Jump to content
  • WELCOME GUEST

    It looks as if you are viewing PalmTalk as an unregistered Guest.

    Please consider registering so as to take better advantage of our vast knowledge base and friendly community.  By registering you will gain access to many features - among them are our powerful Search feature, the ability to Private Message other Users, and be able to post and/or answer questions from all over the world. It is completely free, no “catches,” and you will have complete control over how you wish to use this site.

    PalmTalk is sponsored by the International Palm Society. - an organization dedicated to learning everything about and enjoying palm trees (and their companion plants) while conserving endangered palm species and habitat worldwide. Please take the time to know us all better and register.

    guest Renda04.jpg

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

The Multiverse hypothesis states there are an infinite number of universes. In all that infinity all things exist. This means that somewhere out there in all that infinity is a planet of apes with nuclear weapons!

Oh Wait! That is the Earth!!!

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ee9802b1bebb1404f54f3da05dd88586-c

Ed in Houston

  • Like 2
Posted

The countless multi-verse theory is based upon the flawed theory of strings, which was likely derived by physicists, who simply cannot accept the Goldilocks perfect nature experienced on earth to allow for life and cling to the desire for a random universe. For whatever reason, this large majority of physicists  has conjured the idea that we live in a dead, machine like universe. Life and consciousness are central neither to the process of creation nor it’s evolution or sustenance. Life and consciousness are afterthoughts, accidents or trivial flukes. In other words, our existence and consciousness is inconsequential to the cosmos. We are sort of a pickle on a plate or a simple random embellishment.

Sting theory was an attempt by these physicists to provide a hope for fashioning a unification for all of the forces of the universe. A mere two decades ago, there was optimism that mathematically incorporating eight extra dimensions might explain why the cosmos is the way it is. It doesn’t and hasn’t. To the contrary, string theory allows at least 10/500 Solutions. At the end of the day by far and away the majority of modern physicist’s dismissively call it a theory of anything. In other words, any hypothesis that allows anything actually explains nothing.

Human existence and our intelligence and consciousness cannot be explained by the random universe theory. The conditions on the earth for life are so improbable that science/physics are coming to terms. Niels Bohr, the great Nobel winning physicist made this observation:”When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not measuring the world we are creating it”. 

We live in an extraordinarily fine-tuned cosmos. It is a place where any random tweaking that conjured even slightly different parameters in hundreds of independent ways would not do the job of allowing any kind of life to arise. Let the gravitational constant be 2% different, or change the power of the Planck length or Boltzmann‘s constant or the atomic mass unit, and you would never have stars or life. A cosmos that even allows life, let alone the fact of life‘s development and it is inconceivable by chance alone. Randomness is not a tenable hypothesis.

In opposition to the dumb random universe theory, is the overlooked possibility that our completely inexplicable consciousness creates the universe and not the other way around. Over 2000 years ago, Cicero observed: “ Why do you insist the universe is not a conscious intelligence, when it gives birth to conscious intelligences?”

All of science overlooks the elephant in the room or our consciousness. But for our inexplicable consciousness, this discussion or any discussion would not be taking place. When will science address this beguiling question of consciousness that lurks in the shadows of all questions that physics seeks to answer? Until an explanation of our consciousness can be rendered by science, science is ultimately conceding that it cannot answer the most important and fundamental question that we humans ask. How and why do we exist and partake of this constantly overlooked, marginalized and unfathomable concept of consciousness? As science continues its quest to overlook the most obvious question, it is appearing more and more likely that our inexplicable consciousness indeed creates the unlikely world we experience or the universe. How and who created our consciousness?
 

 

 


 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

What you look for is what is looking

Posted

I love Rick and Morty. 

  • Like 2
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

 

It began about 4 billion years ago on Earth, the accumulation of information in DNA. Very, very slowly more information was accumulated and passed along generation after generation through reproduction. Then about 1/2 billion years ago there was enough information in DNA so that information gathered through sensors was stored in ganglia. The sensors that were added along the way; touch, sight, etcetera; collected data about the environment in real time while the ganglia processed the data and turned it into more information. After a few hundred million more years, the ganglia enlarged into what we now call a brains. The real time gathered sensed data was converted into information that could be transferred to other DNA carriers, through another invention called communication. Not so many years ago, information exploded with the ease of replication/synthesis and complexity beget complexity. The accumulation of the information became sufficiently large so that it could house itself external to the original DNA substrate through culture and other information storage substrate. By the year 2029, external housing of information was on par with the volume and complexity of the of information stored in DNA. Soon after that the information housed in DNA was so minute compared to the external housing of information that the DNA substrate was no longer needed on the continuing path of information accumulation and information processing.

 

Humans are the chief negative entropy* DNA machine located on the 3rd planet surrounding the G2V star Sol in the Milky way galaxy. Originally humans primary source of energy was the calorie, derived from consuming other DNA machines. The instruction set for reversing entropy was originally encoded in their DNA but later greatly augmented with information housed externally to their DNA substrate. This external superset of information enabled humans to greatly increase their energy consumption of non-caloric energy sources and allowed reversal of entropy and information accumulation on a much greater scale. In future history it is written that exponential information accumulation by humans led to self-directed multiple speciations. The new species supplanted humans and consumed all matter and energy in the universe, converting it to information and existing only as information packets in the nothingness between branes by being entirely independent of any substrate; i.e. supernatural.

 
The methodology of the coming speciation of Sapiens.
 
 
*Negative entropy - The opposite of entropy, bringing organization to randomness by employing information and consuming energy to do work.
 
Ed in Houston
Posted

That is the first time that I have ever heard anyone admit that evolution defies the law of entropy.  Not just humans, every step in the process.  Trillions isn't a big enough number to quantify the number of times that entropy would have to be violated in order for it to have happened.  Starting with all of the heat energy in the universe exploding and leaving unequal distributions of byproducts that became more complex with time and did not break down into more stable elements, as we actually observe today.  

There's a very simple explanation for the creation of the universe, life, consciousness, this explanation has existed since the beginning.  But it's not the popular thing to believe in.  

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...