Purpose and the Universe : Sean M. Carroll

Gabriel Vacariu: The UNBELIEVABLE similarities between Sean Carroll’s idea (2016) (California Institute of Technology, USA) or Frank Wilczek’s ideas (2016) (Nobel Prize on Physics) and my ideas (2002-2010) https://philpapers.org/rec/VACTUS-6

Could not help but think that there's no way of knowing if the Highs Boson discovery may yet prove useful. Electromagnetism was not seen as having useful application at first. And quantum mechanics may help us explain some biological processes, for example photosynthesis. Just saying.

The anti logic trolls don't just reject science they want all evidence such as science and logic to be destroyed. Science trolls are the first world version of the third world bronze age fascist Islamists that blow up archaeological sites to remove all evidence of pre Islamist civilizations. As Freud explained religion is a poor delusion that those who fear death claim to adopt to deal with all the anxieties of life.

This man may be a brilliant cosmologist but he is a dreadful philosopher. The claims he makes can be debunked by any 2nd year philosophy student.

Sheldrake (e.g. his TED talk) is a good companion piece for this.

The UNBELIEVABLE similarities between Sean Carroll’s many ideas (2016) or Franck WiIczek' ideas (2016, Nobel prize) and my ideas (2002-2010) at http://philpapers.org/rec/VACTUS-5 or https://plus.google.com/u/0/+GabrielVacariu

What makes Sean Carroll Lord over so many of you?

Brilliant!

56:16 sounds like Richard Dawkins

Morality isn't rules its a range , its not riles from a god but a designed construct , a zone . The morality inside this zone can be defined as social philosophy that sustains life with emphasis on reducing suffering . In other words , morality is reasoning designed to reduce suffering and can be seen in animals to avoid unnecessary suffering . Alpha males occupy the throne to mate because others choose not to suffer uneccesarily for that right because they know they do not have the strength nor the emotional strength to gain it. Range allows for observations that different cultures have different moral code. To live outside that moral zone is certainly possible and happens but the further away you get from societies centre the more likely you are to be dealt with. There is no right or wrong just a measurement of how far you are from the cultures moral zone centre.

Let us not be confused intent versus reason. There can be reasons for particles to do things explained approximately by math and models but intent is acknowledgment that there is purpose to these mechanisms .

http://youtu.be/wrBsqiE0vG4

Observe this effect where the induced buckling of a field produces quantized waves that are reminiscent to
the “particle in a box” wave solutions. The buckled material produces a bell
shape curve. The process works only when initial buckle is stop just after it
began. The rapidly increasing area under the curve is contained. The pressure
from the containing sides is then used to produce sine waves of higher and
higher frequency. If you bond the crest and trough to the containing field they
then produced fundamental structures in the form of trusses or hadrons or atoms
or molecules or bridges.

A new line of attack, were Sean stops...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M24WLR8

Carroll's point about always wanting someone to blame is well taken. It is a sad and common enough flaw among we humans. Some events do indeed happen 'by accident' (though in accord with the laws of physics) and no one is to blame. But Carroll goes wrong when he hauls in the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason' (PSR) as his witness for the prosecution against our thinking in all this.

Leibniz presents the PSR thus: it is that "by virtue of which we consider that we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being a sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise". (Other formulations exist.) Blame or credit really may not have anything to do with this. If a wave knocks down a house then the fact that the wave has sufficient momentum to do this combined with the fact that it struck the house could be held to the 'sufficient reason' for the house being knocked down. Why? Because the momentum of the wave and its striking the house is that "by virtue of which" the house was knocked down.

Carroll simply misinterprets here the use of the word 'reason' as it is employed in the PSR. It need not be restricted to any one domain of thinking (human blame and thinking, for instance). PSR can allow that the laws of physics combined with some set of initial conditions, for example, constitute a sufficient reason for an event. (Though what kinds of thing exactly may constitute a sufficient reason is itself a controversial matter.) PSR does not necessarily have anything to do with getting "to place demands on the universe". (Who exactly does this anyway?) But however it is to be more precisely understood, and whether or not we are in any position to check up on particular cases of alleged sufficient reasons for this, that or the other, PSR itself is simply a principle of reasoning, like the law that we should avoid contradiction. Like the latter (though perhaps more controversially) it makes demands on our thinking not on the behaviour of the universe.

PSR does indeed face some philosophical problems all its own (the problem of there arising an infinite regress of sufficient reasons, for example and the worry whether that would mean we could never have a truly sufficient reason for anything) but these have nothing to do with Carroll's rant. This, though, brings me to a deeper worry. I have the impression that Carroll is a cosmologist who often wanders into Philosophy. There are others who freely do the same - Hawking and Krauss, for instance. This is understandable. It is often difficult to see where science leaves off and philosophy starts. That acknowledged, all too often cosmologists fall to the temptation of using their legitimate public authority in science to give backing to their views on philosophical matters. Yet often they make simple mistakes when they do so. Speakers and writers in general, I feel, should take extra care, and perhaps exhibit a little more readiness to admit ignorance and just plain unfamiliarity with the relevant literature, when they move into disciplines in which they clearly have no specialism.

W against T, reference required.

Let's suppose the Simulation Hypothesis is true, therefore God the programmer, or any advanced civilization that simulates, could also create life after death. The clue of how life occurs after death in a simulated universe is actually very simple in my mind. You can simply question the mode of dreaming! Unless you believe dreaming is entirely made up of things you experience in real life as we've been told, visually interpreted when you sleep, then consider this hypothesis...

So we know photons communicate through the process of entanglement irrespective of distance throughout the universe and indeed it has been measured. What you did not do here, you did in another alternate reality. So if I was God the programmer, simulating life forms in a computer, one of the experiences allowed in my laws of physics, would be your ability to visualize alternate experience through dreaming. Why would photons ever go to sleep because the body? This is a huge area in my novice experience all scientists have left uncovered. We also know there is strong empirical medical evidence of NDE patients, who have been able to recount everything that happened when they have been unconciously operated upon.

I greatly admire Sean Carrol, however I've researched from Kurzweil to Kaku, to Professor Brian Greene, Tegmark and Bostrom and one missing piece that puzzles me, is not one single scientist can explain dreaming empirically. Understandably, it is because we simply don't understand dreaming!! However, those of us who have had experiences in dream states and question what may be happening at a quantum level, unfortunately are not scientists. I fail to agree my mind is simply capable of creating blockbuster videos in REM sleep of places I've never been or seen. No scientist can explain what is actually happening when we have OBE's to other dimensions either. Therefore all this is left to be uncovered and considered pseudo science. So my rational explanation relies at near future VR and AI technology at hand and the Simulation Argument. Hence I feel it is 80% likely we live in a simulation and for me that explains Dreaming, OBE's and NDE's far more plausibly.

If you disagree with me, consider this...imagine you are God the programmer with all the technology in the world... how would you create your sentient particles with infinite experiences? I feel with VR as the next biggest paradigm and AI, we are going to unravel the mysteries of why we are here within only the next 15 years. It's becoming more and more obvious we are living in a simulation! Not essentially for someone's entertainment per se, but it could be that heaven, if it exists as an advanced civilization post the big bang, got very boring indeed, therefore why not create infinite simulations to have infinite experiences like the matrix? After all, it's not real, but feels real which is the point. You simply enter the simulation in some form to have infinite gaming like experiences. That's one plausible idea. i mean what experience would you like to have if you played my VR game... would you like to experience what is like to be black, white, latin, chinese, a dog, cat, or fish? When you spend a full 16 hours in my simulation VR game, you go to sleep and wake up in the next one through what we call dreaming!

Another simulated idea would be if I created the simulation, why couldn't you hack it? Therefore could it be if my simulation was meant to be good and you hacked it with ill intent, that could explain irrational insidious behaviour in this simulation. The point I'm making is, there are so many ways to develop a simulation for all kinds of infinite reasons once computing power allows it.

One other reason could be to iterate what my computer beings and entities are doing with infinite outcomes, just so we can make the right decisions in the real more advanced universe through observation. Now that sounds to me like a real simulation! Which explains why past, future and present does not really exist at the quantum level, but time is one. The simulating observer should be able to see all instances of time occurred in our reality, which is probably a nano second in their reality. I should be able to determine every future outcome based on decisions to iterate my real universe. Infact, if I put my simulated universe and sentient beings in an extremely advanced blockchain, not only could I keep records of every event that has ever happened in my simulation, I could design it, in such a way every being in my real universe can use my simulated blockchain, to anonymously iterate outcomes in the real universe based on observations. So that is why dream states in the simulated universe, are just infinite probabilities and outcomes ever possible, for real time observation by the programmer civilization we call God. You get to experience all those alternate realities through dreaming and the reason most don't make sense, is because there is no logical order out of billions of probabilities based on decisions and laws of physics in those realities based on entanglement of photons.

To back part of what i'm suggesting here, kindly go and search the following on youtube " Freaky Baby " where a neuroscientist has created a sentient like baby in the computer by reverse engineering the human brain. It takes only 5 minutes to watch. His baby in the computer responds to words and gestures by him the programmer, outside the computer. It's amazing! Therefore if this is possible today, imagine what is possible in only 15 years. Soon his computer baby will learn and respond to all kinds of human innate behaviour, good bad and ugly. Once freaky baby's learning is perfect over X years, he God the programmer, must surely be able to replicate "code" his computer baby and allow it to evolve within the simulation he has created. The baby will cease to have learned communication with God the programmer once he has perfected his technology, thereby he shuts down that communicative experience in freaky baby's cognitive. Baby now fully exists and evolves in the simulated universe... let's call baby EVE lol! But seriously, guys this video was shown on Bloomberg TV as one of the most advanced technologies taking place right now.

So the only thing I disagree on in this great Sean Carroll video, is that life after death actually does exist! It's simply a question of interpretation technologically. Unless photons can utterly be destroyed of which we are made of, you exist in infinite forms within a plausible simulation. I'm betting we will soon find out within only 15 years at the acceleration of technology assuming we have blown ourselves up. Actually, one thought that came to mind, is this planet is already observed as dead!! Plausibly in the simulation. Why? My suspicion is based on decisions we made possibly 500 years ago at the advent of gunpowder. God the programmer could already see we blowed ourselves up! That said, I also suspect this may not be the case if we make the right decision, however that looks more and more unlikely in this simulation "plausibly" as it were.

I'm not a scientist by any measure whatsoever and I'm not religious either. I'm just suggesting this area has to be explored conclusively. Thanks for helping me raise my level of understanding Sean and I am looking forward to exploring more of your exciting talks, teachings and videos to help me learn more. Cheers! Robert Haastrup-Timmi. Kindly excuse typos, it's very late.

Sean Carroll is being put on my short list of 'Greatest of all time'. (Up there with Elon Musk, Albert Einstein ect).. Besides doing a wonderful job of sharing, teaching and furthering scientific knowledge (esp with the general public). He manages to address religious questions and mindsets in such a respectable, logical and factual manner. He shines when most would simply shy away or fail. Impressive ! (- Still not convinced on string theory though)

Every scientist always talks about gravity but nobody knows what gravity is. Gravity is gravipush. What is gravipush? (Gauv Grauv's top science theory) In the multiverse big bang, bang everywhere when it is ready. It doesn’t matter big bang or small bang or tiny bang or hand clap bang, all the bang are energy that have release into the universe everywhere in space and bothers to all objects even atom or particle that I call: “stress pressure of the universe”. Those stress pressure travel straight line in space to all direction in speed of light without block each other and push to all objects form together even atom call “gravipush” (old word call gravity). All objects in space have blocked each other stress pressure of the universe made the stress pressure unbalance so those objects will run toward low pressure to each other by gravipush. Bigger object has bigger mass, bigger mass has more gravinet, more gravinet can block more stress pressure and get more gravipush. So I announce publicly: From now on no more gravity but gravipush to all scientists all over around the world. Thank you Written December 23, 2015

I like the color of those red shifted galaxies.

Purpose and the Universe : Sean M. Carroll

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

Comments