6:31 PM  

http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~vitaly/






Blogger Bobiojimbo September 15, 2020 6:40 PM  

This sounds like idea Orson Scott Card was getting to in his books Speaker of the Dead and Children of the Mind. Fascinating how ideas converge.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 15, 2020 6:48 PM  

Gettimothy wrote:Link to some random physicist's page at a college.

Isn't it cute? It's almost like he's trying to say something!

Blogger Gettimothy September 15, 2020 6:59 PM  

Reading the article, he started this theory while on sabbatical;literally while taking a break. Love it.


@55 that random college guy is the developer of the theory.

If I got the wrong link, I apologize for the spam, but I do not think I got the wrong link

Blogger Chill Penguin September 15, 2020 7:01 PM  

> Orson Scott Card
when I was in high school this old lady teacher thought I had low self-esteem and told me to read Ender's Game, Dune, and Harry Potter. I thought it was ridiculous. Maybe that guy secretly has views on sodomy but fake opposition is worse than tacit support. The commie who wrote Harrison Bergeron also gets the distinction of writing in Player Piano one of the very few married couples in 20th century sff.

Blogger rumpole5 September 15, 2020 7:13 PM  

"naked emperor in drag." - Say again? Maybe lipstick, rouge, painted toenails and a Jackie Kennedy poof hairdo? One could do that naked I guess. A dash of cognitive dissonance does give a line more umph.

Blogger DourCdn September 15, 2020 7:46 PM  

I guess you have to read the Bible from beginning to end.

Blogger Major Styles September 15, 2020 8:40 PM  

Einstein married his first cousin. That's gross, man.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 15, 2020 9:40 PM  

"the important value is critical density of the universe"

That'd only be important if we were trying to find out if it'd collapse again or just keep diffusing. As I already stated, so far as we can ascertain neither is the case -- its expansion is accelerating, and we don't know why.

Blogger turk187 September 15, 2020 9:59 PM  

Who is Ricardo?

Blogger Wazdakka September 15, 2020 11:13 PM  

Ok, so the cat in a box thingy is solved, but how can s naked emperor be in drag?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 15, 2020 11:34 PM  

Gettimothy wrote:If I got the wrong link, I apologize for the spam, but I do not think I got the wrong link
Who cares? Lots of people develop lots of theories. That's not an argument, it's mroe hero worship than anything useful. If you can't explain the theory, admit it. If you can't explain the proof, well, maybe there's a reason for it that is not you.

Blogger OvergrownHobbit September 16, 2020 12:48 AM  

It's literally apocalyptic.

Blogger xevious2030 September 16, 2020 12:49 AM  

"its expansion is accelerating, and we don't know why"

As a simplististic consideration, acceleration can be viewed as transference, or, conversion. High to low energy, transferred through a vortices (the collapsed waveform we call matter), results in a collapse artifact in the observed universe, we call gravity. As the recipient is diffused into (lower energy continuum receiving a charge from the high energy), the contraction is diffused likewise. In this low energy field though, the non vortices diffusion results in expansion. The collective diffusion of energy between distant vortices being greater than the energy transmitted causing contraction, they pull, yet move apart, with increase of the latter.

Blogger Jeff in OR September 16, 2020 2:40 AM  

An English economist who favored free trade.

Ricardo is retardo!

Blogger John Rockwell September 16, 2020 3:28 AM  

The only thing left is their belief in an infinitely recurring universe.

Blogger Owen Martin September 16, 2020 7:49 AM  

There is no such thing as really big or the really small. This is basic philosophy. So if your theory breaks down at a different scale then probably there is something wrong with your theory in the first place. These scientists have no grasp of philosophy so end up going down wrong paths.

Blogger Grooveware September 16, 2020 8:08 AM  

These days I find it hard to believe anything that comes out mainstream science's mouths, everything from String theory, Bubble Universe, Parallel Universe's, are all just theories coming out of mouths of atheists.

Blogger RobertDWood September 16, 2020 10:25 AM  

https://youtu.be/w0ztlIAYTCU

This is similar to the neutral net quote from our host, but it's a 30 minute PR documentary about the hypothesis and the weaknesses of conventional science in describing a unified theory. Its describing the God all the way up to minute 28 when they realize what they are saying and pull out.

Easy enough for an economist to understand, it is a well done and engaging introduction to the topic

Blogger Lyndsay John Sheridan September 16, 2020 11:47 AM  

Dear Dan Karelian – or anyone else here that is interested – if you are willing I can write about 2 pages showing how the CTMU can interpret this situation satisfactorily (Minus Saint Maximos the Confessor, with whose work I am unfamiliar). Or I could link to it elsewhere. Whichever would be most appropriate for a reply of that length.

Blogger Mast Abeam September 16, 2020 12:49 PM  

Hi RobertDWood @ 71.

I spent my lunch time watching the video and I do appreciate it for I am neither an physicist nor economist.

The run down of these theories give me a new vocabulary to discuss the ideas that Vox bring forward on this post about neural networks that propose consciousness evolving (from our perception within time) to infinitely large even cosmic structures that create and co create itself.

I too felt the pang that dismisses the God conclusion as"too new age science-y" and instead offers the idea that we are living in the matrix of a simulation run from another universe---

I'd like to learn more how and if the insights that have been offered as religious or philosophic understanding align with these observations and if the metaphors symbols and code can be understood/re-understood/ better understood as saying the same thing.

Blogger Joe Smith September 16, 2020 1:02 PM  

@51 Silly but True: Modern Cosmology isn't a way of knowing much of anything. They have conflated simulations with evidence. Writing a computer simulation that recreates the CMBR (or at least something statistically indistinguishable from what we see) given a bunch of parameters isn't convincing proof of anything. They talk about the critical density of the universe, without ever telling me why I should agree to the existence of dark energy in any rigorous way, or even dark matter. So what if GR doesn't give correct results for galaxy rotation curves or large-scale structure without dark matter?

What I mean is, I agree with you that the critical density is a higher order problem than they have.

@61 Azure: In order to claim the universe is expanding one has to accept a lot of theoretical baggage that there's no a priori reason to accept. Even things like standard candles are iffy -- there's a lot of assumptions going on there. And then they try to sneak in dark energy as an explanatory mechanism, which doesn't explain anything.

Blogger Matamoros September 16, 2020 2:02 PM  

16. ZhukovG September 15, 2020 12:22 PM

I am no physicist, but it seems that the Universe is impossible without God.

I've been sort of keeping up with Wolfgang Smith at Philos-Sophia Initiative Foundation (philossophiainitiative.com). A great physicist who realized the same thing and returned to his Catholic faith.

Blogger xevious2030 September 16, 2020 2:14 PM  

JLS, if that is you on SG, a link there please.

Blogger Silly but True September 16, 2020 2:16 PM  

@Joe & Azure:

Yes: “dark energy” is one of the analytical constructs I’m most skeptical about.

Blogger Gettimothy September 16, 2020 2:43 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Gettimothy wrote:If I got the wrong link, I apologize for the spam, but I do not think I got the wrong link

Who cares? Lots of people develop lots of theories. That's not an argument, it's mroe hero worship than anything useful. If you can't explain the theory, admit it. If you can't explain the proof, well, maybe there's a reason for it that is not you.



You are not the goddamned comment police; your model of 'useful' is neither mine nor that of others far more intelligent than you. You do not see what I see.


The fascinating and admirable thing about the man is how he broke frame and tried something new then got fascinating results. Most minds cannot do that, example 'C-minus' being yours and your incapacity to recognize a relevant link to a university home page by the ~name convention and then double down on your stubborn narrowness over a trifle while polluting a wonderful comment thread with your crippled hobby horse.

The man's curricula vitae is an nice window into his soul, his sense of humor, play and creativity on evidence by the quotes he uses to adorn it. The facility with which he brings his skill-sets to bear is a joy to behold. I admire and like men like that and I have always gotten along with everyone I have ever met and conversed with.

Per the blog post:
I've long been under the impression that whether it is the Big Bang, the need for a quantum observer, or a universal neural network, modern physics has relentlessly pointed towards the existence of God for those with the intelligence required to understand the evidence.

Notice our host does not say "with those with the training to do the math and physics in all cases".

That Neural networks exhibit the properties he describes grabbed my attention as I am now puttering with neural networks in my software development. That may prove useful to my work; I will be mentioning this author's work to the author of a Neural Networks book on a software discord channel I frequent. He, unlike you, is polite, gracious and welcomes interaction.

Furthermore, the phenomena , two actually, that each era has its popularized model of reality...God the clock maker, information theory in the Intelligent Design camp and now 'Sky net' proposed as a new one is a phenomena for a reason and that phenomena is itself telling us something; that our models, though insufficient, are important to both God and us.

The second, that all these point to a Maker is wonderful for those of us who still retain a sense of joyful wonder about existence and creation; not you of course; these things are far to low for you to experience.

Finally, I don't give a tinkers damn for your opinion, nor do I want your advice on what is and us not a helpful contribution to the comment thread.

Do not address me again; you will be ignored; you have exhausted my patience with your petty smallness. You are neither pleasant nor interesting, nor do I recall you ever saying anything remotely interesting. You are a waste of my attention, an energy sink, a joy-suck, a wonder-killer and a boring type.







Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 16, 2020 3:20 PM  

Gettimothy wrote:
You are not the goddamned comment police;
Yes, I am. definitionally

your model of 'useful' is neither mine nor that of others far more intelligent than you.
Not to many of those. About 10K in the US, going by standard deviations.

You do not see what I see.
You haven't told us what you see. Evidently what you think you see, you can't explain.

double down on your stubborn narrowness over a trifle while polluting a wonderful comment thread with your crippled hobby horse.
Do you work in a cinema? That's a lot of projection there.

He, unlike you, is polite, gracious and welcomes interaction.

He, unlike me, tolerates stupid people and Gammas.

Do not address me again; you will be ignored; you have exhausted my patience with your petty smallness. You are neither pleasant nor interesting, nor do I recall you ever saying anything remotely interesting. You are a waste of my attention, an energy sink, a joy-suck, a wonder-killer and a boring type.

Did I hurt your feelings? You're too stupid for words, too self-important for tolerating and too grandiose to survive long here.

Blogger xevious2030 September 16, 2020 3:33 PM  

Snidely, he said you’re not pleasant. Pleasantly Whiplsh doesn’t have the same sort of ring to it though.

Blogger Gettimothy September 16, 2020 4:06 PM  

@79 Gettimothy wrote:

You are not the goddamned comment police;

Yes, I am. definitionally



Ok then, you are a legitimate authority in this sphere.

Do as you will.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 16, 2020 4:52 PM  

Gettimothy wrote:Do as you will.
So martyr, much resigned.

Blogger RobertDWood September 16, 2020 5:52 PM  

I am glad it was useful, Godspeed on the quest

Blogger Gettimothy September 16, 2020 6:06 PM  

@82 Christian. Doctrine of the lesser Magistrate.

We are to obey legitimate authority .

In my factory job, my bosses often get things wrong. We disagree, he decides and I submit to his authority.

The great thing is the mutual respect that develops. I tell my boss he is wrong, that my way is more efficient, yet I tell him that because he is my boss I will do it his way.

The key to this is that I am participating in an organization, not my own, voluntarily.

The dynamics are far different when they are not my authority or I am not a voluntary member of said organization.











Blogger Gettimothy September 16, 2020 6:42 PM  

@82 if you want to prove your chops, meet me on the Infogalactic mattermost. Crew can set you up.

I am building one of these https://infogalactic.com/info/Parsing_expression_grammar and can use some 20 deviations above the mean chops on a oroject that is actually useful to Christendom and will outlive us both, unless you are 5 years old prodigy.

The theoretical basis is here: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/964001.964011

I have created the largest grammar in history, but it is not the best grammar and it needs several refactoring passes to qualify as something worthy of ACM , Dr Dobbs, etc.

Another fascinating project is to see if a neural network can have latin roots organize them selves into either form of the latin language.


Be aware that you are not my authority there, unless designated by Vox otherwise, and results are all that matter.

I look forward to seeing what "my betters" can actually produce.

Grace and peace, or go fuck yourself.

Your choice

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 16, 2020 8:29 PM  

Gettimothy wrote:Grace and peace, or go fuck yourself.So, did you ever have something you wanted to say in this thread?

Blogger RobertDWood September 16, 2020 8:58 PM  

+1

Blogger xevious2030 September 16, 2020 9:08 PM  

A five year old prodigy would tell you making swords and lots of stakes with kindling would serve Christianity more. Given what the Promethians tried to do with a taste of the source.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( irregularly and inconsistently appended Sarc tag ) September 16, 2020 10:31 PM  

78. Gettimothy September 16, 2020 2:43 PM
You are not the goddamned comment police


oy vey, you should have been around long enough by now to have noticed that Snidely is a moderator.

ie - Vox has literally asked Snidely to police the comments


39. MarioM September 15, 2020 2:35 PM
Stupid is someone who speaks in absolutes about the things that they know nothing about.


the last time i was wasting time reading about String Theory we were multiple orders of magnitude away from having electron colliders capable of producing enough energy to even begin testing hypothesized implications of ST.

but that doesn't even matter because, according to this 2020 article, String Theory is still such a shambles that they can't make even make predictions which they could compare to laboratory test results:
https://www.space.com/putting-string-theory-to-test.html
"But even if we could devise a particle collider to directly probe the energies of quantum gravity, we couldn't test string theory, because as of yet string theory isn't complete. It doesn't exist. We only have approximations that we hope come close to the actual theory, but we have no idea how right (or wrong) we are. So string theory isn't even up to the task of making predictions that we could compare to hypothetical experiments."


you're welcome to present any experimental results you think you've got which "prove" String Theory.

or you're welcome to stop huffing your own farts.

your choice.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( irregularly and inconsistently appended Sarc tag ) September 16, 2020 10:49 PM  

i like how he's really, REALLY devoted to that whole Grace and Peace thing.

Blogger Gettimothy September 16, 2020 10:59 PM  

All I wanted to do and did do is post a link to the website of the scientist in the spirit of doing a nice , heloful thing for others reading the comments.

it is that simple

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 16, 2020 11:42 PM  

Gettimothy wrote:All I wanted to do and did do is post a link to the website of the scientist in the spirit of doing a nice , heloful thing for others reading the comments.


So "No" then.

Blogger Gettimothy September 17, 2020 12:56 AM  

Not on the math, I am not qualified to do that.if the conversation segued into the meta topic of the Designer, I may have chimed in with some questions.

Now that I know you are a moderator, and you do not want my posts on a thread,let me know and I will delete it.


Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 17, 2020 1:28 AM  

Gettimothy wrote:Now that I know you are a moderator, and you do not want my posts on a thread,let me know and I will delete it.


Under no circumstances.
I am a foot soldier here. I moderate according to standing orders, and you've said nothing whatever that would merit deletion of a comment.

I was chiding you mildly, for posting without actually saying anything. If you had said "Here's a really smart guy who has a great explanation of [string theory | quarks | neural nets ], it would not have merited a reply. Just posting a bare link, thereby forcing anyone who wants to see what you have to say to follow a link to an unknown site is poor etiquette. When the page linked to doesn't have any actual information, that's even worse.

Blogger Gettimothy September 17, 2020 2:57 AM  

Thank you Snidely

I will definitely take the time to do that here on out.

cheers.

Blogger Dan Karelian September 17, 2020 6:53 PM  

@72 Lyndsey John Sheridan
Sure post a link if it's lengthy. I'll take a look.

Blogger Beloved September 20, 2020 1:22 AM  

Try doing what I did when I was five years old standing in my driveway waiting for my mom to drive me to school.

I looked out at the morning street, and I asked, "God, are you real?"

Nothing happened for a few seconds. Then a gentle wind blew through the trees in my neighborhood setting birds and leaves into flight.

I decided to believe there was a God.

Then, an even stronger gust of wind hit me from bebind and knocked the hood of my jacket over my head.

That's when I decided I probably shouldn't piss him off.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts