Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SelfSim" data-source="post: 74000412" data-attributes="member: 354922"><p>What I said is highly speculative (not quite a belief .. its theoretical physics) and I can personally see not a lot of point in defending it .. but I offer the following for consideration:</p><p></p><p>It has been proven (in theory) that the maximum number of bits of info that can ever fit into a region of space, is equal to the number of Planckian pixels that can be packed onto the area of the boundary. Implicitly, this means that there is a 'boundary description' of everything that can take place inside the region of space (its a quantum mechanical description). This description can be said as 'existing' at the farthest boundaries of the universe. (This is a highly counterintuitive concept).</p><p>Now, empirically speaking: in every direction we look, galaxies are passing the point at which they recede at a velocity > c. A sphere can be modelled at this point and can be described as being the Cosmic Horizon. Beyond this horizon, no signals can reach us, but a boundary description can still be formed. It describes everything that can take place inside the enclosed region of space. But what happens to the information as these objects disappear/recede (at > c)? Turns out the properties of Cosmic Horizons (CHs) appear as being similar to black holes (BHs) .. except the CH radiates <em><u>not</u></em> outwards, (as per a BH/'Hawking' black body radiation), but the other way (ie: back towards us). What happens 'out there' is legitimately (theoretically) conveyed back, and yet is also intrinsically related to us (by way of the above mentioned boundary description). The effects of this on us, thus appears as being very similar to the 'simulation' that we're talking about (IMO).</p><p></p><p>(Not much is known about CHs . The meaning of the objects beyond the horizon .. whether they can be thought of as being 'theoretically real', and what role they play in our description of the universe, is still a deep mystery in theoretical cosmology).</p><p></p><p>Its interesting that the description I gave above, doesn't invoke fantasy, nor does it make fictional claims based on innate 'truths'. Its mainly evolved from exploration of deep scientific thinking and noticing co-incidences and things which stand out .. (just like exploration of an unexplored planet's landscape). 'Assumptions' are always held as being testable (and not believed) .. Your sci-fi fantasy material however, doesn't appear as being held to those kinds of standards .. its purpose is fantasy/ entertainment so it overlooks those 'inconveniences'.</p><p></p><p> .. (but still not science).</p><p></p><p>Scientific thinking grabs anything it 'sees' as being potentially useful ... and treats things which don't rise to that standard with 'neutrality'.</p><p></p><p>Logic is still logic .. math is still math .. and science is still science. The distinctions are important in order optimise utility.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SelfSim, post: 74000412, member: 354922"] What I said is highly speculative (not quite a belief .. its theoretical physics) and I can personally see not a lot of point in defending it .. but I offer the following for consideration: It has been proven (in theory) that the maximum number of bits of info that can ever fit into a region of space, is equal to the number of Planckian pixels that can be packed onto the area of the boundary. Implicitly, this means that there is a 'boundary description' of everything that can take place inside the region of space (its a quantum mechanical description). This description can be said as 'existing' at the farthest boundaries of the universe. (This is a highly counterintuitive concept). Now, empirically speaking: in every direction we look, galaxies are passing the point at which they recede at a velocity > c. A sphere can be modelled at this point and can be described as being the Cosmic Horizon. Beyond this horizon, no signals can reach us, but a boundary description can still be formed. It describes everything that can take place inside the enclosed region of space. But what happens to the information as these objects disappear/recede (at > c)? Turns out the properties of Cosmic Horizons (CHs) appear as being similar to black holes (BHs) .. except the CH radiates [I][U]not[/U][/I] outwards, (as per a BH/'Hawking' black body radiation), but the other way (ie: back towards us). What happens 'out there' is legitimately (theoretically) conveyed back, and yet is also intrinsically related to us (by way of the above mentioned boundary description). The effects of this on us, thus appears as being very similar to the 'simulation' that we're talking about (IMO). (Not much is known about CHs . The meaning of the objects beyond the horizon .. whether they can be thought of as being 'theoretically real', and what role they play in our description of the universe, is still a deep mystery in theoretical cosmology). Its interesting that the description I gave above, doesn't invoke fantasy, nor does it make fictional claims based on innate 'truths'. Its mainly evolved from exploration of deep scientific thinking and noticing co-incidences and things which stand out .. (just like exploration of an unexplored planet's landscape). 'Assumptions' are always held as being testable (and not believed) .. Your sci-fi fantasy material however, doesn't appear as being held to those kinds of standards .. its purpose is fantasy/ entertainment so it overlooks those 'inconveniences'. .. (but still not science). Scientific thinking grabs anything it 'sees' as being potentially useful ... and treats things which don't rise to that standard with 'neutrality'. Logic is still logic .. math is still math .. and science is still science. The distinctions are important in order optimise utility. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven
Top
Bottom