Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,687 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 739,255
Pageviews Today: 1,177,579Threads Today: 391Posts Today: 7,766
01:26 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...

 
Sammie

User ID: 930440
United States
12/10/2012 04:46 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
Can you actually examine tangible matter on a dream? Nope. Does it feel absolutely real? Yes. In fact if we had no awake reality to contrast to, a dream would feel just as real as life itself. Yet is a product of the mind.
 Quoting: Manu-Koelbren


I have experienced tangible properties in the dream state. During lucidity I have tested the physical environment by touching surfaces, inspecting the textures and solidity of the objects in the dream state.

Despite my lucid state, the physical environment proved just as solid and complex as my waking experiences.
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow".  ~Aesop


"Once in a dream I saw a snake swallowing its own tail, it swallowed and swallowed until it got halfway round, and there it stopped and there it stayed, it was stuffed with its own self. Some fix, that.
We only have ourselves to go on, and it’s enough…" -Charles Bukowski



"Grasping at things can only yield one of two results:
Either the thing you are grasping at disappears, or you yourself disappear.
It is only a matter of which occurs first."
-Goenka
Simulation_Theorist

User ID: 12610545
Australia
12/10/2012 04:47 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
Op, you have come to an interesting logical conclusion.

Despite being utterly unable to even begin thinking about how to consider what real even means, the everyday average rational person would probably assign this to the sovereign realm of unemployable philosophy majors or under the Whatever, Who Cares? or Oh, That’s Interesting I Gotta Go Now! categories. Okay fine, but on the other side of the intellectual coin, vis-à-vis recent technological advancement, of late it’s actually being seriously considered by serious people using big words they’ve learned at endless college whilst collecting letters after their names and doin’ research and writin’ and gettin’ association memberships and such.

So… why now?

Well, basically, it’s getting hard to ignore.
It’s not a new topic, it’s been hammered by philosophy and religion since like, thought happened. But now it’s getting some actual real science to stir things up. And it’s complicated, occasionally obtuse stuff — theories are spread out across various disciplines, and no one’s really keeping a decent flowchart.

So, what follows is an effort to encapsulate these ideas, and that’s daunting — it’s incredibly difficult to focus on writing when you’re wondering if you really have fingers or eyes. Along with links to some articles with links to some papers, what follows is Anthrobotic’s CliffsNotes on the intersection of physics, computer science, probability, and evidence for/against reality being real (and how that all brings us back to well, God).
You know, light fare.

First — Maybe we know how the universe works: Fantastically simplified, as our understanding deepens, it appears more and more the case that, in a manner of speaking, the universe sort of “computes” itself based on the principles of quantum mechanics. Right now, humanity’s fastest and sexiest supercomputers can simulate only extremely tiny fractions of the natural universe as we understand it (contrasted to the macro-scale inferential Bolshoi Simulation). But of course we all know the brute power of our computational technology is increasing dramatically like every few seconds, and even awesomer, we are learning how to build quantum computers, machines that calculate based on the underlying principles of existence in our universe — this could thrust the game into superdrive. So, given ever-accelerating computing power, and given than we can already simulate tiny fractions of the universe, you logically have to consider the possibility: If the universe works in a way we can exactly simulate, and we give it a shot, then relatively speaking what we make ceases to be a simulation, i.e., we’ve effectively created a new reality, a new universe (ummm… God?). So, the question is how do we know that we haven’t already done that? Or, otherwise stated: what if our eventual ability to create perfect reality simulations with computers is itself a simulation being created by a computer? Well, we can’t answer this — we can’t know. Unless…
[New Scientist’s Special Reality Issue]
[link to www.newscientist.com]

Second — Maybe we see it working: The universe seems to be metaphorically “pixelated.” This means that even though it’s a 50 billion trillion gajillion megapixel JPEG, if we juice the zooming-in and drill down farther and farther and farther, we’ll eventually see a bunch of discreet chunks of matter, or quantums, as the kids call them — these are the so-called pixels of the universe. Additionally, a team of lab coats at the University of Bonn think they might have a workable theory describing the underlying lattice, or existential re-bar in the foundation of observable reality (upon which the “pixels” would be arranged). All this implies, in a way, that the universe is both designed and finite (uh-oh, getting closer to the God issue). Even at ferociously complex levels, something finite can be measured and calculated and can, with sufficiently hardcore computers, be simulated very, very well. This guy Rich Terrile, a pretty serious NASA scientist, sites the pixelation thingy and poses a video game analogy: think of any first-person shooter — you cannot immerse your perspective into the entirety of the game, you can only interact with what is in your bubble of perception, and everywhere you go there is an underlying structure to the environment. Kinda sounds like, you know, life — right? So, what if the human brain is really just the greatest virtual reality engine ever conceived, and your character, your life, is merely a program wandering around a massively open game map, playing… well, you?
[Lattice Theory from the U of Bonn]
[link to www.technologyreview.com]

Thirdly — Turns out there’s a reasonable likelihood: While the above discussions on the physical properties of matter and our ability to one day copy & paste the universe are intriguing, it also turns out there’s a much simpler and straightforward issue to consider: there’s this annoyingly simplistic yet valid thought exercise posited by Swedish philosopher/economist/futurist Nick Bostrum, a dude way smarter that most humans. Basically he says we’ve got three options: 1. Civilizations destroy themselves before reaching a level of technological prowess necessary to simulate the universe; 2. Advanced civilizations couldn’t give two shits about simulating our primitive minds; or 3. Reality is a simulation. Sure, a decent probability, but sounds way oversimplified, right?
Well go read it. Doing so might ruin your day, JSYK.

Lastly — Data against is lacking: Any idea how much evidence or objective justification we have for the standard, accepted-without-question notion that reality is like, you know… real, or whatever? None. Zero. Of course the absence of evidence proves nothing, but given that we do have decent theories on how/why simulation theory is feasible, it follows that blithely accepting that reality is not a simulation is an intrinsically more radical position. Why would a thinking being think that? Just because they know it’s true? Believing 100% without question that you are a verifiably physical, corporeal, technology-wielding carbon-based organic primate is a massive leap of completely unjustified faith.
Oh, Jesus. So to speak.

If we really consider simulation theory, we must of course ask: who built the first one? And was it even an original? Is it really just turtles all the way down, Professor Hawking?

Okay, okay — that means it’s God time now
Now let’s see, what’s that other thing in human life that, based on a wild leap of faith, gets an equally monumental evidentiary pass? Well, proving or disproving the existence of god is effectively the same quandary posed by simulation theory, but with one caveat: we actually do have some decent scientific observations and theories and probabilities supporting simulation theory. That whole God phenomenon is pretty much hearsay, anecdotal at best. However, very interestingly, rather than negating it, simulation theory actually represents a kind of back-door validation of creationism. 
Here's the simple logic:
If humans can simulate a universe, humans are it’s creator.
Accept the fact that linear time is a construct.
The process repeats infinitely.
We’ll build the next one.
The loop is closed.

God is us.

Heretical speculation on iteration
Even wonder why older polytheistic religions involved the gods just kinda setting guidelines for behavior, and they didn’t necessarily demand the love and complete & total devotion of humans? Maybe those universes were 1st-gen or beta products. You know, like it used to take a team of geeks to run the building-sized ENIAC, the first universe simulations required a whole host of creators who could make some general rules but just couldn’t manage every single little detail.

Now, the newer religions tend to be monotheistic, and god wants you to love him and only him and no one else and dedicate your life to him. But just make sure to follow his rules, and take comfort that your’re right and everyone else is completely hosed and going to hell. The modern versions of god, both omnipotent and omniscient, seem more like super-lonely cosmically powerful cat ladies who will delete your ass if you don’t behave yourself and love them in just the right way. So, the newer universes are probably run as a background app on the iPhone 26, and managed by… individuals. Perhaps individuals of questionable character???

Last Edited by Simulation_Theorist on 12/10/2012 05:06 AM
We live in a simulation.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29192474
Japan
12/10/2012 04:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
The apparent differenxe between free will and determinism is a false dichotomy. They are the same thing, viewed from two different perspectives.

As for the simulation idea, I think you are correct. My working hypothesis is that our selves as we experience them in daily life are 3-d projections of 4-d objects and the 4-d objects are our "real" selves, as we discover after death or sometimes in life through various ways.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29192474


So what do you think these 4d objects are and where do they exist?
 Quoting: Manu-Koelbren


They are what they are, and they exist in 4-d space.

They are our complete and actual selves. Something simultaneously incomprehensible and yet more intimately familiar than anything else. When we die we will discover we "had it all along." That "old familiar feeling" that is so familiar we almost never notice it. And yet revealed all at once in a way beyond our current abilities to conceptualize in this limited cosmos.
Brother
User ID: 26272555
United States
12/10/2012 04:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
Bro i thought a lot about it, and you seem to know what you are talking about. I am amazed at how big the universe is, and how small we are. That thought makes our lives seem so insignificant.

As far as you were talking about the simulation... I think that there are parallel universes. And each of us is an avatar to a universe living in someone else's universe. for example all universes are video games and our universal/celestial body pays a price to play in this universe (god's body). as far as paying to play, i bet you get some reward for playing good.

And there has to be goals to the game... goals are central to a rating system to determine who gets paid what. In our world it seems the goal is to paint graffiti everywhere, I mean to claim ownership. Even god plays that game. And that makes me wonder if our universe is short on resources?
Simulation_Theorist

User ID: 12610545
Australia
12/10/2012 05:44 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
Bro i thought a lot about it, and you seem to know what you are talking about. I am amazed at how big the universe is, and how small we are. That thought makes our lives seem so insignificant.

As far as you were talking about the simulation... I think that there are parallel universes. And each of us is an avatar to a universe living in someone else's universe. for example all universes are video games and our universal/celestial body pays a price to play in this universe (god's body). as far as paying to play, i bet you get some reward for playing good.

And there has to be goals to the game... goals are central to a rating system to determine who gets paid what. In our world it seems the goal is to paint graffiti everywhere, I mean to claim ownership. Even god plays that game. And that makes me wonder if our universe is short on resources?
 Quoting: Brother 26272555


You should watch the movie "Cafe" with Jennifer love Hewitt, it's based exactly on your premise.
We live in a simulation.
scythe
User ID: 29519201
United States
12/10/2012 07:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
And this is why I asked myself "Do I or we "REALLY" want to know who or what GOD is? The answer I came up with is no we do not... Because after we know then what??? Not knowing gives us so much imagination to ponder what it could be... So at this time I would rather not know, its more fun :)
Kuso

User ID: 9405902
Australia
12/10/2012 08:23 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
And this is why I asked myself "Do I or we "REALLY" want to know who or what GOD is? The answer I came up with is no we do not... Because after we know then what??? Not knowing gives us so much imagination to ponder what it could be... So at this time I would rather not know, its more fun :)
 Quoting: scythe 29519201


I would like to know at least before I die though...
______________________________________

___________
Alex Collier caused my pole to shift six inches in October 2013.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21195758
United States
12/10/2012 08:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
I started off with a few postulates that I could potentially probe and disprove as a starting ground, ones that I thought might be the actual roots/premise of the universe itself... if you will; (if there even is such a thing).

Here are the two I came up with (they seemed good to me, at least).

postulate #1 That we live in a system based only on determinism, rather than say... free-will.

postulate #2 That we live in a simulation, more precisely, that our "actual self" is not actually where our current "projected self" resides.

Immediately I began to search for any shread of prove or facts or evidence that may prove or disprove these claims, things such as:

1.1) The background radidation of the universe being random, chaos theory, quantum randomness.

How could a universe that is deterministic have any randomness at all? A variable output given a singular static starting input state? Just a vast Pseudo-random environment only appearing true-random because of a small lense of observation? (Earth solar system)


2.1) Sitting absolutely still for hours, giving the "simulation" minimal input. Repeating the exact same actions day-in and day-out for weeks while observing/expecting different results to manifest in the simulation.

The Butterfly effect, just the fact that you have to move to go eat some food to stay alive, that small action and the choice you made of what to eat, snowballs into an infinite multi-verse of potential outcomes.
The "physical laws" if you will, prevent you from remaining in the simulation without causing it to change, or would result in your exiting of it in the form of death. I find that morbidly disturbing (sort of).
Further more I noticed that others continued to act normal, regardless of how I attempted to "control" the simulation.


This leads me to conclude that:

The only way to have free-will in a closed environment with immutable laws and determistic cause/effect behaviour, would mean that would you have to actually be living in a "simulation", external to your actual self; otherwise the universe would break its own closed-system laws of non-determinism (outputs exceed inputs).

So there are two possible states (assuming my logic is correct):
1) You believe that fate is predetermined, and you are essentially a robot following your programming. (Powered by pure randomness, or some sick game that god is playing upon you.)
2) Otherwise, you have no choice but to conclude that this universe isn't actually real (at best it is a simulation). Powered by a mix of your will-power, and/or randomness, and/or god. This option seems appealing for several obvious reasons. But still seemingly hollow because you thought that a simulation would be more comforting than the real-deal.

But in either case, you have somewhere between minimal-to-zero control over what happens in this place, or more specifically... to you; simply from the factual observations of seemingly immutable laws, by choice or force of hand.

I personally find both options highly disturbing to varying degrees. Don't you agree? and so what do you believe this place is, if not either of those two?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18119934



Monday, December 10, 2012

YOU CAN HAVE AS MUCH OF JESUS AS YOU WANT


by Gary Wilkerson


My father, David Wilkerson, taught me a lesson when I was a little boy and I believe it is the most important lesson I have ever learned. “Gary,” he said, “you can have as much of Jesus as you want.”

Every one of you reading this article can have as much of Jesus as you want! God does not just randomly say, “I’m picking you and not you.”

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied (filled)” (Matthew 5:6, ESV). This verse is speaking of the man or woman who says, “I want all that Jesus has to offer. I am going to be ravenous in my spiritual hunger to get everything He has to give.”

The Bible says that God is looking for men and women whose hearts are completely His that He might show Himself strong. “For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him” (2 Chronicles 16:9, NKJV).

God does not want 10 percent or 75 percent of His church to be consecrated, to live a set-apart, sacred life. He wants 100 percent of His body, His believers, to be sold out wholeheartedly.

It is not God who is holding back the anointing of His Spirit, it is our lack of response to what He is pouring out. God has rent the heavens and come down and manifest His Holy Spirit in these last days. The man or woman who responds to what God is willing to give will rise up and say, “In this last hour I choose to be filled with God’s Spirit. I choose to live a consecrated life. I will not be dissuaded from this; I will not be held back. Nothing can keep me from the destiny that God has for me of being on fire for Him, totally filled with His Spirit.”
Red Pill
User ID: 29550977
United States
12/10/2012 10:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
There is more than one way to alter the simulation - it doesn't require physical input for change to occur. wink

Think of it like the matrix, and that this is a simulation for your mind. You are, in a sense, simply dreaming all of this - though it is a dream projected and generated by the simulation. And as such, the dream has certain rules - rules like time, cause and effect, required sustenance for your avatar, etc. Some of these rules can be bent...others can be broken.

What you must do is recognize this - that nothing in this simulation is actually happening anywhere but in the minds and hearts of the people here...for there is also heart consciousness, which is the true source of your real consciousness. The mind is a simulated construct, but your heart is where the true knowing and existing resides.

Free your mind, free your heart, realize and accept the truth that nothing you experience in here is real but rather constructs of a simulation and you will be able to control the simulation as you see fit. How much is up to you, and chances are most people won't even know you altered anything...though you yourself will most certainly know.
MrWreckedIt

User ID: 1078974
United States
12/10/2012 11:18 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
still near 2013 and free will vs determinism is a hot topic. the truth is both exist.

you have free will to cause your destiny. you make a choice today, and in the future you reap the effects. free will to create a cause. destiny in that once you have created the cause its effect is unchangable.

but you say your actions are not free will you are not choosing these actions!

your character is something that has been molded by YOU. dont forget it. we are in control of our own destiny. every time you act in a good or evil way you are changing your destiny.

you reap what you sow it cannot be true without free will.
Manu-Koelbren

User ID: 29289144
Spain
12/11/2012 03:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
still near 2013 and free will vs determinism is a hot topic. the truth is both exist.

you have free will to cause your destiny. you make a choice today, and in the future you reap the effects. free will to create a cause. destiny in that once you have created the cause its effect is unchangable.

but you say your actions are not free will you are not choosing these actions!

your character is something that has been molded by YOU. dont forget it. we are in control of our own destiny. every time you act in a good or evil way you are changing your destiny.

you reap what you sow it cannot be true without free will.
 Quoting: MrWreckedIt


Yes but when you create a cause the effects which it will create don't just stem out in a single linear fashion but open up as an infinite webs of causality effecting countless other factors which at the same time open up yet more webs of causality. The intertwining events all of this creates can be yet once more influenced by any of the other free wills which happen to be affected by the ripples of the initial cause or any of its consequent alterations.

You end up with such a complex scenario of possible outcomes that truly it seems that any consciousness not bound to linear time could basically be witnessing a intricate quantum multidimensional universe instead of what we perceive as a single linear existence.
Holocaust denier white secretly urban negro.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28760789
New Zealand
12/11/2012 03:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
The apparent differenxe between free will and determinism is a false dichotomy. They are the same thing, viewed from two different perspectives.

As for the simulation idea, I think you are correct. My working hypothesis is that our selves as we experience them in daily life are 3-d projections of 4-d objects and the 4-d objects are our "real" selves, as we discover after death or sometimes in life through various ways.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29192474

Good succint post.
My theory is that people who don't believe in free will are quite correct-they're either simply programs within the simulation or projections from outside with a very minimal or even nonexistent consciousness connection to outside the simulation.
So both could be right.
Robotic human beings may be just that, and find the idea of freedom of thought or action baffling and incomprehensible.
I've met people like this.
Connected human beings on the other hand may find robotic behaviour and thought annoying and crazy making.
I am people like this.
Dr. Greenthumb

User ID: 29608686
United States
12/11/2012 03:35 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
It's ripples in space.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18713240
United States
12/11/2012 03:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
more and more folks are waking up to the fact that we live in a simulation
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1553813
United States
12/11/2012 03:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
got an e-mail address?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21008556


agent
 Quoting: Manu-Koelbren


LOL!! yoda
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1553813
United States
12/11/2012 03:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
Very interesting.. All if this seems oddly familiar..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28609279


I believe this is the ramblings to one of the characters in the animayed movie "waking life".
 Quoting: Casper28


yo what a great movie tho!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1553813
United States
12/11/2012 03:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
I started off with a few postulates that I could potentially probe and disprove as a starting ground, ones that I thought might be the actual roots/premise of the universe itself... if you will; (if there even is such a thing).

Here are the two I came up with (they seemed good to me, at least).

postulate #1 That we live in a system based only on determinism, rather than say... free-will.

postulate #2 That we live in a simulation, more precisely, that our "actual self" is not actually where our current "projected self" resides.

Immediately I began to search for any shread of prove or facts or evidence that may prove or disprove these claims, things such as:

1.1) The background radidation of the universe being random, chaos theory, quantum randomness.

How could a universe that is deterministic have any randomness at all? A variable output given a singular static starting input state? Just a vast Pseudo-random environment only appearing true-random because of a small lense of observation? (Earth solar system)


2.1) Sitting absolutely still for hours, giving the "simulation" minimal input. Repeating the exact same actions day-in and day-out for weeks while observing/expecting different results to manifest in the simulation.

The Butterfly effect, just the fact that you have to move to go eat some food to stay alive, that small action and the choice you made of what to eat, snowballs into an infinite multi-verse of potential outcomes.
The "physical laws" if you will, prevent you from remaining in the simulation without causing it to change, or would result in your exiting of it in the form of death. I find that morbidly disturbing (sort of).
Further more I noticed that others continued to act normal, regardless of how I attempted to "control" the simulation.


This leads me to conclude that:

The only way to have free-will in a closed environment with immutable laws and determistic cause/effect behaviour, would mean that would you have to actually be living in a "simulation", external to your actual self; otherwise the universe would break its own closed-system laws of non-determinism (outputs exceed inputs).

So there are two possible states (assuming my logic is correct):
1) You believe that fate is predetermined, and you are essentially a robot following your programming. (Powered by pure randomness, or some sick game that god is playing upon you.)
2) Otherwise, you have no choice but to conclude that this universe isn't actually real (at best it is a simulation). Powered by a mix of your will-power, and/or randomness, and/or god. This option seems appealing for several obvious reasons. But still seemingly hollow because you thought that a simulation would be more comforting than the real-deal.

But in either case, you have somewhere between minimal-to-zero control over what happens in this place, or more specifically... to you; simply from the factual observations of seemingly immutable laws, by choice or force of hand.

I personally find both options highly disturbing to varying degrees. Don't you agree? and so what do you believe this place is, if not either of those two?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18119934


ok. yo this seriously blows my fucking mind. i just had these exact thoughts yesterday, not that i havent had some variations of it in the past, but it was quite overwhelming yesterday i even posted a thread about anxiety on friday or saturday but yes dude do you have an email adress or skype or something and that one dude who asked for your email i want to have a online group voice chat or something to really share our thoughts on this or even build on them kinda like a think tank or something. I do feel like our consciousness as a whole is "meshing" in.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1553813
United States
12/11/2012 03:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
The apparent differenxe between free will and determinism is a false dichotomy. They are the same thing, viewed from two different perspectives.

As for the simulation idea, I think you are correct. My working hypothesis is that our selves as we experience them in daily life are 3-d projections of 4-d objects and the 4-d objects are our "real" selves, as we discover after death or sometimes in life through various ways.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29192474

Good succint post.
My theory is that people who don't believe in free will are quite correct-they're either simply programs within the simulation or projections from outside with a very minimal or even nonexistent consciousness connection to outside the simulation.
So both could be right.
Robotic human beings may be just that, and find the idea of freedom of thought or action baffling and incomprehensible.
I've met people like this.
Connected human beings on the other hand may find robotic behaviour and thought annoying and crazy making.
I am people like this.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28760789


^this.
MrWreckedIt

User ID: 1078974
United States
12/11/2012 10:54 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: I tried to "break" the universe, and here is what I found...
still near 2013 and free will vs determinism is a hot topic. the truth is both exist.

you have free will to cause your destiny. you make a choice today, and in the future you reap the effects. free will to create a cause. destiny in that once you have created the cause its effect is unchangable.

but you say your actions are not free will you are not choosing these actions!

your character is something that has been molded by YOU. dont forget it. we are in control of our own destiny. every time you act in a good or evil way you are changing your destiny.

you reap what you sow it cannot be true without free will.
 Quoting: MrWreckedIt


Yes but when you create a cause the effects which it will create don't just stem out in a single linear fashion but open up as an infinite webs of causality effecting countless other factors which at the same time open up yet more webs of causality. The intertwining events all of this creates can be yet once more influenced by any of the other free wills which happen to be affected by the ripples of the initial cause or any of its consequent alterations.

You end up with such a complex scenario of possible outcomes that truly it seems that any consciousness not bound to linear time could basically be witnessing a intricate quantum multidimensional universe instead of what we perceive as a single linear existence.
 Quoting: Manu-Koelbren


good stuff!

News